brics countries gather in china to build a stronger foundation for the global economy and put political pressure on the west and its libyan intervention with growing economies and populations of three billion does the us have to listen to them. and from afghanistan to iraq now live yep western countries fight to bring so-called democracy to the arab world that is just foolish foreign policy. and alongside military intervention the us seems to believe they can facilitate change of broader with the push of

a button. afternoon it's thursday april fourteenth at five pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren lyster and your watching r.t. now while nato airstrikes continue in libya the largest emerging countries in the world have gone together to condemn them brazil russia india china and you member south africa they're known as brics and they've gotten together for what's largely an economic summit but where the north african political agenda is a big item on the table our correspondent tests are silly as covering the meeting and how the developments on both fronts we want to see things of the national model existing right now that will benefit developing countries more little bits of currency is one of the issues they would like to see alternative because the u.s. economy is really hurting their economies as well another issue that they are really worried about is what's really

a modest part of this is they're important for them because the prices of basic food prices wrongnesses will all stable prices and all of those are necessary to make sure that their economies have sustainable growth now they feel about from their point of view they feel that the western economies the weak economies there are the a cause of all the sorts of ways and therefore the. they first have a greater say in international financial institutions such as the i.m.f. and the world back about them coming together with a unified voice they are quick to insist that it's not so much to displace existing organizations but rather to come together to have a stronger voice represented in the file of countries and to bring what their ideas on to the international stage. were engaged in actually to create a multipolar order with new supremacy or disputes over areas of. rift is not organized against any group of countries in fact. corporation and governance

mechanisms and knowing with a twenty first century crisis in libya has been on the table it has been a priority it has a russian president that's certainly what i have words there. you see he feels that there is a danger of tendency with the rest going beyond what their resolution as band-aid represent to what he has to say obviously there is a u.n. resolution must be fulfilled when the russians voted for it the south african change or abstain but it must be fulfilled in accordance with the wording and meaning and not with free interpretations of some states because we voted for a no fly zone to stop the escalation of the conflict so that we can separate the two sides from what we're having now is a military operation may not be on the ground yet but it's certainly going on for over a number of countries who are taking part and then nato steps in but the resolution doesn't say a word a passage that's why when i hear the resolution is bad i disagree the resolution is

absolutely fine but it must be fulfilled without exceeding the mandate it's based on interesting we're not this is an economic forum part of the situation and they did it make it run that way for which they had five they insist on a more political face now coincidentally all five members of u.s. security council india brazil definitely prefer for permanent seats again evidence that they want to have more cooperation and coordination on the political arena as well. with growing economies in a total population of nearly three billion people do the u.s. and its western allies have to listen to what those countries just said at their summit joining me now to try to answer that is robert naiman hasi director of just foreign policy so robert first i want to address you know this is an economic summit but as our r.t. correspondent pointed out they've chosen to take a stand on libya a very public one why do you think this is well i think the two issues are related in the sense that they both have to do with the leadership of the world economy the

trend of the last decades remember before there was the g twenty be happy to serve it right and so there has been pressure. the handful of countries that have decided that the the so-called international community see this freeze it took both international community in libya these five countries represented for more than forty percent of the world population. two seats two permanent seats on the security council they're on the security council now they're a fifth of the global economy so you can't say europe is an international community if you're excluding these five country so then taking a stand if it largely symbolic showing hey we are the largest emerging country and we don't agree with what's going on we have a different approach or is there really going to need anything for the western intervention in libya. well that remains to be seen part of the dynamic is that

there's a big dispute even among the nato countries and the leaders of the nato countries with for example you know britain and france were jewellers for this is this military intervention germany and turkey were totally opposed to a very critical of it the u.s. was apparently somewhat reluctant participant. has now pulled back somewhat from its own military involvement allegedly incredibly well it's certainly it's certainly present in the the the pretense that it's known for thralls course totally thoughts were ever needed was fighting us is fighting a fifth of the new budget nato u.s. planes are still conducting air strikes although the pentagon does call them air strikes because says their offensive so the u.s. is militarily involved with the british and the british have been complaining this week that the u.s. isn't doing as much simple as in the wrong they say the u.s.

to do more so there's a dispute there there's dispute about the parameters of a political resolution with the british and the french so far are the u.s. saying essentially in reinterpreting the u.n. security council and swiftly russian president was referring to saying basically you know cease fire now means overthrowing the libyan government right anything right now do you find that do you think that the bric countries we you address kind of the issues that about this not turn intervention and that the nato countries are kind of confused concerned about where to go lot of people calling it a stalemate do you think that the brics countries see this as an opportunity to get involved politically and score political points on the international stage because one thing that they're doing is backing the african union. ceasefire and that agreement or that at plan for a libyan resolution. well i don't see it in terms of scoring political points in

effect emitter is these countries understand that if they want to have influence they have to unite with each other and also unite was all others so there had been this various you know from the beginning of this there was dissent criticism and skepticism from all these countries through really they were it didn't work coordinated ok oh my word that they didn't so why didn't they get things out there why they didn't why the u.n. resolution was voted on the way they did because you know what comes out for me is why did you know they're talking about leveraging more of their power any united nations together yet we saw these countries abstained from voting on the u.n. security resolution on libya south africa voted for it so why do you think that decision was made. well i think it was a mistake but i think that they were to some degree blind sided by the fact that you know they didn't coordinate in advance the. they were i think somewhat surprised play the defection of the libyan diplomatic corps and really according to

their public statements india the interviewer very skeptical applauded the of the libyan diplomatic corps which is defected from the government and demanded these un resolutions i think the intervention of the the arab league was still needed somewhat awkward for them and they'll have good relations with saudi arabia so the rest of the dynamics that made them were locked in to oppose foursquare what was being done i mean if the presentation at the time was very different from what we see today right and one thing that i really want to get to we just have a minute left i want to ask you know with them if they do coordinate better and work more closely together as a bloc within the u.n. security council how will this change the u.n. how will this affect the united states and just the geopolitical kind of issues that are that are at the forefront because the brics countries have really different relations with many of the countries the u.s. has in the last well i think early every china have a battle like this

a big part of what people are fighting about is the next time you have about a like this so i think if you know if your played the scene in the future with another country another attempt the u.s. british french military mention under the cover u.n. security council resolution i suspect it would get a very different result you think that it went past you think of these countries that work together and achieve the goal that they essentially want to achieve now it is a magic solution and non military intervention and it wouldn't even get to the point where there was a book. wow ok well that is we're going to have to wait and see what happens after this meeting and the next time that one of these major resolutions comes to the table that was robert namely his prediction of how it would turn out director of just foreign policy. meanwhile than a mainstream narrative would suggest that nato forces are now stepping up efforts to protect civilians in a strategic city of misrata libya and the so-called arab spring would mean that

democracy is blossoming in the region but is it really or is it growing instability us foreign policy follies and anti-american insurgencies well earlier i spoke with former cia intelligence officer and former chief of the cia's bin ladin unit now he's the author of many books including his latest osama bin laden is michael shoot scheuer excuse me i first asked if the u.s. claims of taking a backseat in the intervention have been public relations after the pentagon reported it still leading airstrikes in libya here's what he had to say. i think it's mostly a p.r. effort you know what most of the world knows that nato doesn't do anything without us direction and u.s. management and that clearly is the case we're trying i think what we're trying to do is just fool the muslim world that it's the brits and the french and the other europeans who are bombing khadafi but i think the muslim world is much smarter than that may know that the united states is behind the offensive but what do you think is the problem that well the problem is that is our reputation in the muslim world

is is attacking muslim countries that have oil and it's certainly the case that libya is a muslim country and a country that has oil so we're making things worse for ourselves and indeed we're confirming what osama bin laden has been saying about the united states for the past fifteen years and that's the case you know if we're not feeling the muslim world it does seem that we may be fooling the media world in the united states i've watched some of your interviews several of your interviews on mainstream us media channels and it seems that anchors are very very surprised with the analysis that you give but you're not the only person that is that things like as you know secretary gates usually said it would be a bad idea to get involved in libya when you talk about the involvement of the u.s. relationship with israel and the arab world i mean not something that betray us that general petraeus has spoken about so why do you think these things come to such a come as such a surprise to media i think part of it is because our education system in the

united states is so terrible. the media went to tucker's career square in cairo in the it interviewed a few dozen well groomed middle class educated muslims who could speak english and talk about democracy and they read the writings of those same people on twitter and on facebook and they extrapolated that small sample to eighty million egyptians in call the democracy on the march well. more than half of egypt is the literate and they're moving in the direction of islam they're not moving in the direction of secular democracy which is regarded in the muslim world with very widely as almost a pagan religion why is it bad if they're moving towards islam it's not there i don't i don't think it's very it's a very useful situation for the united states but ultimately that's up to them where they move but that what president obama. circles the prime minister cameron what they're trying to do is to sort of fool their people that somehow we're going

to have democracies that are peaceful in the middle east after these tyrannies are gone let's talk about more broadly about the arab spring because glen area that you've written about one country about in syria yes. that's one nation that's a little bit more similar to libya and its relations to the united states and some u.s. leaders would very well like a more sympathetic government and some members of congress have even called for the use of force in syria but you argue that a different government would lead to more instability and would actually be worse for the united states of course for israel why. it's not going to be as powerful is is a sad government it's going to be more influenced by islamists whether it's the muslim brotherhood in syria or other groups assad the old man before either try to co-opt the islamists and opened enormous numbers of mosques and schools in versity s. and they are now very powerful movement in syria and in terms of us interests our interest are best served by assad being just where he is in fact what we're seeing

it in a very odd situation is the united states government cheering on the destruction of tyrannies that are necessary to maintain israel's security how to maintain or oil. oil resources to transport oil across the region we are seeing the collapse of the thirty year old u.s. strategic policy we depended on tyranny for easy access to regular and to relatively inexpensive oil we depended on tyrannies that protect the israelis and we depended on theory theory nice to profit persecute prosecute incarcerate islamists what other alternative is there is i know you've been critical of the united states propping up those tyrannies but it sounds like you're saying that the alternative is worse and that's what the us has taken a stand and some of those countries under what i would argue is that backing

tyranny was wrong from the start but mr obama has a habit of getting off of one horse without another horse to get on to and ultimately the bottom line is how do we protect the united states best how do we well either you support those tyrannies which is probably a bad idea let's continue to do in bahrain well that's i think bahrain is a separate a separate issue i think the best thing for the united states is the back away and let the cards fall where they make israel disappears if palestine disappears who cares it doesn't matter to the united states in terms of. but any kind of interests or energy or anything else how does it not matter in terms of oil how does that not matter in terms of what your bailiwick and your kind of real area of expertise is which is islamic fundamentalist terrorism with al qaeda how would that not matter to the u.s. well is it of course it doesn't matter we're going to have to take care of that ourselves but we've been we've been very childish in our approach to it already we depended on sol in yemen we did president musharraf in pakistan none of that's worked out ultimately if we're going to defeat the islamists it's going to be theft

it's going to have to be done by u.s. military power is that what we're doing hardly if the world thinks that they've seen the amount of power and destruction that can be exerted by the u.s. military there are sadly mistaken but why should they because it doesn't have the kind of anti-american sentiment about u.s. foreign policy that you say is fueling i don't nobody likes to get bombed but if you that's all you have to do to use you have to defend your country you know i'm very sure the germans didn't like the fact that we were we were bombing the hell out of them and we'll work too but ultimately it worked and the best. has won is the united states and its allies are dependent on persian gulf oil we're going to be fighting in that region so until the united states breaks the oil habit we're we're stuck there and we're going to have to fight and that's not likely to happen you know and that's where the next war is going to come the next war is going to come in bahrain do you think that the united states is fighting a proxy war there right now utilizing saudi arabia against iran i think just the

opposite really i think what's the you know i think the obama administration is frightened to death about what's happening in bahrain the saudis and their partners the sunni governments in the gulf cooperation council have decided they're not going to permit a shia government on the peninsula which would which would happen in bahrain if if people were given a choice the saudis in their their partners will kill as many shias as it's as is necessary to maintain the sunni monarchy in bahrain the question will come down to . as though she is are being killed what will the iranians do with a stand back and let that slaughter occur or will they intervene if they intervene when they instinctively go to war because the saudis although they buy billions and billions of dollars of us arms they can't defend themselves in the united states to penzance saudi oil and it depends on the gulf countries buying our debt so we don't

have a choice to me but brain is the single most dangerous point the middle east right now should people be paying more attention to that as opposed to libya are we again at just placing our resources in libya when we should be focused on something else and i think we i mean the united states government libya is a nonsense if they're really concerned about humanitarian aid or humanitarian situation if they if nato had not intervened that war would be over nobody would be even killed at the moment now it's appears to be an endless war but in terms of u.s. interests bahrain is really the dangerous thing it's like august one thousand fourteen your audience don't want to war there the saudis don't want to work there the americans don't i don't work there but it's has a momentum of its own if the shia keep demonstrating do you think anybody i don't know who's just a killer in the cia and the obama administration is anybody talking about that on the inside in a way that your i don't know if they're yes i would imagine that they were because it's not rocket science it's there for you to see it's not going to be a surprise when it happens it'll talk to people that you know if that's on the radar in a way that you're talking about it i talk to very few people but people

a few people that i do talk to it's clearly a very strong concern because we don't have any troops that's the problem where are the troops going to come from if they come from iraq sectarian violence goes up there if they come from afghanistan we lose even quicker to the taliban we're going to bring them from korea or from germany i don't know but the problem for the united states is we don't have a choice we have to fight there if worst if the worst situation comes. and his critics like mr scheuer blast the u.s. for meddling abroad with military force artie's guy and she can report on how more covert technological tricks are at work to. the u.s. is providing high tech help with innovations for anti-government activists in a number of countries throughout the world one of the latest developments is the panic button the cording to the state department the application can be uploaded on activists cell phones should they be detained the software instantly raises the

contact group in their phones and sends a warning alert signal to other activists sounds great one pushing the button and it's all gone probably mungo's thanking the u.s. government for the quick knowledge you are going to be drug dealers and hurts but american officials of course claim the best of intentions saying. it's to protect pro-democracy forces in other countries to help use the technologies more effectively the u.s. has organized training sessions for thousands of activists the one held jews weeks ago in the middle east including anti-government campion's from. egypt syria and lebanon and as the newly trained and equipped activists return home the u.s. state department official put it counts on the ripple effect for an interference doesn't have to be a military invasion a bombing campaign or you know some kind of special operation on the ground in that country it can also be the training and funding and political support given to

individuals who then promote those foreign interests and that's one of the newer strategies that the u.s. government has successfully been executing in different countries around the world that it doesn't consider subordinate to their agenda and it's a way to do it subtly it's harder to detect it it's harder to denounce it and it can often be more effective the u.s. perceives the internet and social networking platforms as major pools for spreading democracy and pumps millions of dollars into developing systems to help pull in the middle east and china get around internet blocking our walls but at the same time american companies provide bahrain. saudi arabia and kuwait with the technology to effectively block websites when the us government purports to be spreading democracy it's simply a sham it's a pretense it's a lie a goal of us foreign policy is to put its people in public office in foreign countries the us military has recently launched an online management program which

enables it to generate multiple fake identities on social networks the false personas are designed to contribute to the flow of conversations on facebook twitter and other websites people are using social media for cyber warfare i mean that's what we're going to see more more and more of i think from from whether it's governments or non-state actors are going to try to find ways to use the internet and social media to gain an advantage in their own battle the recent turmoil in libya it's just orchestration of twitter with fake users only around five percent of libyans have access to the internet and the number of twitter users there is so small that analysts couldn't even calculate it yet in february this year a surge of libyan twitter accounts of peer reporting in english and virtually all begging for intervention we know that. since the beginning of the war but

libyans still don't go about it but those sort of hope people don't check this essential fact they take all this information coming so be there at face value which is the role of purpose but ricky people you trained activists provided with panic buttons another technologies scores of false identities on the air and spreading certain ideas the u.s. says it's all about promoting democracy but do these declared intentions justify direct interference in other countries the mastic affairs i'm going to check our reporting from washington our team. because question earlier i spoke with r.t. contributor going madsen here's what he had to say. well one could argue is the cyberspace recognize international boundaries and many many people would say no so this is an issue but this is something although we see this concept of cyber war

information warfare playing out with sock puppets and fake twitter accounts this is something the cia has used since its creation using the media the popular media at the time to push out as propaganda in one nine hundred sixty they had radio salon on the island of swan island in the caribbean it was used to pump out propaganda for the bay of pigs invasion now we're seeing twitter being used obviously the foment the rebellion in libya there is a lot of help a little over nothing and that's just the next generation of psychological operations that's exactly what it isn't and you know you look back at the history of the cia manipulating the media at the time radio free europe radio liberty what's interesting is george soros took over a lot of the radio free europe radio liberty functions and radio free asia he obviously has been involved with many of these n.g.o.s that have been responsible for some of these activities in these countries where we've seen rebellions not

that the rebellions themselves were wrong but that people like soros and the cia who works closely with them try to co-opt these rebellions soft landings and if they are a well they're very they're very connected because soros took over the radio free europe radio liberty archives in prague radio free europe radio liberty were cia fronts funded by the cia so we see that all these connections between this central intelligence agency usa id national endowment for democracy and george soros is open society institute in foundation i'll ask you of course we just heard in that story that actual internet access and libya is so it's not just five percent but yet we hear about the role of the. twitter you know activists and activists on facebook that are you know can tweet and say we're being killed we're being massacred we need help you know those sorts of things is the joke on the u.s.

if the if the u.s. is really looking at these as as advents that intervention needs to get and i think the u.s. is probably behind the these twitter feeds they don't even know if it came from libya they could have come from neighboring arab countries were people you know conversant in arabic or they could have come from outside the region as well we could come easily from langley virginia or a number of military bases where there are cyber command activities present that do this type of thing it's their mission so do you think it's really winning in this use of cyber tactics then you know some would call it warfare with non-state actors state actors like united states getting in the game who stand to benefit the us right now and say it's a draw because look at the what's happening on the ground in libya it's basically a stalemate khadafi did not go away as everybody thought he was he's actually in trenching his forces in tripoli so i would say that the the success of the program

the proper propaganda program it did not succeed in getting rid of gadhafi i would say that the program so far is a is a failure for the united states and you know they're saying the u.s. is the loser and that's one thing i want to ask about the story too you know is she kind of pointed out the irony that the united states government helps to remove firewalls to the internet in the middle east and in china meanwhile u.s. corporations put up those firewalls to do business in countries that censor the internet do you see an irony there i don't i mean corporations aren't are beholden to capitalism they're beholden to their shareholders i would expect them to just kowtow to whatever us government policy as well but we see a relationship and we've seen as first quite some time between the u.s. intelligence agencies and google and others avi. they they know who butters their bread and they're going to. do what the agency asked them to do and military the pentagon so you can put up the fire walls and take them down it depends on the

situation i would say that the u.s. right now would be very interested in creating a firewall in bahrain for example where we want to say u.s. corporations already censor the internet and believe the government behind that oh absolutely absolutely we're we want to support that regime because we have a huge unable base there and want to keep it there same thing with saudi arabia oman and you know let me to believe that there's actually that exact line where the u.s. government can actually influence a corporation when things like the fan in bahrain to say hey france i mean all of the cooperation between the u.s. government and u.s. high tech companies is the legendary a t. and t. google it's across the board we see this kind of. situation in the cia even the cia has its own venture capital firm called in-q tel that actually provide same money for a lot of these high tech firms that come up with some of those sensors where i was investigative journalist i mean wayne madsen and that is going to do it for now from one of the stories we covered go to r.t. dot com flack.