a meeting over mine on how to solve the world's financial problems sounds like a good idea right well not everyone's excel many believe the i.m.f. and the world bank may have had a hand in creating the crisis from the start. and creating a message of the internet opens a whole new world to and from america isn't a double edged sword and is the u.s. ready for it. and what does it take to convince a country to go to war some say heck of a lot more than what was different from invade libya so did president obama exaggerate the humanitarian threat to justify military action. and

your hired from his famous hairdo to a t.v. show not a wife and oh a small fortune could this man be the next u.s. president or is his time in the limelight just a media hater. it's monday april eighteenth eight pm in washington d.c. i'm christine frizz out there watching our team. well the international monetary fund and world bank rounds up its spring meeting in washington a fresh concern over a global financial crisis but as the institutions prescribe solutions critics argue it's those very policies played a role in the amount welcome to begin with our chief national correspondent laura lister. i as protesters to cry their capitalist policies. the

international monetary fund meets and the prescribe or of austerity reflects on the state of world economic progress the recoveries and the way and broadband most countries seem to hark this worry over jobs comes as greek labor unions announce fresh protests over i.m.f. policies they accuse of making their country's economic and job situation worse austerity measures public spending cuts tax rises and privatization part of the i.m.f. doctrine for debt crisis management is now imposed on greece a policy that has been forced on many developing nations for decades i think most western policymakers think that it's just imposing tough low tough love mark by reliance on the free market and not on the role of the state the critics like economist gerald epstein say hurt these countries and contributed to the financial meltdown just as leaders of these institutions brace for another we are one shock

away from a food crisis the financial crisis taught us that prevention is better than cure. we cannot afford to forget that lesson but a group of thinkers believe the curriculum is all wrong behind this very door the international monetary fund was signed into being by world leaders decades ago and behind these doors and different group of economic and policy leaders have gathered together who believe it's outdated and needs to be rethought all together calling for a shift away from western dominance and thinking we've really been looking at this through our problems in our lives and most of our countries have not been subject to i have met programs but even as some of those countries that have such as brazil as part of the brics block call for a greater say in the i.m.f. son don't see any real change in the works i expect that the next president of the

world bank will be an american in the next major to the i.m.f. will be european broadly construed and that's the same pattern we've had since those institutions were established despite the limitations to global economic effectiveness yes of course and that's a major limitation and major weakness of the government but again it's not going to change anytime soon a warning over what could be in the pipeline as the i.m.f. talks austerity with portugal to secure its debt crisis loan lifeline and an economically strapped egypt talks about getting billions in soft loans from the bank the more things change the more they stay the same lauren lyster r.t. washington and new hampshire all right so what is the purpose of the i.m.f. and the world bank today how is their evolution shaped the economy here and also the economies around the world well earlier i spoke to gavin marshall with the center for research on globalization he joined us from montreal canada. keep in mind. it's.

actually earlier and specifically in one thousand. the council on foreign relations which is the us. war plan during the war the state department. redesigned. the new world order in which america would do this. major institution. which began the i.m.f. and the world bank. and. latin america africa asia with the benefit of us western european nations but that's not the way it was sold that i mean in some ways it was sort of portrayed as you know these institutions looking out for the poor countries coming in to help and you just said it's actually benefiting the welfare country. you know we'll just. have to judge you and

. so do the traditional face the i.m.f. in the world and in truth. we do things with. all their actions and other repercussions of their actions. created years ago look at africa latin america during the sixty's coming. independence movement countries. right rapidly in africa. and. with. a. and this created of. money the western big loans of the. one hundred seventy nine when. the interest. in the late seventy's and eighty's.

all this money interest rates dramatically increased and they set off. throughout latin america. africa and asia is like the world bank and i.m.f. i mean. developing. restructure. and xander they're not just a restructuring their economies are trying to pay back is that a lot of times the restructuring the entire landscape of their country i mean you take these gorges rain forest in some of these third world countries places where certainly a lot of things could come out of and they're having to you know tear these down to build crops to make money to pay back their debt what do you make of all this and what do you make of the fact that you know the i.m.f. on the world bank had this meeting and they're talking about these policies and how to fix things when a lot of critics at least they don't ones who caused this. i was a little you may have a significant role and since they essentially act

a new monument to sion like you pointed out they have to deconstruct rain forests and asian cultures and focus on what's experts and use for reducing the cash and reminded it will respond. or exploit this was a trade or something that would magically increase production. and you benefit from programs that are but if you look at the informal onal arrow in africa europe and empires controlling the recent was done in the same way they made countries produce certain crops for exports. and then making the country and been on year the nation for food and other services and so the i.m.f. world bank has essentially created global and in south africa due to latin american on western europe and north america which heavily subsidize their agricultural

products export and in terms of today they're trying to do you know how these institutions institutions are changed and physically that not only are we interested in injury or manage. the so-called. but they're also trying to integrate and advance the process of global governance renewed emerging nations china india and other nations into this institutional apparatus and by bringing them to shoot again and i would like to talk about accountability here i mean i guess these organizations i.m.f. world bank meeting about policies thinking ahead trying to figure out what to change that is from what i understand at least if you work for the world bank you're basically immune from any kind of legal action who you know who i think organizations accountable to in terms of making sure that they actually are doing what they say they're going to do. there are going to books you change that it's

very simple to actually see who runs these institutions who can take the world bank so were many of its residents and always. were being somehow related to chief which is now. if you look at the second president john jr well he was chairman of cheeseman had been he was chairman of the council on foreign relations he wants chairman of. a trustee run over. so the insurers run the vince your shins are very well represented you actions from the rhetoric groups or you just have to sort of sign and. gavin marshall from the center for research on globalization joining us from montreal canada well tomorrow marks one month since the u.s. and european forces began airstrikes in libya president obama and leaders from france and great britain well they all said that the need was dire and that the mission was humanitarian based and would also be brief well since that time nato

forces have taken control but the weapons and the intelligence on the ground in libya are largely from this country well some people say that this is a just war others say the justifications for getting involved were not only not good enough they were wrong all along those people alan cooperman a professor of public affairs at the university of texas at austin he's also an author and among his works this book the limits of humanitarian intervention. and alan i know that you've written a lot about this and something that you said was that the u.s. involvement in libya is not only not preventing murder and suffering but that it's in fact causing suffering by innocent people and also prolonging the civil war in libya where is your evidence at this. well my my evidence is that the claim that was made by the obama administration that there was going to be a bloodbath that there was going to be even genocidal violence that he

was deliberately intentionally massacring civilians my evidence is that there is no evidence of that in the other cities that qaddafi has captured either totally or partially and the latest data comes actually from human rights watch and what they found is that the victims in muser out there which is the third biggest city in libya only three percent of the wounded are women and what that tells you is that the violence by khadafi forces is not indiscriminate it's actually quite targeted it's targeted at fighters because the fighters are male if it could off he were trying to massacre civilians there would be thousands killed not a couple hundred killed in misrata and if you were indiscriminately targeting civilians then about half the victims would be women not three percent so my concern is that

there was no bloodbath ongoing there was no bloodbath likely in benghazi and instead the civil war essentially was going to be over a month ago but then nato intervened led by the united states and what that has done is sort of level the playing field it's prolonged the civil war cities in the center of libya on the coast have now changed hands two three four times every time they change hands there's shelling from both sides and civilians that are caught in the middle so we didn't stop a bloodbath but we are prolonging and perpetuating the suffering of civilians in libya in my opinion and what i've got point out here i mean you know it may be that some of these places that you point to that gadhafi forces do you actually have a control in there's been targeted killings of these armed rebels but before. it is we can't ignore that this is a man who said in a speech on television you know that he was going to search every home and find

people in their closets so you know unlike for example iraq and this false claim of weapons of mass destruction here you have a leader who is actually saying by the way i am going to come out and drag people out of their homes and kill them and i know that you know this is something that obama pointed to in his speech in terms of why we got involved in libya let me play a little bit of what president obama said and then i'll have you respond for we knew that if we wanted if we waited one more day benghazi a city nearly the size of charlotte would suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and. the conscience of the world so again you know president obama pointing to this threat made by gadhafi himself do you think you the u.s. and france and great britain do you think that they should have just ignored to get off here as a madman. well i mean i think if you actually listen to what could off he said he said that he would show no mercy to rebels but he said that he would show mercy if

the rebels gave up the fight gave up their weapons so he was very clearly saying he was going to target fighters he made clear he was not going to target civilians he wouldn't even target rebels who surrendered so and he was clear about this so it seems to me that president obama exaggerated the threat he exaggerated khadafi said in fact misrepresented what kind of he had said and so would you know would there have been some killing yes there would have been some been some killing in benghazi but the civil war essentially would it ended the rebels were on the run they were in mass retreat and the war would have ended in march and instead here we are in the second half of april and the war is ongoing and people are suffering every single day so as i say i don't think we stop the bloodbath but i think we have perpetuated the war and my rough guess at this point is that we've actually increased the net suffering to civilians in libya that certainly wasn't the

intention and the only question for me then is you know why the obama do this did he get tricked by the rebels who claimed that there was going to be a genocide or was he sort of in on that sort of a coconspirator exaggerating with the rebels the threat of a genocide in order to launch an intervention for other purposes you know of course it's hard to say that alan you know what would have happened could have happened i should have happened if the u.s. and nato forces in you know didn't get involved you know we just can't now because the fact is a month ago we did get involved but i know you also said that we should intervene no further into the office forces actually prove that they're going to math occur civilians a lot of people would just find that claim a little rough to swallow to say you know let's wait until thousands of people are already killed and how we get involved now that's that's. that's that's not what i say wouldn't you know my my argument is based on over a decades worth of research and research on the ground in bosnia in kosovo in

rwanda i've also researched our for iraq afghanistan and what you find is that rebels often use the same propaganda tactic they start a war that they cannot win on their own and the whole goal is to drag in the united states and its allies on their side and the only way to get the u.s. to come in on their side is to claim that the government is going to massacre civilians they did in bosnia and it worked it didn't cost it worked and so my point is if you're really trying to save civilians what you should do is not play the this rebel game you should say the rebels if you start a rebellion and the government responds by targeting rebels we're not going to get involved the only time that the west's and the international community should get involved is if the government responds grossly disproportionately if the government actually starts targeting civilians intentionally then the international community should come in to stop a bloodbath to stop

a genocidal type situation so that was my recommendation is that so long as gadhafi is mainly targeting rebels the united states should not be intervening there and we should be using the potential of intervention and say we would intervene if you start targeting civilians and that would deter feet from targeting civilians and the evidence so far as i could off it is not targeting civilians as i said three percent of the victims are women it shows that could offer as targeting mainly rebels certainly an interesting argument that make that you make an important too i think to bring up some of these historical references with kosovo with the involvement in bosnia that from that these places specifically get more violent because they want for the west to involve alan cooperman professor at university of texas and at austin and also the off limits of humanitarian intervention thanks so much. and you know the u.s. is competing with countries like china and russia for rather just resources they're also battling for influence but in a country with

a foundation of ideals that includes freedom of speech and also in the age of new social media the question is to what extent is the u.s. government really practice what it preaches and especially with the explosion of information available on the internet could the freedoms that times be a double edged sword are just killing for it has more. battle for influence over the international airwaves has opened a new front. page i'm afraid in america. better to win the rabbi ideas that have to win in washington. establishment can try. distributed right i think i'm saying every one of our government offices. have a similar. trends government american international broadcasters do target china iran the middle east and other nations to the voice of america and

others but audiences are shrinking the baby jesus and others two thousand and ten showed that one percent. listen to the voice of america in mandarin just a decade ago american and british outlets dominated the international broadcasting market. but today's multi-polar world is reflected in its broadcast from china and its well kind of to russia. international news it isn't your watching. this new media landscape has top officials in washington worried that u.s. broadcasters are losing influence we are in an information war and we are losing that war i'll be very blunt in my assessment al jazeera is winning. the chinese have opened up a global english language and multi language television network the russians have

opened up english language network i've seen it in a few countries and it's quite instructive critics say the diminishing audiences are the result of the us is desired to influence rather than inform they're going to try to go into these countries and probably try to buy news basically be a true propaganda arm rather than a news gathering and reporting outlet which is what our t. al-jazeera and the chinese networks are going to be but while many like the need for freedom of information abroad other states have it silenced at home it's a propaganda campaign and right now we are warm and we would you have global broadcasting during which to which you have tokyo rose campaigning to have r.c. and al jazeera taken off american airways american taxpayers are helping to put right now at this time jihad t.v. on the air and investigated in congress for their role radicalizing muslims we do think they ought to be expanded into looking at the operations of foreign

propaganda channel is like russia today on american soil we'd also like a lot of al-jazeera even as american increasingly turned to them for fresher views and real news as u.s. corporate media at their entertainment programming and punditry we've opened up these huge gaps because we're more concerned with reality t.v. and people arguing and people attacking the president than we are with having people on the ground finding out what the problem the problems are the cold war was the golden age of us international broadcasting outlets like voice of america radio free europe the thirty years later the media and economic landscape has changed and voices have been added to the discussion from doha to paris to caracas and the u.s. worry that it may not be the only one battling for the airwaves anymore and in florida are washington d.c. all right let's talk now about assad. everyone else seems to be talking about as well donald trump the to pay and then the real estate mogul love him or hate him he

seems to be everywhere these days and the mainstream media is eating him up so is the limelight a part of a bigger story say a run for president or perhaps he just hopes to boost t.v. show ratings joining me now to talk about this is amanda carey reporter for the daily caller all right amanda let's take a step back here you know before we get blinded by the light donald trump certainly a wealthy man but this is also the owner of the miss universe pageant this is somebody who's been married three times he is a multibillion air is this a person that america could could relate to could get behind. i don't think he's got a little ball that's my honest opinion and i don't know if it's his personal i guess background with his wives i mean that's not a huge issue here i don't think if you look at giuliani he is a fairly a contender and he had issues there and newt gingrich is a contender. but whether he's relatable or not that remains to be seen and he

obviously has this huge following right now which is there's are several different ways but little i'm not sure i mean i guess we'll see what's your prediction on it in terms of why he's coming out there and talking about this run for president and being are you the most critical of obama from you know accusing him of not being born here. you know saying a lot of different things i mean what do you think this is all about i think it's donald trump wanting to grow himself i think he's selling himself and he's doing a really great job about it and he has the sort of populist message that resonates with a lot of people as crazy as it can and it seems he's sort of this anti-government anti-establishment guy that says whatever he wants whenever he wants and to whom ever you want to say it and a lot of people appreciate that whether it is as you say just sort of selling his brand the fact is a lot of polls show right now donald trump tied for first place but. there is some evidence that he's not reported that he's not supported rather by

a lot of republican someone important republicans i mean let's talk about karl rove a lot of people consider him the brains behind a bush administration he was on fox news channel recently i'll show you what he had to say and i mean talk about it. this is heard in the republican party will it hurt to remove she was an interesting candidate who had a business background and could contribute to dialogue but whose fault is full of grace all the bursaries you use that is off here in the nutty right. is no one in consequential canada i'm shocked. inconsequential karl rove says almost asserting that he's a little crazy what do you think about this i mean this is a voice that at least just a few years ago was pretty important when it came to making political waves right now is this one guy and there is sort of the split about whether their birth their strategy was a good one or not and whether it was smart i think so far it was a good strategy just because it sort of drawn this this attention and it has sort

of translated into poll results in the long term i don't think it will turn out to be that great but then in the long run donald trump candidacy is a credible anyways. so well i mean it's an important question i mean this whole birth or issue because there are some who say you know if president obama you know what we've seen is a record of growth not the actual birth certificate and some people say you know president obama loves this his people of this because the more you know presidential candidates and politicians get out there and you know try to talk about the president not being born here it makes them look crazy and if that's the only thing that they can hold against the president if that's the only thing that they can criticize him well then i think that there's going to be a victory for the democratic party in twenty twelve and that is one of the arguments from some of the conservative wings. you know i but i don't see a lot of other republican candidates sort of latching on to it as birth or strategy for a reason i don't see mitch daniels out there

a template the out there you know calling for the person to africa and i think there's a very good reason for it i mean donald trump is very french candidate you know the same media people that are hyping his candidates are also writing about how. he would never be like that anyways he's not a real conservative so this earthly thing is sort of a side show that's guarding a lot of tension and i think that's all it was supposed to do how do you think people from other countries view the potential trump candidacy i mean is this something that people are looking at and saying well that's interesting it's certainly a successful person certainly maybe this is a country that needs help with making financial decisions or do people see him as a little bit of a clown i think it's more a little bit of a clown i mean he like he could do so much he's this accessible businessman he could have a lot of clout in politics and instead he chose this route that sort of you know. caused people to make fun of him and you know college is credible candidate and i think people around the world i mean i don't know what the consensus is in europe

or asia or anything like that about donald trump but i think that definitely puts him in about life and i want to go back to something you were saying about the other issue and about the fact that this is one of his main things that he's been very outspoken on it seems to be because of this that a lot of the media a lot of the mainstream media is having him on to talk about this because it's almost so crazy it's almost like charlie sheen you know that was the main story for so many days. you know is that the fans i mean should the mainstream media simply be giving anyone who says something crazy a platform because it brings in ratings or whether they should or shouldn't is a debate to be had but you know at the end of the day news organizations are a business and they are all about ratings and right now donald trump ratings are sort of like you know it used to be sarah palin anything sarah palin said there was a story on a news site. you know about what she said and it was dry and clicks and heads and

traffic and the same thing is true donald trump and we look at candidates i mean certainly they can win primaries we think about christine o'donnell and people who did that some some crazy i'm not a witch you know i don't want to i'm crazy for that but you know the fact is they can sometimes win primaries but so far they haven't really been able to win elections i think it'll be interesting to see what happens certainly amanda carey reporter for the daily caller. and that is going to do it for now for more on the stories we covered that are to dot com slash usa also check out our you tube page at youtube dot com slash arts in america thanks so much for watching i'm christine for as i'll have a great evening.