the united states is in full swing it's affecting life in not only in the us but in other countries as well what guarantees all the americans are ready to give the russians concerning that a.b.m. system in europe or what's cooking in washington concerning the arab countries pakistan. iran sample well these questions are very serious and they are affecting global the clouds and these questions today are being discussed on in some national conference in berlin and we'll be asking these questions today for my he was defense secretary and professor at stanford university will be in there. for any u.s. administration and russia has always been one of the main concerns in terms of foreign policy the two countries have seen different periods of both standoffs and thaws intention and know the future is uncertain again as americans are preparing for their presidential election since the very beginning burma has been good to get

through it with russia rather than confronting it steel there's been some issues like the u.s. missile shield in eastern europe for example which threaten to stimulate parity any list to test if the democrats take it will be more likely for the dialogue to go on but if the republicans win another cooling is expected as they've already used and to rush rhetoric during the election campaign. but that's a very welcome to the show and i think you should thank you for being with us it's my pleasure it's a privilege professor well some people to do it saying that one of the big problems in issues is sort of the intolerance maybe it's because the politicians when the leaders are becoming younger and this intolerance makes it harder to reach to reach into standing do you agree is a veteran politician i think there's some i think that is correct and it's.

it's too bad because the world while people becoming less tolerant the world is becoming more interdependent and so it's all the more important for cut nations to work together and to work together they have to develop the tolerance to accept other people's differences well anyway we were talking. in terms of relations we were talking to reset relations yes and we used. a bamboo public and one of literally said he would give about poor great for his foreign policy let's use yours. isn't any right this is no not at all and i don't think mr romney really believes that it's a political statement he thinks. i think i'm very pleased with the foreign policy that obama's position on it is not has been every case successful. but i i give him very high marks on things he has tried to do he started off right and beginning announcing it was his intention to reset within

a month after that he made his famous speech at prague at which he said i state clearly and with conviction the commitment of the united states to seek peace in the world without nuclear weapons so he made a commitment very early in his administration to move towards the end do a nuclear weapon and he followed that up a very substantial actions one of the most important was there with the us russian treaty the new start treaty which not only made a reduction i must have a modest reduction in the numbers of nuclear weapons but they had us and russia getting back together on a dialogue on this issue and conducting. transparent transparent verifiable measures so i think that was a major step forward i also think that the nuclear summit. which was how the first one which was held in washington and the last one held its soul. the leaders of

more than fifty nations got together and. to promote actions to reduce the danger of nuclear material around the world all of those i think are very positive steps they're just a few of the steps he's taken to i would give president obama very high marks he had not done seventy years hope to do which is get or advocation of the comprehensive test ban treaty because the conditions in the senate were such that he didn't they couldn't get it out of fide but he has stated that if he's to be elected that would be a major objective first next term you giving him a kind of mourning but the chief say it's for good intentions no for well good the good intentions that they pave the way to elevate it don't they now i'm talking not about intentions about actions of the new start treaty is an action but didn't you agree that the u.s. reset. the silk idea. looks like it's running out of feel as if the u.s. russia relations got off the first few years in a very positive direction i think we've got a big bump in the road and that. i don't think it's

a bump that cannot be smoothed out and resolved but it is there and it has not been resolved one of them has to do of course with the ballistic missile defense deployment in new york that's an area of major contention between the united states and russia today in my opinion this is a problem which is resolvable and i think we ought to get together resolve and i have high hopes that will be the next it has not been resolved so far though you the former u.s. secretary of defense defense based mainly on the possession of weapons today you are very active in preventing new types of prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons so are many other former defense secretaries so isn't it that you try to you guys try to make make up for what you did when you were younger but what we did we were younger was in a quite a different era it was during the cold war and we believe the danger for the security danger to get on states and to other countries are very great then and we

should. nuclear weapons as a way of preventing that danger but when the cold war was over here we in the soviet union steward with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons now the weapons which had been we consider to be for our security when our danger to our security the danger of the united states a curious danger to russia's security and so we banded together to find a way of producing those the year i was secretary of defense for example we and russia together dismantled almost ten thousand nuclear weapons because we saw those nuclear weapons as a danger to the world that effort has stalled though and we need to get it back in high gear again it's a different era with the nuclear weapons are not needed for our security they are in fact a danger to our security well you said you said you believed. you were into digital russians believe that too but today there's another believe something americans.

who can literally compunctions they believe really believe that this a.b.m. these. can can save america can be can be they could prove they're real protection from from you know do you think they're right in believing that the ship is believed. to say yeah i'm going to stay here. i neither. share the view of our government political missile defense is necessary in europe as is an essential feature for our security nor do i believe the russian government if you did our ballistic missile deployment is a threat to russian security i think both countries are wrong and because we're both wrong we've got to find a way of getting together and get it getting that issue resolved you've been talking about this with your colleagues on the export of the level as i call it that x. is an expert. on this sort of understanding. i think the experts that i did speak with at least would agree that any ballistic missile. offensive system is subjected

to decoys. and therefore one can question the effectiveness of any any blistered missile defense system to being deployed today. so that from the point of view of the american who are deploying this system. that's a real concern as we can see the effectiveness of the system and we can devalue doing it from aboard your the russians who have it offshore to say very little threat very little threat to the at the russian system so i don't really quite understand fully either government's point of view on this either the americans view that it's old port and for security or the russian view this is a threat to their security i don't think either is true when jindal last meeting president abandoned president medvedev we journalists got the impression that they did find some sort of understanding so do you think that if a batsman gets reelected you think you'll have a free hand to sign since

a lot of them did we saw a sudden assessment so so that the russians can start with each again that maybe join control of the system is something this is awesome because i believe there's a technical solution to the problem as a technical solution of cooperation which could remove the russians concerns about the danger of them i believe that exists i think we will find out what you do take political will on rats the underside of both countries in the political will a solution can be found so political will is not is technically under ten yeah it's not a technically difficult problem i think the political will. russia's political has to be on both sides on both counts well that political fight this this presidential campaign that we're. seeing united states is not questions of matters of foreign policy for in the first all the really important in this campaign are not they will probably not be important in the campaign. because i believe that

president obama's record on foreign policy has been very strong and therefore i do not think. candidate romney would choose to challenge him much on that he will instead be going after him on the basis of economy. if. whoever is president whichever is elected the other can be a different foreign policy as a consequence of whether it's president obama or president romney should romney still. be russia during this campaign as the u.s. top political foe does it really reflect the republican party and i can't believe that i mean i know very very many senior republicans including george shultz including henry kissinger who is of you cannot believe that so we should say so and i don't it's just an election read through what. i don't quite understand and i know that and to take an analogy there were russian to better understand that

during the putin's presidential campaign he seemed to be posing the united states as a threat to russia which i don't believe and i'm not there and. so i don't know people say in campaigns sometimes take extreme statements. but i do not believe that's going to be a big issue in this campaign. i do believe will be a difference in that whether through romney or obama in terms of how u.s. russia relations develop and i'm inclined to believe that it would develop a more positive vein and a bomb and then under romney said well this is very important so you think the russians i mean the kremlin russian diplomats the foreign office should vote for about it's no easier for them yet right to deal with event then with really if he's if he's elected and i think and i can in any country their presidents are determined by their own people that i don't like outside advice i don't i don't think there is right across the fingers right but my main concern role of the u.s.

russia relations in the future my main concern with if romney were to be elected to the. he opposed the ratification of the new start treaty and therefore it's quite clear that he would not be supporting a follow on to that treaty and i would very much like to see a follow on to the new start treaty if your theory of further reduction in the number of nuclear weapons jointly between the united states and russia spotlight will be back shortly to take a break so stay where you are. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realized everything you thought you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture.

wealthy british style sign it's time to. market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to cause a report on our. welcome back to spotlight on really nothing just to remind you that we're a guest on the show today is william perry professor stanford university and former

u.s. defense trying. to set russia's nuclear arsenal is capable to break through the end. time missile shield that we're seeing now built in europe at least that's what the russian military is saying but as experts say the face for the shield which is expected to be deployed by twenty twenty should be something different and mate may pose a threat for russians that's what the military said i will and that's what i'm quoting with what i read in the press so what i'm worried about is you set your former u.s. defense secretary that this is not a threat to russia. first thing and second thing is that. it really is not some real help and protection against against nuclear missiles so my question is why can't americans give russia since we haven't seen this is different because as far as i understand all russians want something in

writing that this is not an aid and these missiles are not aid that you know well and this is no wife. is that a game that would say what is that make it very clear statement first of all the u.s. b.m.d. system which i just i told you i don't really support it but i do understand understand it. and this person was not designed against russian missiles and secondly it would not have any significant capability against my arsenal so was it a one way to brace for nothing nothing so significant capability because let's face it what's its improve system but against russian missiles it would be a stupid system i mean if somebody were asking me to do to evaluate that system as in effect there's a good russian missiles i would give it an f. . that would come to i would give it a nephew so that that is sort of a given that back then it seems to me there ought to be

a way of our politicians keep coming to an agreement they're going to reassure russians on that point. ok let's move in there that shit's connected with the american discourse and you know of course iran do you believe in the in ring threat as far as i know as far as a new russian diplomats are one of the field politicians. engaged in tension give speeches who really think who really continue stating that iran's nuclear program is no immediate threat to the iranian nuclear with no immediate record they don't have a nuclear weapon yet but they are developing they're developing and have a very extensive program for developing a very rich and you're a new thousands of centrifuges that work as we speak and reaching uranium these centrifuges are capable of enriching at the level to which you could make be used

in the nuclear bomb so it's very critical that this program be contained and not take that stage about richmond towards a nuke. and the a is the appropriate vehicle for verifying that but we have to first of all get a clear agreement from the rains and i'm going to do that. u.s. defense at three has unveiled plans to move more u.s. navy warship to asian waters well mr panetta played down concerns from b.g. say the move would actually benefit china so what's this deployment supposed to serve if it's not contained each. how can it benefit you well this is one tenth the united states considers itself a nation power we have an asia pacific power should say we have. extensive fleet the pacific fleet base in pearl harbor which covers all of the

covers of the western pacific as well as the eastern pacific we have allies in korea and japan and australia and so and we have extensive trade all through the area particularly with china so we do not consider the navy there as. a threat to china in fact from the chinese point of view. what that navy has been doing through the decades is maintaining stability in the region which allows countries like china in particular to engage in peaceful commerce and china's economic growth in the last decade or so has been directly to result of that stability in the region for which the u.s. naval presence there has been an important aspect so so the increase of the number of ships in the region in this pacific region so shouldn't mean then crease in the

volume of mutual trade with china or is it because of link least. possible. threats that can mean can you see the united states is not really increasing the size of its navy not really it is holding maintaining the level of its navy and in particular the the important measure here is the number of carrier task forces and we're holding that number of carry cash we're not increasing them at a recent review of by the president of the americas security strategy it was proposed to reduce one period task force and the person rejected that religion on the basis of the importance of maintaining stability in the asia pacific region there's not an increase the absence of reduction in the comment. about this foreign policy people have been saying that it's. untrue about in the middle east the arab spring has become the arab winter. to do your share this section and do you think that

that the middle east is becoming a more dangerous place. or less it's a less stable face i would say for sure what the arab spring demonstrate to the whole world and certainly there are people where that the arab people had the power to speak on their own for what kind of governments they wanted and they spoke in a very loud and forceful way and they were. thrown several regimes consequence of this that doesn't necessarily mean that regime to replace them are going to be democratic regimes are going to be good regimes it will be stable regime so i think we're going seeing now is and there have been stability in the middle east but i would hope that what will come out of that era of instability is a stable democratic government which serve the people better than the government that had before experts say that houla massacre has been will become truly

important in the serious or indeed in your opinion how should the international community behave in response to this. i think the actions of the government to take in syria against its own people are outrageous and i think the international community should condemn them and they should take all actions short of military actions to try to put pressure on the syrian government to to to stop this killing innocent people i think economic and financial sanctions are the most appropriate vehicle but we have to be have the nation the world working together for that to happen. because governments are being criticized to be too soft on us as compared to the case of libya and that's so how probable do you think it is that that the united states that it's me may take more or. more serious action more. may intervene.

i don't myself see the circumstances under which the united states would intervene intervene with military force in syria. but i do see the importance of. applying not just diplomacy because of diplomacy to try to bring that's. killing to an end. but the course of diplomacy i think. should not be based militarily should be based on economic and financial. sanctions but professor you should understand that pressure on syria may be part of isolating iran will that diplomatically it would be it would be pretty wise thing to do it for them for that would be a reason for the pressure is not related to iran the consequence of the pressure would be india and i further isolation of iran how probable is this just a question of the russian press this is asking turkey every day how probable is is

a strike i think u.s. one israeli strike on iran and you really really you know it's i think it's on my own personal view is that some likely that united states government would authorize a military strike against iran i know that the president has said he's not ruling anything out he's not taking anything off the table but my own personal view is i don't think it's likely the united states would make military strike against iran i cannot speak for the government of israel they believe they have a nuclear weapon is a nexus of existential threat to their country therefore they take it very seriously so all that said that we should be focusing our attention on a diplomatic action to. keep iran from developing nuclear weapons but if the homeless in the us foreign office the state department. to provoke the israelis to act against that then maybe a possibility this is a. i do not believe so i do not i agree with you that the hawks in the united

states just as their hawks in russia yeah parks in every country those heart but that's not controlling u.s. government policy and u.s. government policy i believe my view would not lead either to the u.s. conducting military action or or the u.s. trying to encourage israel to take military action because whatever the direct results of that action would be there are a whole host of indirect results unintended consequences. a military strike against iran and those are all those that i can think of are bad so we should be putting our focus on diplomatic approaches and trying to find ways of making diplomacy more effective than has been mostly that requires closer cooperation with russia close cooperation china and we've gotten i think good cooperation from russia and the last year or so but we have to still have a long way to go with china. and last question assisting with the american

action in libya how would you assess the do you think do you think it's made. libya and the middle east more a safer place than it was or didn't was before gadhafi regime as it was with. libya we're going through a period of instability now and there's hard to say it's safer because of that but i think it was and it is it's moving them in the direction of a better government and a more representative government and i think that is what the ultimate outcome will be what the outcome will be a month from now or six months that was hard to say but i think they're headed towards a better government for the people of libya thank you thank you professor in just a reminder that my guest on the show today was william perry professor at stanford university and former u.s. defense and that's it from there from the spotlight will be back with more comments on what's going on in it and outside russia until then stay in our seat and take it

. thank you.

the euro zone infection has now reached the even germany's defenses ratings agency moody's downgraded seven its banks including the country's second biggest lend raising fears throughout europe that not even its economic powerhouse can withstand the current financial slump. joining to make new business russian china boosting their ministry partnership including an increase in naval drills the move follows the year with pledge to extend its military presence in the asia pacific moving makes to its warships to the region in the clear. and to disturb the peace pay a fortune rushes up the house passes a new bill i can find protests by nations one hundred fifty hold a little spot some of the most heated debate sets in the new parliament three records and eleven solid hours off. and now on our man and his guests discuss discuss

a scott walker's recall victory in wisconsin and what it really means for democracy in the u.s. . blog job market or shouldn't do you see it here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture funded by out of state millionaires and billionaires wisconsin governor scott walker prevailed tuesday night's recall election walker's victory mean for wisconsin for the november elections and for the future of american democracy also want to republicans want women to make less money at work and is a weak economy and millions of unemployed americans make eric cantor happy all that and more in tonight's long liberal rumble and a special edition of conversations with great minds just days before the fortieth anniversary of the watergate burglary a new book is out startling new information on the scandal.