and the united states is in full swing it's affecting life 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. iraq well these questions are very serious and they are affecting global the clouds and these questions to date are being discussed and 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 impair. the rainy us administration and russia has always been one of the main concerns in terms of foreign policy the two countries have seen different periods of cool standoffs and thaws intention and no the future is uncertain again as americans are preparing for their presidential election since the very beginning barack obama has

been eager 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 stimulate parity enlist jest if the democrats take it will be more likely for the dialogue to be won but if the republicans win another cooling is expected as they've already used and to rush rhetoric during the election campaign. posters are very welcome to the should i think there must be venue to be with this is my place to which professor well some people today saying that one of the big problems in issues is sort of an intolerance maybe it's because the politicians when the leaders are becoming younger and this intolerance makes it harder to reach to reach understandings 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 kind nations to work together and to work together they have to develop the tolerance to accept other people's differences well anyway so we were talking. in terms of relations we were talking reset relations yes and here's. a family republican rank literally said he would give about the poor after 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 from beginning announcing it was his intention to reset within

a month after that he made his famous speech at prague which he said i state clearly and with conviction the commitment of the united states to seek the 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 held 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 fissile 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 hoped to do which is get a ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty because the conditions in the senate were such that he didn't get it out of but he has stated that if he's to be elected that would be a major objective for his next term you giving him time mourning but it's for good intentions knows well good the good intentions but they pave the way to elevate it don't they know 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 print the silk idea. looks like it's running out of fuel as in the u.s. russia relations got off the first few years in a very positive direction i think we've had

a big bump in the road and that. i don't think it's a bump that cannot be smoothed out of resolved but it is there and it has not been resolved yet 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 that 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 the former u.s. defense defense based mainly the possession of the us today you are very active in preventing new types of events are proof ration of nuclear weapons so are many other former defense secretaries so isn't it that you tried it you guys tried to make make up for what you did when you were younger but what we did during the under was a quite a different era it was during the cold war and we believe the danger to the security danger to the united states and to other countries are very great then and

we see. nuclear weapons as a way of preventing that danger but when the cold war was over here we in the soviet union destroyed with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons now the weapons which we consider to be for our security when our danger to our security the danger of the united states a curio 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 but 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 he said you said you believe that you would do too little russians believes in there too but today there is not a belief something americans. who can literally american politicians they believe

really believe that this a.b.m. these. can save america can be can be i could put a real protection from from you know do you think they're right in believing that deep division does believe some of you say yeah i'm going to stay here. i neither. share the view of our government the political missile defense is necessary in europe as is an essential feature for our security nor do i believe the russian government's view that 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 expert level as i call it axis and the experts on this sort of understanding. i think the experts that i did speak with at least would agree that any ballistic missile defense system is

subjected to decoys. and therefore one can question the effectiveness of any any blistered the missile defense system to being deployed today. so that's from the point of view of the american who are deploying this system. that's a real concern that we can to the effectiveness of the system and weaken the value of doing it from a board of view of the russians. to say very little threat very little threat to the earth 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 so important for our security or the russian view of this threat to their security i don't think either is true when the last meeting president abandoned president then if 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 lot of it we saw

a sudden assessment so so that the americans and the russians can start with each again to be joint control over 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 as technically on the yeah it's not a technically difficult problem to take the political will. russia's political has to be on both sides and put them both down trees well at political price this this presidential campaign that we're. seeing united states is not questions of matters of foreign policies for the fares on the really important enough 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 . a 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 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 russians were better understand that

during the putin's presidential campaign he seemed to be opposing the united states is 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 the whether through romney or obama in terms of how us russian 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 example it's no easier for the ukraine to deal with event then with them 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 is that he has 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 would be back shortly after we take a break so stay where you are down there. the issue is that so much of me is going to make it a lot of people a good idea but look at lunch time for dinner with the greek economy in tatters and

spain on the financial break the future of the monetary union looks anything but bright. 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 realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm charging welcome to the big picture. welcome back to spotlight i now do nothing just to remind you there were a guest on the show today is william perry professor stanford university and former u.s. defense. professor russia's nuclear arsenal is capable to break through the end time miss shield that we see now built in europe at least that's what the

rest nutria saying but as experts say the face for the shield which is expected to be deployed by twenty twenty should be something different and make me pose a threat for the russians that's what the military says i'm the next where i'm quoting with what i read in the press so what i'm worried about is you say you're the former u.s. defense treaty that this is not a threat to russia. first thing and second thing is that it that it really is not some real help and protection against against nuclear missiles so my question is why can't the americans give russia some see this is different because as far as i understand all russians want something in writing that this is not aimed at these missiles i'm not a that you know well and this is no one. is

a game that i would say but is that make it very clear statement first of all the us b.m.d. system which i don't really support it but i do understand what i understand it. and this person was not designed against russian missiles and secondly it would not have any significant capability against by russian missiles was it a one way through phase three embraced for so nothing nothing socially having the capability of things like article i face or no it's improved system but against russian missiles it would be a stupid system i mean if somebody were asking me to the to evaluate that system is in effect there's a good price to missiles i would give it an f. so that it would come to i would give it a nephew so bad that this sort of you get so 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 with

the american it sounds new 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 the tension give speeches who really think who really continue stating that 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 are developing they have a very extensive program for developing a very rich in your opinion 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 nuclear bomb and the a is the appropriate vehicle for verifying that but we have to first of all get a clear agreement from the iranians and i'm going to do that. the u.s. defense secretary has unveiled plans to move more u.s. navy warship to asian waters well mr panetta play down consider this from beaching 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 china well this is one tenth the united states considers itself a nation power we have an asia pacific power i should say we have. extensive fleet the pacific fleet base in pearl harbor which covers all of the covers 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 a directory's 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 full human of mutual trade with china or is it because i'm increasing.

possible. threats that can. you see the united states is not really increasing the size of its navy it is holding maintaining the level of its navy and in particular 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 interview by the president of the american 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 but it's not an increase the absence of reduction in the comment. about this foreign policy people have been saying that it's. under about. in the middle east the arab spring has become the arrow wint t. do you 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 place i would say for sure that what the arab spring demonstrates 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've overthrown several regimes it's a 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 are going to be stable regime so i think we're going seeing now is an era of event stability in the middle east but i would hope that what we're come out of that they are going stability is a stable democratic government which serve the people better than a government that had before experts saying that the houla massacre has been will become truly important in the serious or in need in your opinion how should the international community behave in response to this. i think the

actions that the government has taken to syria gets its own people are outrageous and i think the international community should condemn them and they should take all action short of military actions to try to put pressure on the syrian government to to to stop this killing or stone 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. more serious action more. me into the city if not i don't myself see the circumstances under which the united states would intervene intervene in military force in syria. but i do see the importance.

applying not just diplomacy because of diplomacy to try to bring that. 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. before that would be a reason for the pressure is not related to iran a consequence of the pressure would be india and i further isolation graham how probable is this just a question of the russian presence is asking turkey every day how probable is is a strike i think u.s. israeli strike on iran. i think is some my own personal view is that some likely that the 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 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 that iranian 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 try to keep iran from developing nuclear weapons but if the homeless in the u.s. for an office the state department. who provoke the israelis to act. then maybe a possibility this is a. i do not believe so i do not i agree with you that their hocks in the united states just as there are hawks in russia yeah pox in every country those heart but that's not controlling us government policy and us government policy i believe my

view would not lead either to the us conducting military action or it or the us 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 of a military strike against iran and those are all those that i can think of a 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 got and i think good cooperation from russia in 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 that do you think do you think it's made. libya and the middle east more

a safer place than it was it didn't was before gadhafi regime was overthrown. 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 a 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 just an hour from us spotlight will be back with more comments on what's going on in it and. outside rush until then stay on r.t. and take. take. place. in a league. u.n.

security council members endorse kofi it on the six point plan for syria saying it must be here to criticize other states for putting the blame solely on the assad regime overlooking atrocities committed by rebels. is a fresh massacres reported in syria on the eve of kofi annan briefing to be u.n. estimates of casualties very dramatically but the timing of the slaughter raises suspicion but so. global political focus shifts east where the delicate iranian and afghan issues being discussed in beijing is letting your putin meets with the country's leaders. and increasing cases of assaults on women in egypt to talk or swear reveal the play to female protesters whose hopes for democratic changes are fading is a little strive to take a drip on our. cross talk next stay with us here on our.

and you can see. the future. oh and welcome to cross talk i'm peter all about crunch time for the euro with the greek economy in tatters and spain on the financial brink the future of the monetary union looks anything but bright world leaders are calling for quick and decisive action to avoid a doomsday scenario while the european central bank has come out and said the fate of the currency is not in its hands. and. says.