welcome back here with r.t. here's a look at the top stories a wave of mutual accusations by both syrian government and rebels follower deadly funeral car bomb in damascus you know while the mainstream media is blamed for sanitizing evidence of ugly tactics previously adopted by the opposition. with millions in the e.u. balancing on the edge of poverty companies are forced to adjust and produce smaller and cheaper products for the struggling masses in the age of austerity. now police in new york are targeted by civil rights groups after six years of spy operations of muslims found no sign of wrongdoing they have reportedly monitored sermons infiltrated student groups and put informants and mosques. so the

headlines here in our daily back and about thirty minutes time with more updates the mean time a brain crosstalk debates whether there is a higher meaning or a logic in recent international conflicts here's a barrel of oil in his guest. pleased to eat. food. food. and if you.

want. hello and welcome to cross talk i'm sure all of our wars revolts revolutions occupations and regime change are among the most important elements that are making and remaking our world today is there any logic or design behind these up peoples is the world order of today the one that was expected with the end of the cold war and is the west a force for positive change. in egypt. or libya. to cross-talk the new world disorder i'm joined by ryan morel in new york he is the national security analyst of radical islam dot org and a fellow at the clarion phone also in new york we have george say movie he is a fellow at the global policy institute of the london metropolitan university and in austin we cross to alan cooperman he is an associate professor at the l.b.j.

school of public affairs at the university of texas all right gentlemen crosstalk rosen if i can and you can jump in anytime you want a few days ago pat buchanan wrote an article that got a lot of attention he said what is driving the world today is sectarianism tribalism and nationalism and he talks about democracy which will mention later why and what do you think about that. i think it's very true you are seeing an increasing sectarian conflict in the middle east not just in syria but also between iran with the radical shiites and then the saudis the radical sunni's but there's also an ideological conflict that's going on within the islamic world between the islam is that one shari'a based governance and then the non islamize who want to bring their world into a more twenty first century type outlook and that's more democratic and peaceful and nature ok george what do you think about that i mean there's i don't hear any history there go ahead george. is i don't find that the analysis is quite right i don't because i don't think that these sectarian conflicts are innate

i think these sectarian conflicts have been willed into existence and i think that what has happened has been the west chiefly the united states has gone out of its way to foster disorder and out of disorder comes terror in islam because what happens when you demonize and then destroy a government is that there is a use society would disintegrate people rally around where it was going to defend them whether it's tribal leaders or clans or local warlords or gangsters so i don't think that. there's an inherent sectarianism i think the sectarianism has been willed into existence largely by the policies of the united states ok where do you want to jump in on that alan. well i would disagree with george i think that you know national sectarian differences rivalries and conflicts are inherent

where the west and the international community have a role is that they they can if there is a leader they can help contain those things but look you know the conflicts that you're talking about go well beyond the middle east look at east asia we have china and japan in rivalries japan and south korean rivalries china disputing islands with the philippines in vietnam that's not because of u.s. meddling or anything like that that's inherent in international politics especially when you don't have a strong leader and what we've seen from the united states is really in some ways a lack of strong leadership to help contain those conflicts and sometimes george is correct we've actually engaged in correct strategies and policies that and policies that have exacerbated conflicts ok was a lot said right there i think it's really likely. this is a process we had ryan jump in yeah i think it's completely wrong to think that the u.s. wants for example sunni's and shiites to just kill each other like in iraq that happened

on its own it partially happened because of incorrect strategy but that was a decision made by radical sunni radicals shiites on their own and the u.s. engages in the surge in iraq partially to put in then to that so i think that it's absurd to think that the u.s. wants this type of conflict to happen well george what do you think about that because the conflict could be carrying differences actually promote american foreign policy and its allies saudi arabia qatar yes i think yeah well that's an exact the sectarian differences lead to the destruction of states i mean where before you had an iraq that was. a serious state and a reasonably powerful state now we have a code which is virtually seceded we have. which are. conflict with each other this is come about as a result of u.s. policy i mean us policy makers aren't stupid and they didn't exactly come as

a complete surprise to them that this was how what would happen once the united states invaded the same thing as happened following libya i mean we've already seen the spillover effect. in mali i mean again this was always likely once the united states aligned itself with various radical islamic forces very very groups that are already listed as terrorist organizations and the same thing is clearly happening in syria we've seen that the the civil war which has been clearly few and funded and financed by the united states has now spilled over into lebanon and this as this war continues as it will do. lebanon will almost certainly be engulfed in a civil war so i think these are policies that great powers particularly the united states will into existence because they weaken possible opponents ok and what do you think about that it works to america's advantage and its allies to have these

sectarian differences particularly in looking at this syria and the region. well on the one hand i think ryan is right that the u.s. doesn't deliberately want there to be the secretary in conflict but on the other hand the u.s. has other should teach it goals in the way it pursues them actually exacerbates and fuel sectarian conflict so when the u.s. looks at a place like syria they see bashar al assad's regime they see it allied with iran iran is our enemy and so we really want that guy to go and but in trying to will that to happen what we wind up doing is helping the opposition with non-lethal aid with intelligence helping other countries that are giving lethal aid and what that does is fuel a big sectarian civil war in syria that's now spilling over into lebanon spilling into turkey spilling into iraq and creating disorder and my initial criticism of u.s. policy at the beginning of the show is that what a great power should do is try and promote stability above all else because

instability hurts a country's national interest it hurts civilians noncombatants creates i'm a humanitarian emergencies creates contagious civil war that's that's where i fault the u.s. government right now for not have taken a leadership role to promote stability instead what they're doing is sowing instability it's very shortsighted it's very dangerous i mean ryan this instability is working for the united states they want to get rid of the regime in iran ok this is the end game isn't it so instability works. i think it depends you want instability if you're unhappy with the status quo if you're happy with the status quo like we were in egypt then you don't look upon things like revolutions very kindly but in terms of what's happened in libya and syria the u.s. was late in the game to getting involved i think that's incorrect to blame the u.s. soley for what's happening in those countries the u.s. very reluctantly got involved and we're still not fully involved in look at how long it took president obama to call him bashar assad to resign he was criticized heavily by the syrian opposition for that in fact the syrian opposition continues

to criticize the u.s. it didn't take very long at all it didn't take it's over a year ago that they called for bashar al assad to step down that's that's that's incorrect so the point and the point is not just that now you know you guys i don't think that there was abuse going on the way that doesn't mean the u.s. isn't at fault no i'm sorry i do think so i do think that's correct because you know if you remember there was. a long article in the new yorker in two thousand and seven in two thousand and seven that the bush administration has targeted the syrian regime for the removal and the detailed in how working with saudi arabia and israel they were and with what you know various radical islamic forces they intended to destroy the regime of bashar assad this was in two thousand and seven that seymour hersh wrote this article and what we've seen is the fulfillment of that policy so it's not true to say that somehow they do they know that well there's a lot of resources they want to scream the u.s. was meeting with syrian opposition activists of different kinds yes the muslim

brotherhood was involved in the coalition but they're also meeting with the factors that were in europe and it didn't look like there were a lot of resources put behind that and in fact again the syrian opposition disagrees with that analysis that the u.s. is fully behind them in fact if you listen to what the free syrian army is saying is that the u.s. is betraying the american dream the u.s. says it stands for freedom and human rights yet they're letting us be massacred. alan go ahead but that's a that's the whole problem right now that it's own problem but i want to jump in three three. you know if the u.s. could do three things right it could stay out of the syrian conflict and let the syrian regime just control the country that would be promoting stability or if you come in with a big leadership role with a big intervention and stability to install a new regime let me ok and that that would at least protect civilians but instead what the u.s. has done is the worst of both worlds it is said assad has to step down and therefore what that done is does is just embolden the rebels and fueled the civil war but it's not doing anything to actually help the rebels win or to defeat assad

so all it's done is throw fuel on the fire if you want to say that that's not the u.s. taking a big role i would disagree the u.s. has made to play the flute role in syria it is emboldened it is escalated the civil war but it hasn't done anything to rein it in that's the worst of both worlds ok ryan when you look at all these interventions i mean where does this go right when do these interventions go right for the united states in the west i mean one example. i think libya went well. ok george you want to talk about libya well i don't see how one can think that things are going well in libya when we look at the situation now. where there is no government there i mean essentially . local militia you know running their neighborhoods. you know even when it comes to. the trial of gaddafi son i mean the central government is unable even to bring the man into custody. the other day there was news stories

about these. muslim monuments that were destroyed so. you know it it's gone well for the united states and of the united states suffered minimal casualties nato suffered minimal casualties for the victims of the nato bombs i don't think it's going well at all right gentlemen i'm going to jump in we're going to go to a short break and after that short break in your discussion of the new world order state. for. the for. the soon

which brightened the. song from phones to christians. whose friends dance on t.v. dot com. the for in full started here before going global and now it's pulling the fire. log in. to the right. to. choose your place to take your stand. to. make your statement. spread the word cut coupons strewn along the for. wealthy british scientists on hold some time to cut.

the. markets why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy in the kinds of reports on. her and she says to. come up the phone to. the fund. welcome back to crossfire i'm going to remind you we're talking about what is changing the world today. the top and. sister putting. ok i would like to go back to you when i asked and you wanted to remark on what george had to say about the relative success or failure of the libyan intervention. yeah i would say i'm going to a conference actually this weekend talking about libya and i would say the intervention was

a failure not only on humanitarian grounds but also on strategic grounds on humanitarian grounds at the time of the intervention when it started there were only a thousand dead libyans from the conflict and by the time the intervention ended eight months later there was something on the order of ten to forty thousand dead libyans so the intervention which was supposed to save lives actually cost lives and if you look at it from a strategic standpoint it's potentially even worse this intervention in libya because the overthrow of the government in neighboring mali and now the northern half of mali is occupied by islamic extremists that are allied with al qaeda and this is now seeping into neighboring in the neighboring needs air so we went from a country in libya that was actually our ally at the time and now who knows what libya is going to be and the neighboring countries are now our enemies so it's a disaster but you asked are there any interventions that work and actually i was in liberia this summer doing research that's one of the few interventions that actually worked and you probably don't even remember it it's two thousand and three

and the reason you don't remember it is that there were only about two hundred u.s. troops in the country for about two weeks and what really worked there was diplomacy and that's the element that that the obama administration seems to have forgotten in syria they just think that by aiding the rebels encouraging the rebels condemning the government that everything's going to just wind up fine and doesn't it takes hard work it takes hard diplomacy ok ryan if i can i can we can change the subject slightly here i mean you said that the united states should lead but maybe the international order should change i mean why should the united states always be leading ok the cold war is over ok we have a different world order coming into being but the united states still wants to lead maybe it should change. well personally i'm not willing to let people be massacred while we wait for that world order to arise we should definitely work with international partners but i don't think that we should wait on the united nations when you have russia and china on the un security council to get stuff done as for a living you have to consider the fact of how many libyans were going to die absent

intervention i mean the conflict wasn't going to just what was orion but the war was over the rebels no more libyans were going to be killed it was truly truly been ghazi and i think it would have ended there i really don't let me ask you a question ryan if no here no they don't say forces were. going head alan ask you but ask your question again go ahead go ahead if gadhafi forces had not massacred libyan civilians in any of the other cities that they recaptured why would they have massacred civilians in the last city of benghazi that was that was not going to happen that was propaganda by the rebels to get the west to intervene you know what it work they play this for patsies you want to reply to that right now i think if you look on human rights abuses. centers where they said they were going to hunt down every rebel and every closet in benghazi i mean qaddafi was a madman there were there was going to be an iranian but there again i fully agree that you know you were going to see every interesting that you listen to you took

him seriously once ok he had a long history of saying crazy things george jump in. he wasn't crazy about us i was so yes like i was just because he says you know he says something that in terms of rhetorical overkill and. nato intervenes but in fact i mean it was all of these interventions and not just on libya the united states neglected any kind of diplomacy because he was very anxious to intervene i mean we saw this in kosovo and before that involves near precisely again while talks of massacres and genocide and so on and you know in order to justify u.s. intervention so the obama administration in syria and in libya as neglected diplomacy but it's a continuing in the long tradition of favoring united states favoring military solutions rather than diplomatic one so it's very interesting alan if i go to you i mean the whole issue of democracy isn't talked a whole lot about now because i guess it's inconvenient but bahrain was

a country that actually was. people were protesting for more democracy and then the united states chooses a side in syria that we have no idea whatsoever of their democratic or not is a matter of fact they have a lot of unsavory elements attached to them so what about democracy. well i mean i think you're right there's a certain amount of hypocrisy and countries will always pursue the national national interest first and so you know when it's the enemy of our enemy is the strategy and so we don't like assad in syria because he's an ally with iran but on the other side and it's the opposition that's shiite and therefore allied with iran so in that case we support the government crackdown quietly but i'd like to get your other point here overarching question was why does the u.s. have to play a leadership role you know why does the u.s. have to lead and i would argue the u.s. actually does have to leave this is probably an area where we disagree i think you

always have to have somebody leading the international community because it's hard it's hard to organize countries it's like for example in syria we would have to get saudi arabia turkey qatar all to agree on a concerted policy and that doesn't happen just naturally somebody has to take the lead role and only the united states can do it and if the united states decides to recede from the international stage to lead from behind in this oxymoronic obama strategy then what we're going to see is what we're seeing for example in east asia where without the u.s. being there providing stability now all the other countries are going to be fighting for their interests and it could be china versus japan versus south korea versus philippines versus vietnam we don't need to relive the twentieth century in east asia george you want to jump in on that well if i could if i could this you know if i could disagree with that i really don't think that you can have a stable of the world though with one power leading it's never been the case in the process and when the united nations was set up after world war two the idea was to have a consensus of the great powers hence the permanent members of the security council

the moment the united states decides well we're going to work with the league of nations how did that work with the legal nations george. whether the league of nations did didn't work because the leading powers in england and france were simply not strong enough to. impose their world order you have a germany and the soviet union were pretty much out of the league of nations and england and france by themselves and the united states was also out of it england france was really too weak to impose a world order but. if you don't have a leader then you're not going to get concerted action and you're going to get chaos that's why you need a leader you might not like the united states but you have what you have you know in syria what you. order then disorder georgia when you reply there is yes i agree that there should be order but the only way that you can have all the is by a consensus of the great powers and therefore respecting the rights of the great

powers and not to do things that clearly untag and eyes of them and ensure that they will always be in opposition they were united. designed or in policy to go ahead ryan jump in i'm just interested to know what great powers as he called it he feels should decide our foreign policy if we have to work with this giant consensus that he's advocating. well russia russia and china are permanent members of the security council they are huge nations they are massive nuclear superpowers they are clearly there rights and progress have to be respected nobody saying the russians should decide us foreign policy but if you are going to create a world order then you do need the consensus of the great powers and so therefore there has to be some agreement among these giant powers in the regions this is how things will be one can't just have one power deciding well we're going to have these these powers in nato or we're going to overthrow governments here and we're

just going to ignore you except when we come to united nations security council and try and get a resolution going that's a recipe for failure ok i want to change gears alan i'd like to go back to you i think it's quite interesting here is that you mentioned the pacific and north asia which i think is correct if we were talking about the greater middle east is that we've seen the map being redrawn or going back to where you used to be when we look at so carrying differences and all that because so many countries in the world are artificial their borders are artificial and were decided by outside powers do you see that unraveling given sectarian differences tribal differences well i hope not you know

they're right i mean you know the. one didn't survive because england and france were simply not strong enough to ensure that they would survive and once germany decided that they didn't want those borders and that was that after world war two the united states and the soviet union were strong enough to

say that there be no border changes but the most serious border change that taken place since world war two took place in yugoslavia and yugoslavia was clearly a case of where your border changes took place george we're going to have to talk about the order changes in another program thank you gentlemen many thanks indeed i guess in new york and in austin and thanks to our viewers for watching us here see you next time and remember crosstalk.