check out our website r t v dot com slash usa you can follow me on twitter at sam sachs we'll see you back here at eight pm. unexplored antarctica what is it in this icy expanse that attracts the people who come here. now i only go to the docks. and antarctica. a new generation of polar explorers is coming. we have a new group of specialists here now all of them are young how are they going to get along with each other i don't know. who. i used to be a bureaucrat. seriously. what adventures await in this mysterious land where they live what do they eat and what are they actually doing in antarctica.

one of. these. they face i think i'm going. to have you with us here on t.v. today i'm.

busy. hello and welcome across town where all things considered i'm peter lavelle the end of one era and the start of another with a lot of care review on syria's chemical weapons in play it would appear the international system is returning to some kind of multilateral order the united states indeed remains the world's only military superpower but that same power can now be put into check could washington cope with this new geo political reality. to cross-talk american influence in the middle east and beyond i'm joined by luke coffey in washington he is a margaret thatcher fellow at the heritage foundation in new york we have robert house he is a professor of international law at the new york university law school and in

london we cross to people come ready he is a writer and journalist or a gentleman crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much appreciate if you do a couple if i go to you first in london. the kerry deal for syria is a big game changer are we seeing some major shifts of sand in the middle east now. i think it's temporarily game changer but i think it sets the stage for an eventual intervention because it gives a limited time to the assad regime to surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles and i think given the situation in syria it's a very realistic deadline and the condition they're going to place is that if assad fails to surrender his stockpiles triggers intervention so i think this could rather than being a return to diplomacy that this could actually be a prelude to agree to intervention so if i can stay with you in london ergo the united states doesn't want to let go of its influence in the region. i don't think

i don't know i don't think it does ok look. lucas game changer in the middle east now i think that the go ahead. now i don't think it i don't think it's a game changer i think there have been significant developments with the kerry and lavrov deal and i think it's a positive thing that for the meantime anyway it looks like any sort of military strike has been averted but in terms of this being a game changer or the us some losing interest in the middle east i think you know it's far too early to make these sort of sort of claims you know what we saw with lover of the deal with with that with kerry is the amount of russian leverage that exists with syria so you know we might want to paint this as some great russian diplomatic coup but in reality shows like the diplomatic equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel for a show they basically tell us what to do and he does it well ok but robert de it's

a victory for international law one i'm not i'm the last person to say this is a great victory for russian diplomacy i think it's a victory for international law that's why i'm looking at a game changer that's why i'm using the term robert what do you think. i think it is a victory for international law because. there's a clear. decision. the syrian regime will bring itself under. the legal norms. for the for chemical weapons so how could that not be in itself a victory and it's especially a victory because of the commitment to ensure that there is actual compliance with. these promises so to my mind from the international law point of view it's definitely a step forward and it shows that the law is something serious looking at

the way did without significant consequences and without those consequences coming from the international community. that you suggested there you'd still think there's going to be a strike it will probably be against international law so it's one step forward one step back because i would i'll tell you i agree with their life i agree with your pessimism ok i agree with your pessimism on this go ahead. but i think it will have the gloss of international backing because if they if they invoke chapter seven in the current agreement they are putting together i don't think assad will be able to surrender his chemical weapons but i'm a twenty fourteen if you've been to syria you'll know that it's deeply divided it's impossible for inspectors to just walk about and take it to civil war weapons it's a civil war it's a civil war it's it's the notion that the syrian government will be able to

surrender its weapons as is i think very unrealistic and one of the things you have to of course remember is that. there's an intense pressure on the government and within this acknowledge within this agreement there is an acknowledgement that. assad is in charge of syria. if we can if there is going to be a strike here because i have the pick. same pessimism is couple in london i mean how could it be. you know passed as under international law because we don't have congress on board we don't have a united nations security council on board we don't have anybody on board ok. the why i don't really think this was some great victory for international law basically you had john kerry give some off the cuff remarks during the question and answer session during a press conference in london and all of a sudden we're talking about you know syria certain during their chemical weapons it's not as a result of pressure from the international community being applied to the united

states i mean look at the situation that president obama was facing no one in the american public once intervene militarily in the syrian civil war very few in congress want to get you know president obama seemed very convinced that he was still going to go through with this so you know i just don't see this says you know the american military might being checked by by the international community i think that most americans think that if any military intervention is needed in syria then it's the authority of the u.s. congress that weighs more importantly than you know a u.n. security council resolution or the international community but you know that being said i still think the worst thing that could happen out of all of this is. a u.s. led military intervention i don't think it's going to solve any problem. robert you know again you know. if you're going to have the legality of it all go ahead jump in robert. so my view is that there is one kind of military intervention

that could be justified under international law that is not prohibited by the main provision on the use of force of the u.n. charter and that is a targeted intervention for humanitarian reasons to prevent future chemical attacks and the argument for prevention is really the prevention atrocities is consistent with the principles and purposes of the united nations and it's a targeted goal that does not constitute the use of force against the political independence or territorial integrity of an. statements to it's directed surgically degrading the chemical weapons capacity however it seems to me that the burden of proof would be very high in the present circumstances i think you would have to show. that is to say that the alternative to the use of force is not working and so it's been

suggested that it will be very different called for assad to meet the timetable well there could be logistical reasons for that or there could be reasons related to lack of trust and lack of cooperation and it seems to me that if the reasons are due to untrustworthy conduct by assad then there is a stronger case for a strike targeted at degrading his chemical weapons capacity because ultimately any solution other than force is a solution that has to depend upon trust and if there is no trust what options do we have on the table it looks to me i mean i like to i like to focus on international law but i think at the end of the day if there is a strike in this whole deal is this issue iran on the other part of the americans it's because saudi arabia and israel want to strike it has nothing to do with international law i mean it would be nice if it were but it's not really in the

saudis or fieri it's the turks are furious elements of israel are furious a lot of people are furious and they still want to strike you know have nothing to do with international law you know the great tragedy of all of this is that turkey and saudi arabia were hoping to use american troops as mercenaries they wanted to bring in americans to achieve but to advance their goal that's basically which was to get rid of it which was get rid of assad especially saudi arabia which is extremely furious that the strikes haven't gone come through we know that saudi arabia has been pushing for some time for strikes and strikes against this talk about humanitarian intervention but one hundred thousand people have been killed by conventional weapons already nawal the focus will shift. from protecting people to ridding a sort of chemical weapons and they've set a timetable which is which is impossible to achieve and so they will if the eventual intervention will be to protect human lives it will be because assad has failed to meet the deadline robert you want to jump in there. well as i say i think

there could be two reasons or more for not meeting the deadline it would seem to me and reasonable to launch a strike just because there are the deadline is not been met due to you know logistical or technical obstacles and i very much doubt that the united states would react in that kind of automatic function without exploring very closely the reasons why the deadline is not being met and how one can calm as close as possible to meeting it but if the problem is that there is no trust and no real cooperation and bad faith then that sets up and it's not coincidence that i got all of here all of course there's been a saying here there's bad faith here because the obama administration said assad used these weapons and there was no evidence at the time i mean obviously there's no trust. yeah well you know every major it's good intelligence

agency in the in the every major intelligence agency in the world other than russia believes that aside use these chemical weapons i believe even the u.n. secretary general made some comments that he didn't know was recorded where he also thought assad used these weapons oh my know what did you give him for the very creative thinking something in knowing something that's what i'm getting at thinking something i mean i need something yes you're absolutely you're absolutely right you're absolutely right say and perhaps if russia thinks that the rebels that they have intelligence that the rebels did it then maybe in the same way they're calling on the u.s. to share their intelligence maybe russia should also share their intel of a sharing to tell. three talked about three months study three months let it go to the united nations you can find it ok gentlemen i have to jump in here we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on a possible multi-polar world state hard to. believe. is

a. place . to. play games a. very hard. to get along here the clock that that would that make their lives.

live. upon. wealthy british style. market. can. find out what's really happening to the global economy. for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines two kinds of report. will be the. science technology innovation all the latest developments from around

russia. the future covered. please. welcome back to cross talk we're all things considered i'm peter labelle remind you we're discussing american influence in the middle east and beyond. ok back to you in london then we've talked about international law but i think that's what's more important is perceptions here and i kind of went down the path of saudi arabia and other people other regional players here what do you think the perception is of the obama administration right now they've taken opted step back is that humiliated itself because when the united states the united states likes to use force ok and in the region it uses it quite often particularly in the last ten

years and this is the first time maybe it's you know a short break but you know for the first time the americans have kind of stepped back a little bit how is the region perceived that. i think one of your panelists said that the end intelligence agencies of all the world believe that assad used chemical weapons just before coming on to the program i spoke to officials in delhi they're skeptical about the saudi use the chemical weapons personally i believe elements within the us may have used chemical weapons but there are governments around the world which are very skeptical of american claims that these claims were made the day after the videos were posted online and they're going to claim this one bridge claim is your full claim u.s. british claims yes. indeed i'm going to shine shoes through russian television so how does it work claims well i mean you know they're ok but i'm still on the road. so the world isn't made up simply of western nations there are large nations out

there we go to your head of course the belief of there is not of course a question i'll tell you you know especially situation where you have a group of rebels who cave and do this. all of the narrow question that he has and what have the military capabilities they want to do this and what has happened. i think american credibility is a top was around the world and that was evident in the way in which the world refused to believe this claim even though i have been run from this occasion they got it wrong so many times in the past they were actually right no one wants to believe them that's a good point look what is what about you i didn't think i was it would be the best way to settle this go ahead lou go ahead jump in yeah i agree i agree with that point about the credibility i mean there are a lot of people especially united states who want nothing to do with wars in the middle east they see no value in the u.s. getting involved in syria they see little or they see no national interests in syria but you know it's a two way street you know you have countries like this

a russia or china saying that they have evidence that it was the rebels and then you have the u.s. and the u.k. and france saying well we have evidence of why no way to solve this problem why does everyone show their hand otherwise we just have this ongoing big ring competition where we have you know united nations report is all we have the not united nations report ok finally that came out of a western country that made up their minds about what happened there but then the report comes out after the fact no wonder there's so much credibility issues involved here when western governments i mean it just pointed out i mean western governments think one thing well after the last ten years look i mean don't you think most of the world's kind of skeptical of particularly after iraq. yeah well don't you think most of the world is skeptical of chinese and russian motives i mean you know russia is a country that still occupies twenty percent of its neighbor you know so one comes to reason that you know why doesn't result is a reason that i as you were americans did you learn to tell me not you know this or

to do that and if that's what it's there recognize that russia ok a truth very very well you know why don't you supply all the different saakashvili attacked south has said to you and your kind of bring this up now even his own government didn't it's not yeah that's what you're saying but you know that's ridiculous you know all right let me bring i've been using real racism you know i just went searching ok well are you satisfied are you satisfied it gets off the point of labeling it completely ok so i go ahead as robert i think we should not let me say that i agree let's go to come on guys. i think that we should not lose sight of the moral intuition. that something needed to be done after there was evidence of this massive chemical attack on the moral intuition is that you know every line in the sand we draw about the use of horrific weapons is a victory of sorts for humanity it stands for humanity now from that point of view

i think that the obama administration acted upon a moral intuition that many people in the united states and the world share but how do you get to that from that moral intuition to deciding or knowing what to do that's the more complicated thing and it seems to me about the administration did two things which were very good one is that there have to be consequences there is a line in the sand and secondly we're going to take some time we're going to go to congress we're deliberation and it seems to me it's precisely these two steps that paved the way for the agreement that is now in place and so. my point of view the administration did quite well in this situation but if you don't share of the initial moral intuition about you know drawing these lines in the sand with regard to particularly horrific means of warfare then you would never get off the

ground as it were any kind of real case for doing something about it ok because you know if we go back to the real world i absolutely agree with my degree with what about sort you know that this is in a moral imperative here but i mean again from a global perspective you know. agent orange. white phosphorus these are used by the united states and by israel i mean that really doesn't apply it only applies to countries the west doesn't like it seems to me. there are many people who would not share the view american view of its monopoly of the moral high ground but many people disagree with the view that the only option in syria is either too easy either to do something or to fold our hands and sit back there are multilateral institutions which can be used to apply pressure on the assad regime and one of the things you have to stop doing is arming the rebels that we russia

has to stop stop arming assad but america in the sleen of its client saudi arabia qatar and turkey to stop arming the jihad these in syria no one seems to be doing that there's a virtually no opposition to this it's taken as a it's taken as a great act of moral courage to people we don't know we don't know who these people's ideology is there more than likely cut from the same cloth as the men who drove those planes into the world trade center but america seems to wake up only when the twin towers come crashing down or its embassies have bombed otherwise it has its convenient allies if uses these jihad these it's willing there are many same voices in america which which see no problem. do you have these look what do you think about that i mean it's the army the wrong people god had a very good point go ahead go ahead jump in. i wouldn't i wouldn't i wouldn't give these i would give the rebels so much as a b.b. gun in my personal opinion i don't think we should be arming any any side here and

i think that you know robert made a very good point in this debate in this heated debate we lose focus on what the real issue is and you know at the end of the day i guess it's important to determine who use these weapons so maybe someone can be held account of intially but you know we have to look at the fact that over one hundred thousand people have died in this tragic conflict and that chemical weapons have been used for a girl or so by whom they have been used they have been used so we need to figure out how can we prevent this from happening in the future how do we leave some of the humanitarian suffering going on inside syria how do we really push towards a ceasefire to end. the brutal slaughter and you know how do we help countries around syria to deal with the you know refugee problems and these other humanitarian issues another putting look i think everyone on the program agrees with your mentor and i think everyone agrees with you everyone on the panel agrees with you but robert you know if you want to do that would be to stop arming the rebels small way to do that would be to stop pumping weapons into syria ok robert

let me let me go to you but we have this initiative right now ok the united states and russia has come together on this initiative on chemical weapons now we've heard on this program it could be just a false break for an assault ok because someone's going to say ah we found the smoking gun finally or and that's what the reason why we have you on the program you can go in a different direction we have a tentative agreement right now can we go to the next step geneva two point two do you think enough trust can be built up in war the civil war can be put to an end ok no one will know side will get exactly what they want but maybe the killing will stop. i don't have. any kind of certain optimism. will happen but what i do think is that. this agreement of don is that has ratcheted up

the the serious attention of the international community and international institutions. to this problem which is as was just mentioned among other things a humanitarian. disaster and my impression is that you know the the u.n. to some extent has looked the other way and there hasn't been insistence on any kind of decisive action just allow the different powers to play out their own interests in the region. i think we've gotten a little bit beyond that with this agreement but from my point of view not enough yet to you know to justify that kind of optimism but i do think it's it's a step forward out of assad behaves in a relatively you know trustworthy fashion on this then perhaps it will be possible

gradually to build up to some broader negotiations at least to alleviate the humanitarian costs of the war if not you know and all to you know peaceful settlement in the foreseeable future ok coming along and i ask you can i give you the last word what your crystal ball because it from the program i can tell it's not too bright. i think that might be an intervention of some kind limited perhaps but that i don't think assad will be able to meet the deadline and even if he were to meet the deadline no one in the west is likely to trust him on this so chapter seven will be some kind of intervention will occur eventually got twenty seconds to be fair go ahead. i hope that we can refocus the efforts on bringing a peaceful resolution to the crisis in syria i really hope that there is no military intervention because i don't think it's going to solve the intended objective and i think it could just make matters worse ok i think i think we're all going to be in agreement on that thank you very much and when we run out of time many thanks to my

guests in washington new york and in london and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t. see you next time and we member. the one. plus i was a new alert animation scripts scare me a little. league. there is breaking news tonight and they are continuing to follow the breaking news media the alexander family cry tears

of the war and great things out there that have read or cared a quarter of wall around online is a story made sort of movies playing out in real life. look. at the in. the news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. showing corporations are on the day.

of. a. what's going on guys i'm having martin and this is breaking the set so remember the n.s.a. was spying on other countries and world leaders turns out the people in those countries don't take too kindly to having their privacy invaded and now one country is standing out to uncle peeping tom resilient president dilma rousseff just postponed a trip to d.c. and protest the u.s. surveillance and now the government is working on ways to circumvent the n.s.a. altogether one such plan would require internet service providers to set up local data storage centers protected under local privacy laws and brazil's postal service is taking it one step further by developing an encrypted e-mail service so here's to hoping other countries take a cue.