there is no. evidence any problem with genetic engineering when you make a deal. or is free cheese. the . golden rice. hello and welcome to cross talk we're all things considered i'm peter lavelle dangerous entanglements and contradictory alliances if the us has honestly hostage to its many client states how well do these client states and alliances serve

america's national geo political interests and is washington overstretched its foreign policy commitments. to cross-talk america's foreign entanglements i'm joined by my guest john glaser in washington he is a contributing editor at antiwar dot com and a columnist for the washington times community section in new york we have he is an associate professor at the city university of new york and the co-director of the middle east center at northeastern university and in los angeles we have nick hancock he is on the national outreach team for the tenth amendment center all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it john if i go to you first you recently published an article the danger of entangling alliances and you ended by saying the fiction that every corner of the earth is a vital us interest and the consequent state of perennial fear. or together make

unnecessary conflict more likely and that is the great danger of entangling alliances why did you write that what does it mean and why now well i wrote that with the fact in mind that we're coming up on the hundredth anniversary of the first world war and as any first year college student can tell you what really cause that global conflagration was a small scuffle. in the balkans and what would have been a relatively small issue in terms of global conflict turned into a world war primarily because of a system of alliances which made the greater powers beholden to the interests of smaller powers and that's a great sort of illustration of a lot of what u.s. foreign policy is today we have alliances all over the world because of a grand strategy that has been implemented especially since world war two that

seeks to dominate the world and so all of our interests according to people in washington rests in every nook and cranny of the globe and we end up. paying the governments of smaller nations and arming them and making sure that they are allied with us but it ends up in tangling us in conflicts that are none of our business ok dive in new york would you agree with that or disagree entangling alliances just too many and it puts us interests all over the world at risk well i think certainly there is a danger of being overcommitted to allies but i think at the moment actually far form like precipitating conflict the opposite danger is that many of the us his longtime allies are now questioning the degree to which they can rely on the united states and that might actually encourage them themselves to take more perhaps risky action than they would do if they could rely upon the united states so i think

while you know john is certainly right to point to the example of the first world war two in my decide the danger that alliance is composed in that they can drive countries such as the united states into conflict i think alliances can also be a source of restraint such that countries be they japan for instance or saudi arabia or israel the more that they can rely on the united states the more that they can trust the alliance with the united states perhaps the less likely they are to find themselves in complex i think alliances can also be a source just quickly respond to that states a source of stability ok john i'll go to you first and i'll go to nick you want to rebut that go ahead john so you know this issue of alliances causing countries to have more restraint is belied by history what's going on right now for example in the asia pacific is that the united states is boosting military and economic support for its for all of china's neighboring rivals so if you think about for

example the maritime in territorial disputes that the philippines has with china the philippines has been you know pushing out its navy and provoke. king chinese naval ships and china has been doing its own kind of aggressive actions as well but in a normal situation the philippines which is a tiny tiny nation would never be so bold as to challenge a rising regional great power like china the only reason they're doing so is because we have a security agreement with them which says they will come to their defense if they ever get in a conflict with china and you know this is beneficial to us because we want military bases in their lands and we want to actually project power to check china so look this is a this is a clear example of where an alliance can actually make the smaller power far more reckless in its actions and lead to lead to action is they could actually create

a war that nobody wants ok nic if i go to you in los angeles do american on a smaller let me get to this first time ok nic how would you weigh in from what we've heard here because we we've heard from john that a client states can be of very much a downside for a country like the united states and some of those countries have already been mentioned we can think of israel pakistan saudi arabia i mean that's a very interesting mix when it when you look at it from washington go ahead nick in los angeles interesting to say the least and i read john's piece the danger of entanglements he uses a quote from george washington's farewell address that struck me and that was that when a nation is when a nation has an alliance whether it's one dependent on its affection towards another nation or a constant warring relationship that it is reliant on its animosity the affection of the animosity and that making that nation

a slave and that is an idea that we have to revisit that even if there is so-called positive benefits of alliances ultimately these these alliances in slave the country beyond any any requiem of constitutional resolve of how the country carries out its foreign policy so. on on that we have to look at fundamentals and fundamentally the united states has gone far away it's a bizarro world turned upside down in our foreign affairs that we don't follow the constitution we don't follow the advice of the founders and that's why i'm on john's side ok alliances being dangerous or not they're inherently dangerous ok i don't want to this to be two against one so i doubt you can jet you want to yeah you want to rebut what john had to say about the when he had to say go ahead. yeah i'd like to just. yeah just to just to go back to the point that john was making

but while it may be true in the case of a country a small state like the philippines it may i think he has a point that it may well embolden them let's let's take two potential flash points to it two areas where we can really imagine a conflict one japan and china and the other israel and iran and let's ask ourselves imagine a situation where the united states wasn't involved united states hadn't made alliance commitments to either of those two countries would the risk of a greater or lesser in in those situations and i would argue that in certainly in the case of the tensions between japan and china which we've seen lately the east china sea that it's precisely because of america's commitment to japan that the japanese have have been restrained in fact i would argue that japan's post-war pacifism has been as a result of course of its ability to rely upon the united states for its security and the united states is

a moderating influence in the relationship between china and japan and similarly if we turn to the tension longstanding tension but particularly over iran's nuclear program between israel and iran i mean it's quite apparent that israel may well have taken military action against iran's nuclear program were it not for the restraining influence of the united states so i think john is right that in some cases small countries can fill in bolton and that's really a question for the united states to ensure that they don't but i think in some of these major areas of tension in the world u.s. its alliance commitments have had actually been a source for stability one and just to reiterate my earlier point i think one of the great dangers that we're facing in the world today in going future going forward is that many countries many long time u.s. allies are beginning to question to the extent to which. they can rely upon the united states that worrying about the us is what they perceive as isolationist

tendencies in the united states and this i think is a far greater danger going forward than the united states being overcommitted to small countries ok john if i go back to you in washington i mean israel has been brought up and so has been iran i mean it's real in saudi arabia that are blocking a potential breakthrough in diplomacy between washington in turn i mean these alliances or stopping a very i mean you know this is a great debate about iran but this is an opportunity in front of us should alliances be that barrier shouldn't be resolving regional issues. look that's that's exactly right the united states has some of the old and to its suppose it allies in saudi arabia and israel that you know we have this possibility to have an actual detente with iran and it's clearly within our interests because the other alternative is that isolation and tensions continue down the line and we have

supposed allies like israel advocating war just as they did in iraq and you know that that's that was a real possibility if we didn't have some willingness on the part of the leadership in washington and tehran to get together and talk that's clearly within our interests and our supposed allies saudi arabia and israel don't want to happen and they've been loudly objecting. which is which is sort of silly they're supposed to be our weaker allies our client states according to washington but for their own reasons they oppose iran and it's contrary to our interests this is another example entangling alliances if we follow our own interests we'd have a much more peaceful middle east and i think that the the united states would be less and less interventionist in a policy because oftentimes we intervene on behalf of the wishes and wills of our allies and that's that's interest ok gentlemen we're going to go to

a short break and after that children we'll continue our discussion on dangerous entanglements stayed with our to. receive them. they all told me my language as well but i will only react to situations as i have read the reports so unlike the players i know i will leave them to the state department to comment on your latter point of the month so it's ok as a car is on the docket. no more weasel words when you have a direct question be prepared for

a change when you have to punch be ready for a battle for the office speech and a little bit on the freedom to costs. fact that. they were going to go did you know the price is the only industry specifically mention in the constitution and. that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy correct albus. in fact the single biggest threat facing our nation today is the corporate takeover of our government and i was proud cynical we've been hijacked trying handful of transnational corporations that will profit by destroying what our founding fathers once all just i'm tom mark and on this show we reveal the big picture of what's actually going on in the world we go beyond identifying the problem try rational debate and a real discussion critical issues facing america to find her job ready to join the

movement then walk a bit to. speak the language of the. program she's documentaries in arabic it's all here on all t.v. reporting from the world talks about six of the p.r.p. interviews intriguing story to tell you. in troy arabic to find out more visit arabic don't call me. you know the medieval. times and. welcome back to cross talk we're all things are considered i'm peter lavelle true

mind you were discussing dangerous liaison's. ok don't like you back to you in new york early in the program you gave us one side of the coin john gave us the other side of the coin when it comes to entanglements you want to rebut what john had to say before we went to the break please go ahead . yes that's what i'm i mean there's a couple of points that i have to take issue with first of all i think the example that john was mentioning about the. israel and iran and saudi arabia in actual fact the fact is that despite saudi arabia and israel's obvious opposition to the recently signed geneva accord. the interim agreement over iran's nuclear. program the united states went ahead and signed the accord even though it was very apparent that saudi arabia and israel were not happy about that so i think the fact that the united states has conducted under the obama administration diplomacy with iran in

fact has done so secretly for the last. for over a year and is now signed an interim nuclear agreement and is intent to hopeful to sign a comprehensive agreement despite the concerns of saudi arabia and israel i think indicates that in fact the united states has pursued its own interests in the middle east and continues to do so i would point to another example where the united states pursued its own interests in the region with regard to egypt the united states you know albeit somewhat reluctantly but did ultimately support the overthrow of hosni mubarak in egypt despite the fact that again israel and saudi arabia were opposed to that so i don't think i think it's wrong to imagine that somehow u.s. foreign policy in the middle east at least is entirely beholden to israel in saudi arabia certainly those are countries whose interests and concerns the united states takes into account but not to the extent to which it limits america's freedom of action as we see in both of those instances i think with regard to. that i know we

want to get on the computer they had a ok hang on i got to get nic in here ok because there are three guests here nic would you like to weigh in on that because it. had to say about iran and in egypt that's part of the record let's keep make that clear but at the same time there are forces. capitol hill that are heavily influenced by up certain lobby and other lobbies that want to obstruct any kind of diplomatic outreach to iran that's i would say it's still very early days when it comes to the american detente with. go ahead weigh in nick how much weight can you really put behind the interim agreement with iran i don't put a whole lot of faith behind that maybe i'm a cynic but i am going to wait and see on on the iran situation it has been going better than many of us had expected and we are hoping for the most peace possible

so if that goes forward then that would be great but that's not you know that that's not to forget about the u.s. constitution i have to bring it up again because when we when we talk about when we talk about. you know the idea of whether or not alliances are inherently dangerous you know how we go and we have the real world today that we're that we're faced with and we're not going to break up these alliances we're not going to change u.s. foreign policy by having a well mannered discussion about it the only way that it's going to change is people in their own states people in their own local communities changing it and i would just say that people have to take a look at the war powers in the constitution and and take a look around you take a look around you at the warfare across the planet and understand that the u.s. constitution has nothing to do with that and if we want to fundamentally change if

we do believe that these alliances are dangerous in the warfare in the killing that they lead to are dangerous then we have to go to basics and go to square one so i would advise americans to take a look at the defend the guard act and understand that twenty eight percent of the deployments to iraq and afghanistan were of their own states national guard troops if people took. control of their foreign policy in creative ways on the local and state level and then washington d.c. you know with the aid of maybe another edward snowden type episode or more leaks or liberations of documents then that's when you'll start to see washington d.c. change its foreign policy but not just based on you know a debate on pros and cons of the ideas of alliances in real politic people have to get involved in take back their foreign policy and americans americans shouldn't have to pay for all of these alliances and you know foreign entanglements. in

and how much they have paid in debt and in blood that it's not worth it in the american people have been shut out from this the only way that they can take it back is through the state and local level first ok john i mean it's interesting what nick had to say there because the american people did speak up when it came to syria when obama was threatening to attack the country doing this uproar you know in but it seems to me people got better educated because my sense and in media americans are not very well educated when it comes to iran when it comes to israel when it comes to saudi arabia. no americans don't know much at all about foreign policy and that's been true for a long time it's been called often times isolationism that goes back to you know centuries past but it's really it's really sort of more concern with the you know jobs and domestic issues the knowledge of foreign affairs is scant.

you know and dog of mentioned at the beginning this shift towards isolationism i really don't see that i mean yes after a terrible horrible illegal murderous and costly war like iraq or before it vietnam you know the country tends to say ok let's step back from that let's step back from those excesses and focus on the home front that's that's natural and it sort of ebbs and flows but it's it's hard and it's hard really to say that the united states has shifted in an isolationist direction we still have you know a thousand military bases but it doesn't you know all around the world. before before you jump in i just want to rebut something that you said i know we don't want to go back in the conversation but you know you talked about iran and the fact that we we went ahead with these discussions and negotiations despite the objections of israel and saudi arabia yeah that was after almost forty years of

isolation we had many many countless opportunities to come to an agreement before that and we didn't primarily because we were beholden certain interests that were not our own you know in this cause all kinds of horrible things i mean right now the iranians are suffering under the one of the harshest sanctions regimes in the world that economic warfare of a very severe kind where people are not being able to get food on the table in their currency is iraq eating they can't import the right kind of medicines i mean it's terrible what's happening in this kind of suffering just one example of it never needed to happen because we could have had a detente decades ago but it was it didn't happen because because of the u.s. relationship and and behold in this to do saudi arabia and israel ok down to new york we had jump in. well i think first of all i think your character the characterization of us irena relations is a little bit simplistic there have been periods of time touch lee i mean we just

think back to the opening of the war in afghanistan where there was tacit cooperation between the united states and iran in the overthrow of the taliban have been other periods of cooperation and a bit i think a relationship has slowed it's has been largely won by tension and i think that's largely because in part because of the kind of traumatic legacy of usa rainy and his history particularly the hostage crisis from the united states and the us is in the overthrow of mohamed masonic but i think it's basically because of american foreign policy in american interest america had decided once the islamic republic was established that it wanted to contain iran and its pursuit of policy not because simply because john suggests it's been in the interests of saudi arabia and israel but because it's how america how the united states has defined its own

interests now that may be wrong that maybe john may think that that is. that's been the wrong policy and i and i think in some cases he has a point but i think we shouldn't blame whatever flaws or errors we see in american foreign policy on its allies that is really i think an excuse to let washington off the hook i want this is as well we. mean and correct ok joe may know it may be john if i get. out of time here but you know john some would claim that the u.s. has the wrong now as we look in the middle east i mean before the state of israel the u.s. didn't have any enemies in the middle east and now it has many. countless number of enemies in the middle east now and that's not and that's not to cast aspersions on the state of israel but i mean if you put all of your eggs in one basket. it's bound to be a blow back to you and this is what we've seen over decades well the relationship with israel is problematic in a lot of reasons not just suited to do with regional issues but also you know we

pay them three billion dollars every year and we give them all of our you know highest tech weapons technology and so forth and yet they space if we spit in our face when we try to. broker negotiations between israel and palestine and they do things that are clearly outside the wishes of the united states like continuing to build settlements. you know and the u.s. continues to support them even even with this sort of defiance but i want to go back to something bob said and i we do agree that part of this this is a small issue that we're talking about in terms of entangling alliances and the terrible things that can occur because of them a lot of this is domestic us foreign policy and you know the the perception of people policymakers in washington what they think is the right kind of foreign policy. the global domination of the world this is essentially been the u.s. policy since world war two and especially the middle east where the united states

wants to maintain absolute gemini and make all the other powers as weak as possible unless they're behold and that's their they obey our demands like israel is sometimes you know this is this is one small aspect of an overall grand strategy an overall foreign policy towards the world that is problematic and yes there are also problems with the united states is perception of foreign policy so on that we agree ok on that note on what note of agreement thank you very much gentlemen many thanks to my guests in washington new york and in los angeles and thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time and remember crosstalk.

you cannot preemptively restrict your freedoms because of the fear of what something or how something might be used everything that has ever been developed has been used for a bad purpose baseball bats which are fun for you know for baseball players to hit balls you know they've also been used to be people today i mean we cannot restrict ourselves because something might be used in the wrong way. mentally sixteen percent of imports came from illegal fishing. the european union is ironically taking fish from some of the poorest nations on earth so this is a very serious and very urgent problem that needs immediate international action.

on foot to enter our territorial waters they fish they load this fish into the ships and leave for europe. to do illegal fishing just taking the bread out of our mouths. millions around the globe struggle with hunger each good. what if someone offers a lifetime food supply no charge. against g.m.o. and we think that. the more they fight. the war. there is no. evidence for this any problem with genetic engineering when you make a deal. or is free cheese always in

a mousetrap. boards came from. the european union is taking fish from some of the poorest nations on earth so this is a very serious and very urgent problem that needs immediate international action. waters they fish they load the fish into the ships and leave for. illegal fishing just taking the bread out of our mouths.

full of. technology innovation all the latest developments from around russia we've. covered.

iraq's prime minister urges al qaeda fighters in control of key towns to give up as the militants enjoy a rise of influence fueled by the war in neighboring syria. the army's greatest threat the u.k. military is disconnected from the public who apparently don't understand what it's actually for and that's the claim coming from a parliamentary watchdog. and russia's sledge hockey team prepares to make its debut at the upcoming paralympics meet the captain's family to find out where he's drawing his strength and inspiration from our top stories this hour.