glory, so because you know why i have a certain sympathy for this, for this nostalgia and this yachting for the past incense i consider myself to be. and the for last year i did, there was certain aspects of the so soviet multinational site, i still find a bunch more on those on the stores, auto dot com coming away. now, while the part to this one, to enroll is one of angler marcus advisors. if i can join ah, who's diagnosed with cancer in 2000? when the doctors told me the cancer was incurable, i knew i had to make a change. so i decided to travel to one of the most toxic places in america. florida. one of florida is biggest industries and best kept secrets is phosphoric

mine in the biggest player is $85000000000.00 industry. is mosaic, and i, there are reports of millions of gallons of contaminated water now flowing into the florida aqua for my. there's the chronic. i don't want to hear that word poets name, but that's what it is. i'm in 2013 my uncle, our family dog, my brother, who is 21 years old, myself and my father. and we're all guy with rob problem with the whole and the good way. yeah. maybe they'll actually we're, that far hill is more important than ah,

a welcome to worlds apart. from the earliest days of nation states, security, it has been the most critical and the most controversial in europe. and while ensuring it provided both prosperity and development, it has also condemned millions to that death with russia now openly rejecting the post cold war security arrangement is another round of confrontation on the continent. a safe bet we'll discuss it. i'm now joined by christophe toys in a long time adviser to german chancellor anglo merkel. and like the chairman of the munich security conference message is great to see you. great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. it's

a pleasure to meet them to be with you. the minute security conference is one of the top platforms for discussing difficult security dilemmas. and your chairmanship comes at a time of the most accurate disagreements. good. been russia and the west over ukraine and a host of other issues. i wonder why would you even want this job? what are your aspirations? no, my aspirations are exactly for the reason that the unique security conference was established and that is talk, talk and meet. and discuss them the new security conference off chris this opportunity we are very fortunate to have had over the last years a representatives from over the world. and we are very happy to have president so as irregular for

unique. so we're looking for it again under the condition that the out a real meeting very much. because this is one of the problems i think we ought to experience in official, in our private life that we don't have enough conversations. person. oh, well i think that's been a lease of our challenges or their time being given the scope of problems that exist been at russia and the west. i you said in the recent interview which figure that you have eliminated the term be well from your vocabulary. what do you have replaced it where we all remember the east west confrontation calling for the cold war ended in 19891999. and since then we don't have more and we all have to have

a work that is not confrontational. and what i hope is that i know that if there is something from the, from the past, what right now, it should be the orientation line is the international space, order it in the charter, the united nations, the universal declaration of human rights. and what, what should be the orientation and not the thinking in that category of the last century? well, you're being very and diplomatic in this interior, but in your interview, the speaker, i think you were why more direct than you said the it's a little bit about a dispute between the west and the east, but between states that up here as you start to rules based international order to the united nations charter to the universal declaration on human rights. and those

do not cool or what are those do's and don'ts? don't the wasn't the security council between 999 and there we have a place that was built after the 2nd or 2 to build, to maintain peace and security. and there we regularly criticize those countries. and among the permanent members of the security council, or charter of the united nations, we couldn't find is the united states for a embassy there because it's violating a un security council resolution. we criticize your country, russia for the invasion of ukraine, because this is also against the un trucker. and so this is what we criticize and

we say, please obeyed by international law. go and accept binding security as well. you make it sound that you disperse this criticism evenly in fairly, but from the other interviews, i got a sense maybe i'm mistaken, but i got a sense that you tend to associate germany with one group of countries who supposedly respect all those and norms of behavior. and then there is another group of countries, presumably russia and china and all the rest who supposedly don't. is that the wrong impression on my part or you do believe that germany is sort of associated more with the forces of good and my country happens to be more in the category of that a close 2nd or area. and you know, after one journey due to the rest of the world with the 1st word reset,

or we're 20000000 russians the hands of germany. we committed after the 2nd world war 2 from owners law. and this is enshrined in our constitution. and this is trying to do day after day a lot. we do it here. you know, we are in your opinion, all this period piece in the history of europe and we know resolve our problems in the european union. we don't go to the to the european court of justice and that's what we say. it don't go to war, but go to go to the court of justice. and this is what we preach. please give me an example for germany here to that printer. well, of course,

i have a couple of examples here, and you mentioned your experience of growing up in, in germany and in my professional experience, a cover the number of conflicts including the conflict in libya. as you perhaps know, in that particular case, the you and mandate was greatly overstepped by some of your closest western partners. it's true that germany on that particular vote voting on the resolution 1970 me, abstained and found itself in the same group with russia and china and voted against the preferences of let's say, franz, the united kingdom, the united states. but that war, preceded, known to last and trend a relatively stable and prosperous country into essentially a failed state. i don't think we can argue over the fact here. so it is just interesting to me whether again,

germany tends to associate itself more with the western camp, even if you don't like the word class, despite the fact that it's been western countries primarily that have been responsible for most of the conflicts as a plate. no, thank you. thank you very much for this example because it shows you know what i tried to say. and as you write it in 2011 when there was a security council, a resolution for many turn to mention. and some time set this up to write the phone, see a would be due on the country is that we now with our reputation and we have a lot of credibility in the region. why do beginning of last year

a that actually led to a situation where now we have a cease fire and yeah, i think we have a certain political tract. unfortunately, there are still people who are not hearing also to the sanctions and come back to what we're very even handedly i remember april 2019. when her story is offensive, we try to get a security, a press release, condemning it, and the americans. now today when you look at the situation, is your country right for a v a and we are a lot

in the wrong, wouldn't get all these we would, we would be in a much better situation despite being a very vocal advocate of arms embark on leave in germany itself has supplied weapons to countries that are intimately involved in that conflict. b, egypt or some other neighbors. simply b i, b, b. we're talking about more than 300000000 euros in arms shipments to those countries in this year alone. but i want to ask you a slightly different question because the more strategic that you will have to be dealing with this, you know, said arms in 2 areas of conflict, we supply our store in natural predators and otherwise we don't supply. and yes, we supply to eat, by the way, russia also get

a lot of troops to buy them with some navy material. and there is no navy cost in the, in the country to libya are on the side of egypt. so we have not delivered weapons to any of the parties engaged in the company. you have not deliver them directly. there is no direct delivery on to, to the country, to your country that is directly involved in that sense, to walk, to commit crimes with the walk moves in violating international well. and that has to be proven in the court of law unless you believe yourself a document where russia officially is criticized for sending the militias to libya. so it says not to be proven. it is proven delivery and intervention without any doubt created a host of major security challenges for the european continent from on regulated

migration to human trafficking, to elicit drug trade. and it's pretty clear that the content will have to bird and we have to deal with those issues when back if it's not for centuries to come. you like praising and germany for abstaining from that crucial vote on that. but don't you think that germany could have done and should have done more to persuade its western allies to persuade its western partners from using that force in such distractive and broadly consequential way? because that intervention 1st and foremost came back to haunt europe. yes, i mean i here with you a series you that this was not the best actually, this is why we are staying with that. look at the end of the intervention as you, as you rightly say,

it was a, you remember in 2011, the situation was very bad. there was a civil war, you know, going to, this is true, was marching into what would have happened if the intervention i have not. we don't, i don't think that the time when you look at the, you know, when you look what was right. i think it would be the big instability in the, in the country anyway. and what we have to do is jointly see to it that we stop that situation and see to it that you know, the suffering of the people as well. i'm better with all due respect. i was on the ground in guys the back. and then i know that many of the western reports were simply full about the killings and the abuses by the army. that was just a lie. manufacturers for the sake of their vents and putting that aside,

you said that there was a need to come together. and indeed, the international community seem to come together. and russia did not vote against that resolution. china did not well, because they have spain. they seem to be willing to join forces with the west for the sake of peace and see what they got out of it. country destroyed, and major migration last night. major instability, no malicious running all around the continent. do you think that was just a misfortune or do you think that could be some strategic last sense, drawn from that effort on the part of russia and china and you know, many to work together with the west on solving a conflict in a country. you know, i, i really say no to west. i do agree with you on what you said before. it's reason to sit together and work together and see on,

on how to live. yeah. can you meant it? you know, this is coming back to your opening question. this is what the unique situation is also about. people come together, we have our chinese partners community, and i don't see how we can resolve what i can for me. what i said earlier to this, the best thing to resolve conflicts is go by the rule of law and say, what international law it says about situations and follow for international. well, ambassador, we have to take a short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments station. ah, who

our special good day in the legendary fire sign, author of planet pansy. mitch. nice to see the all the ah ah, welcome back to want to point with just point again elected chairman of the munich security conference ambassador just before the break, we were talking about the rules based international order. and in fact, you use these terms or rules based international order and the un charter interchangeably as if they were synonyms. but legally speaking, they're not because they signed and ratify. the un security chart there,

where is what you call a rules based an international order is really in the eyes of the beholder, or in the eyes of the most part. why do we need our rules based international order? when we have international law isn't, isn't it easier and less than big used to just comply with the letter we have to be in the university, right? i see documents, you got documents that are worse catastrophe. and i think this is based on, based on, you know, the un security council resolution adopted, but also that on treaties, we've also been notified yet. this is all the information based order. so in previous august, you all to that. so this is,

this is for a, let me also turn around and say on, on your credit, you know, we started with on ukraine. we had, this is part of the roof space international order. we have a rush are guaranteed to richard sovereignty and integrity of ukraine. and you gave up its nuclear weapons in return, and then russia invaded ukraine. and despite the fact that this was a good of this memorandum, was by officially transmitted to the security council for to or that was a lot today, the foreign minister and russia is finally run every day.

ambassador, you make it sound as if a russia, as you said, invaded the ukraine, because it had nothing to do. but you know that the security situation, any crane, i was very intimately connected to russia, security interest and would have passed. memorandum is not the only document that it was broken and russia is not the only side that broke a previous arrangement. there were many promises given to russia with regards to nato enlargement. after the cold war. they were also many promises given to russia by the german, many of the german politicians who are pretty open about it in that memo or is that the berlin wall will not be moved to the virtual girl in will not be moved ever closer to russia, but this is one of the things that i also wanted to ask you about because i'm sure the korean conflict is something that you will have to deal with

a lot. once you come to the chairmanship of the minute security conference, you were one of the architects of demons, graham, and you negotiated it on behalf of germany on behalf of angle america. or do you think that agreement still stands a slight chance of being implemented? there is when you look at the text again, it's it exactly a 72 hours for a cease fire to to start. the problem was that after 2 hours, the russian course is continued their take on the, on the, on the strategic point because they were not able to conquer that during the time that you were given. and this is a basic flaw that the ukrainians and then we went to the product. you're so sick

with russia didn't do the 1st thing. we don't trust it then it was draw heavy weapons for. ready the never did that and so it was very hard to convince the ukrainians to do their cars. i still believe that the ministry agreements are the agreements that the basis but it has to be on both sides and both sides have to so the ukrainians have to do there. but there is the country that was evaded. so therefore, they have to trust the russian that the russian and we see that on b c monitors that have also been a good base in the wrong. they are everything there they have to do their job. they cannot go to the order with rusher and control the shipment from russia to do that. so there are many, many flaws on the russian side. and then it's difficult to convince you can say ok

or to, to do your, your site now. and that's one of the reasons why the ukrainian country has been so difficult to solve is because it's, it's such a complex. * next to all our cultural, economic, security and political military considerations which are ultimately routed in the post cold war realities, all their debilitated militarily and economically debilitated. russia. and since you don't like the term west and expanding neighborhoods, expanding nato, despite all the assurances that were given to moscow by the german leadership, at the time of german unification. now, these realities, this is something russia is no longer going to accept. it will of provided security whether they wore the west once it or not. but i wonder how does this look? do you think post cold war security arrangement is still viable?

when you go back in the, in the ninety's. there was no longer the cold war. in the ninety's, there were nato, the european union grew stretching out there had to rush her and all of that for me . and so the republics and they were agreement signed were on cooperation. and so there was not this confrontation and it, we came back into the consultation with president putin when he took off it. and there are no creek is there is nothing in there is the tricky where it was said that nato cannot expand beyond if you, if you specific issues which have to do with the drum unit cation and, and now there's one thing that i would like to highlight because it said that, you know, nato is reaching out to to ukraine and when one of the major fights.

busy chance america had with president bush junior, was in 2008, this so called booker it summit. at that stage, the united states actually wanted for georgia and ukraine to get nato membership to start the so called membership action plan. and it was germany that stop that and then said, no, we don't want to do that because these countries will not add to the stability of nato, which is one of the prerequisites in the, in the nato treaty. and there is no move towards you credit membership. there is a respect this intervention on the part of germany and chancellor in particular and did not the united states from supplying weapons to ukraine are

sending its military advisors or from interfering very rudely in the ukrainian politics. we may argue about the facts and waste our time on that, but i think what's, what's important to rush or send weapons to, i mean, we just talked about libya and sent weapons into libya is against international law . there is no provision that prevents the united states to support your crime militarily. it's not, it's not, it's not with by talking about international law. we're not talking about the feelings of people here. and this is something that has to be ready. that has to be talked about, that if you rush or withdraw its troops on your crane, i'm sure that there will be no that there would be a solution. but you have to remember it was russia and the aggressor rusher that violated the good of this memorandum that we just went, should i don't want to renegotiate history here. let me ask you

a specific question. a question that relates directly to the meaning security conference and your mandate in these are going to zation because as you know, a few days ago, the kremlin, very directly asked for certain security guarantees, legally binding security guarantee from the united nations from the united states rather and from made up against further expansion. and i know that this, this question, this request has been criticized by many in the west as a totally impossible or excessive. but the vital administration did not dismiss it out of hand. and in fact, they seemed to be quite open to further negotiations with russia on the issue of strategic stability. i want to ask you, what is there to negotiate? as i said at the very beginning, and you repeated that, and there's a point where we agree. it's always better to, to talk and discuss and see where the interest, where can we,

where can we meet the interest? how can we come to a conclusion? i think that one of the big deficits of the big problems of the corona crisis has been that the people have not been able to meet. i mean, your president has hardly left the pre chinese president has left the country and the american president hardly left because they're not enough. me think that the russian president, the g 20 meeting and christian and this is, this is detrimental. we have to have meetings in person that we really hope that munich will give an opportunity when, for instance, the to foreign ministers to attend beauty that they can talk to each other and discuss these, these issues. i think it's very good. i agree that the, i don't criticize that the americans are ready to talk with their, with their russian counterparts, while ambassador we have to live in there,

but i really appreciate your time and i wish you best of luck in this very challenging endeavor. yes, no, thank you very much. it was very kind of you to, to interview and i like the open way that we discussed it. so all the best to you and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on walter part. ah me me i a european nations ahead by reco daily code numbers while protests and you.