Skip to main content

tv   Quadriga - Trump vs. Putin A New Nuclear Arms Race  Deutsche Welle  October 25, 2018 7:30pm-8:00pm CEST

7:30 pm
and the continent of africa on the move stories about motivational change makers taking their destinies into their own hands. t.w. is a multimedia series for africa. d.w.m. dot com. well and a very warm welcome indeed to quadriga coming to you from the handsome and suddenly it seems we are going back to the future why well because of fears surrounding u.s. president donald trump's announcement that he plans to abandon the decades old arms control treaty with russia the concern is that by scrapping the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or i n f as it is known moscow and washington could return to cold war levels of
7:31 pm
hostility and new clear stockpiling so question on quadriga this week is trump versus bolton a new nuclear arms race and to discuss that question i'm joined here in the studio by three astute observers and analysts beginning with berlin based paediatrician alex rosen who's president of the german section of the organization international physicians for the prevention of nuclear war and dr rosen says a new nuclear arms race has already begun nuclear weapons are incompatible with international humanitarian law and should be back also with his asserted. journalist who writes for the los angeles times he asks all those people in western europe who are so worried about every new nuclear arms race where they've been since two thousand and eight when russia started testing cruise missiles in violation of the i n f and a very warm welcome to two hundred shells senior correspondent with reuters news agency where she focuses on security and defense issues and dread believes that
7:32 pm
president trumps decision is emblematic of this confrontational style of politics but it also has to do with growing unease about china and other countries that were never part of the treaty. being their own quadriga today i'd like to begin with you andrea and i would like to ask you. as a you know you sleep just a little bit less restfully these last couple of days since president trump's announcement that he's going to scrap the i.m.f. treaty absolutely i mean i think that we are in a situation now where so many of the institutions that have shaped the post cold war era are being called into question and and there is a lot of concern all over the world i think about the framework that kind of kept nuclear weapons in check being eroded and i recognize really clearly recognize that other that this treaty is outdated and needs to be updated
7:33 pm
because there are so many other players now that have developed these sort of shorter range and intermediate range missiles but we you know it doesn't seem like the right thing to be doing to be backing away from such an important treaty elise rosen give mortons are saying is there and i don't mean this question for frivolously at all is it time now to start building bunkers in the darkness people not so long ago was actually did or we are seeing in fact a return to some of the cold war dynamics to the cold war rhetoric on both sides of the of the atlantic and this is extremely worrying for us here in germany here in europe because we know that in the case of military the military confrontation between the u.s. and russia this is going to take place here in europe and that was the reason why in the one nine hundred eighty s. there were hundreds of thousands of people in germany in europe protesting against
7:34 pm
the deployment of of these intermediates range nuclear missiles and for europe that is safer without these missiles and to go back to that time just seems like an absolute folly at this time where we are moving towards a more. secure and unsafe a world what we need right now is not less peace and security architecture not less international treaties but more and we would actually need the leaders of russia and us to sit down at a table and discuss the problems that each have with their i.n.f. treaty both of them are accusing each other of violating the treaty but this needs to be discussed in negotiations and not through threats or ultimatums very comes from how serious is the situation the new york times says that people in europe in the united states a coaling at a cold war that has already begun to emerge has that kind of talk well i mean i think the cold war began in two thousand and fourteen with crimea so you can go
7:35 pm
back a bit further in two thousand and eight russia started installing these cruise missiles in western europe as well so that the treaty has sort of been not really in force for quite a while now i mean i sleep just as well now as i did it was a week or two ago i have no problem sleeping i don't feel any more afraid now i think trump is a very transactional character a pret transactional president he likes to do deals i think this is the first law in a negotiation process that will probably lead to a new i.n.f. treaty with china this time china wasn't a player thirty years ago china is a very big player now so i think this is just an opening lob in trying to game to get a deal he loves deals he wants to do a deal with both china and russia he's not canceling the treaties talking about canceling it this is a process that will take a long time i don't think people need to start building their bunkers yet you got to hear jim clancy why is he come out and why no. he's been told by his advisors for a long time that russia's been violating the treaty obama wanted was telling russia you're violating the treaty nato has talked about this is well this is just this is
7:36 pm
not just a trump thing i know in germany people like to jump on trump and criticize him for everything happens but this is been going on for a while obama also raised the same issues perhaps with different language obama was considering scrapping it as well it's not just. i think it's important to say that the u.s. military has had growing concerns about chinese military activities for many years now i think around two thousand and seven the chinese destroyed a satellite outside of us as head of the the earth's orbit and that was a real wake up call because it demonstrated a at a tendency on the part of the chinese and really a doctrine to develop weapons systems of all kinds that could be used to assert chinese power and really since that time there has been growing concern in the u.s. particularly and that you know that rhetoric or rather the discussion of the
7:37 pm
concerns about the i.m.f. treaty also come kind came in that period afterwards so it's really not just about russia's violations it's also about this deep seated concern that u.s. military advisors have that they you know backed out of a treaty with the treaty basically backed away from the development efforts but that other countries were not bound by that and so it's china and iran and korea and other countries have been working on these weapons systems that could be very dangerous indeed and need to be brought into a treaty the question is whether the kind of you know the stamp your foot and big stick policy is the right way to get to a treaty that encompasses more signatories. i completely agree and i think we're making two fundamental mistakes in this in this discourse in this debate internationally the first is where we are again back to playing the blame game russia is accusing the us of breaking or violating the spirit of the treaty by
7:38 pm
installing anti-ballistic missiles around russia also in poland and in romania land based missiles that could also break the i n f whereas the u.s. is accusing russia of combining land based missile launchers with intermediate nuclear nuclear missiles and while there's no actual proof of any violation there is definitely the situation that we all feel that both countries are not acting in the spirit of this agreement so what we should be doing instead of playing the blame game is we should be looking towards solutions what are the possibilities to salvage and to improve this important piece of security architecture and the second mistakes that i think a lot of us are making in discussing this topic is we're looking at this problem solely from a military strategic point a few who has a right to according to which treaty to place which kinds of weapons of mass destruction where whereas we should be looking at it from the point of view of humanitarian law which clearly states that the type of weapon that was designed to
7:39 pm
target the civilian population is in clear violation of international humanitarian law of the geneva conventions and should be banned and this is the process that the world is in right now. to to actually get this nuclear weapons ban treaty that was issued in two thousand and seventeen ratified and get it to become active and to work with it and not to go back to a world where countries were threatening each other with the use of weapons of mass destruction against opposing civilian population ok many people argue that the i.n.f. treaty is obsolete and has been so for a long time before most europeans it's the cornerstone of the security let's go back a little bit in time. by the late one nine hundred eighty s. the cold war was winding down in one thousand nine hundred seventy u.s. president ronald reagan and his soviet counterpart mikhail gorbachev signed the
7:40 pm
so-called i am after eating it band both sides from owning and constructing land based intermediate range nuclear missiles with a range of between five hundred and five thousand five hundred kilometers the nuclear arms race was finally over. and two years later the garden wall fell. though several years earlier and despite widespread public opposition new intermediate range nuclear armed missiles had been deployed in europe as part of nato one thousand nine hundred three double track decision. this determined stance from a western perspective was needed to force russia to agree to nuclear disarmament. but is the i.n.f. treaty still fit for purpose. no i think we've already agreed that the is it alex rosen case now finessing the treaty or is it a case for you of banning nuclear weapons altogether well i don't think it's one or
7:41 pm
the other we have a very complex architecture of security here in europe that has developed over time and has ensured that nuclear weapons have not been used in europe. and this is this was the anti-ballistic missile treaty which the u.s. left in two thousand and one this is the i.n.f. treaty we have the o.e.c.d. we have the nuclear proliferation treaty and all of these treaties play a vital role but that does not mean that they are the final goal of nuclear volition what we really need is the realisation that nuclear weapons finish and violate humanitarian law and that just as we've done with other weapons of mass destruction chemical biological weapons land mines cluster ammunition there needs to be an international agreement. and to get rid of these nuclear weapons and this does not happen overnight it takes a lot of confidence building it takes a lot of. intermediate steps and getting out of
7:42 pm
a vital part of the security architecture here in europe is definitely not the right way towards a world where it becomes possible to negotiate about reducing and abolishing nuclear weapons this is what we must see regardless of how we view the i n f as a treaty and. you know i just wanted to say that i think that we are in an environment where you know eric just said that president trump is very transactional so that the question is what forms of leverage exist right so. both russia and china are have they have tremendous economic problems coming at them the chinese economy is slowing russia has had many many financial issues that are starting to really bear fruit and are certain to result in some protests even against good ten. so perhaps the savvier thing to do would be to sit down at
7:43 pm
a table with the leaders of russia and china and to say look you know the global economy is that problem you know they can be a debt instead every can making argue that donald trump has walked into a trap that he has suggested scrapping the well he's giving the russians these two society it was that they scrapped the goods and scrapped the agreement yeah i mean as he said it's going to be a blame game going around but what he described as a very utopian world would be nice to say ok no more nuclear weapons and the russians will just dismantle others the americans and it was not going to happen in our lifetime anyway i don't think that's going to happen that we're going to be scrapping nuclear weapons everywhere unfortunately they're here to stay they're going to be here and i think people the united states agree totally with trump you have to be tough with with the russians you cannot just let them violate the treaty for eight years or ten years and do nothing about it as as a member this has been talked about for a long time in the u.s. . you know letting them go on by by violating the treaty with no consequences just
7:44 pm
was going to work anymore. i think we're in the in the nuclear evolution movement or used to. the word naive when we're talking about or utopian ideas of a nuclear free world but what we must always say is it is equally naive if not more naive to believe that the status quo of hoping that no country uses nuclear weapons of hoping that no accident happens no hacker. we see that in the past during the cold war there have been several dozens incidents where the world came very very close to nuclear annihilation and if you asked the people responsible back then the militaries the politicians they unequivocal all agree that it was locked and divine intervention as they call it that nothing happened so this is not a system that we can rely on for future security either we get rid of nuclear weapons or they get rid of us and the question we must ask ourselves what's the
7:45 pm
realistic the most practical and realistic step by step approach towards a world free of nuclear weapons and we believe that just as was the case with other weapons of mass destruction we must first create an environment and a public discourse that views these weapons for what they are weapons of mass destruction that violate humanitarian law and then we can begin discussing who is actually profiting from these nuclear weapons which companies are producing them which banks are funding these these. these companies which governments are using and deploying nuclear weapons and how is their population viewing this and there's huge majority in all of the nuclear weapon states that oppose the continued use of nuclear weapons so we should approach the problem from from an activist from a civil society point of view and really talk about human security and not about military options for using weapons of mass destruction. yeah i mean it all sounds
7:46 pm
really good if i just i just don't see it happening what body is going to leave this the un the veto powers there's always the veto at the u.n. security council it just isn't going to happen is it what is going to happen. hopefully it'll be some sit down and will be a new treaty with china involved and it will be another thirty years or twenty years of relative security this is actually a real opportunity for europe there i mean it's an opportunity for europe to get unified around something that is the very near and dear to the heart of the european because we're talking about a shorter and medium intermediate range missiles that could reach here i mean that was why the i and have treaties with negotiated in the first place because because it was so it was so much in europe's interest so europe if it could finally unify around some issue could act as a kind of a counterweight to say to ok guys let's have a reasonable discussion about this and let's work out something that includes all of the threat these these threats you said hopefully and this is exactly the point
7:47 pm
i think it's it's very telling that the people who are promoting or applauding the step to get out of the iron if by a by the u.s. government are always saying well we hope that afterwards will sit down with the chinese we hope that something better will come along we hope the russians will react this way whereas i think the more responsible approach from leaders and from a strategic should be to really sit down and think what is realistic how can we realistically negotiate a better treaty and what what what we feel needs to happen you said europe needs to come together i think also the german government has a very big responsibility to play because we host nuclear weapons here on our soil u.s. american nuclear weapons twenty of them are positioned here in air base and we are part of nato we're part of the nuclear umbrella and we are part of threatening russia with the use of nuclear weapons at the same time we are being threatened by
7:48 pm
nuclear weapons so we have a role to play we have a voice and the german government should not stick to its previous position that as part of nato in the nuclear umbrella we always have to oppose. russia we have to show strength but to act as an intermediate between that is really just a delusion you think it's something you know our systems i mean i think i think germany has had that intermediary role and city has tried to preserve it you know and it's really at odds with the u.s. government on a number of issues including for instance the north stream to gas pipeline project which i from a german perspective is a critical element of that policy of continued engagement with russia so i would say that the german government however effectively has really tried to keep the door open for dialogue both with russia and with china in trying to sort of continue to be pretty able to play a role as a as a sort of
7:49 pm
a mediator if you will. the question is what structure can that conversation take place in and that's where it's really you know it's incumbent upon those countries that are the biggest players that have the biggest stick to get over that jump over their shadows and get down and down and get down to business and do it but the thing is we're i mean for the past decades we've always talked about the nuclear weapons states as the ones who have the responsibility to solve these problems while ignoring that the entire world's population and the the other one hundred and eighty five countries also have a vital stake because they are the ones that will be affected by a nuclear war and what i can with an international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons has done for the first time is to give these countries a voice and to look not only towards the nuclear weapon states for solutions but to look at the mall to multilateral organizations like the united nations for leadership and for the countries affected by
7:50 pm
a nuclear war to step up and say we are no longer prepared to be bullied and to be pressured by the nuclear weapons states were saying they need nuclear weapons for their own security. but we would not become safer with nuclear weapons this argument just does not hold no country in the world becomes safe from nuclear weapons nuclear weapons threaten the security of the world does it take a shock yeah just just before we continue let's go let's go back a little to what presidents trump and putin have actually been saying in the last couple of days and we can see this good discussion about who is leading this this issue. speaking macarthur from france and that his government would again start developing into media at range nuclear missiles if russia does not agree to a new treaty. where that one step stayed in the agreement and we bought it greatly but russia is not fortunately on to the agreement so we're going
7:51 pm
to terminate a break but we're going to pull out. by president putin countered that nato is missile defense science in romania could easily be used to launch us new cannot cruise missiles. this way the us is in fact leading to the destruction of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty constantly searching for some violations from outside and consistently doing it themselves the same way as they have consistently want tom leaving the antiballistic missile treaty. trump versus putin a new showdown in europe. vs putin eric and the chinese in the equation as well how are they going to be brought together these free antagonists of presumably their own self-interest i mean i think all three countries are enjoying the fruits of the prosperity of the world trade and they'll
7:52 pm
they'll want to work together i mean you mentioned earlier people are applauding trump pulling out of the i.m.f. i don't think anybody applauded i think people understand why the us after so many years of violations is threatening to pull out and talking to pull out because trump wants a new deal he wants an updated modern deal that reflects the reality of twenty eighteen in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven. is going to happen any time soon i mean we're talking about the two gentlemen now meeting november eleventh in paris well look back a year or so ago all the fears about south korea north korea with the missiles being launched there nobody thought trump was a was out of his mind. and all the sudden they're talking and they're not shooting missiles anymore i mean trump is a whole different kind of character as a whole different style given the chips i mean sometimes his unorthodox way of getting deals and getting conversations in the go do lead to deletes results and united states he's extremely popular right now just the us for a few weeks and there are states he's doing really really well the blue wave that
7:53 pm
everybody was putting into the midterms is disappearing the senate is going to probably stay in republican hands perhaps even the house it's a real shock so trump's policies work and sometimes he is successful the economy is booming unemployment is a fifty year low give him a little bit of the benefit of the doubt and is this is this a rerun of nafta with trump first of all saying i'm pulling out of the number to go shaking a rewrite of what some of the korean peninsula with threats being made and then be gauche ations beginning that we singled out again is that i think that is that they have been hurt but we haven't seen that happen for instance on the climate change treaty where he did pull out and on the iran it's taken a very long time to sort of move on to the next step it's just not happened yet what. again i think that you know have a strong europe could could really help in this case and i think a lot of people around the world are waiting for the chancellor here to put a strong europe but europe appears to many as peter would this been used in recent days quite often europe appears helpless so just with the current situation you
7:54 pm
have you are europe seems like a potential battlefield but not much more in the kind of current debate like this really is that it could be an opportunity i mean sometimes politics works for shocks sometimes you know in this case this this isn't unexpected and mean the u.s. is than expected to pull out of the i.n.f. treaty for quite some time and so there's been a build up to that perhaps what it takes is a recognition that now it is time for another player in this case europe could be that player to step up and say. now it is time let us convene and. having these principle players that are involved in these agreements. you know i think sometimes politics takes that shock and you know president trump has perfected the art of confrontation as a sort of opening salvo for negotiation in this case i just don't know the. more likely to be the leaders of europe people of all the people of europe taking to the
7:55 pm
streets who are going to create a new dynamic here there are a lot of problems right now in within the u.n. within the european countries i really feel that the civil society movements in all of these countries need to supports sensible measures. more security in europe rather than less security so i do see both as having a responsibility to export their incomes are going to leave it right there because further we're going to some we've been discussing today trump versus proceeding a new nuclear arms race question blog thanks very much for joining us come back next week bye bye
7:56 pm
7:57 pm
what keeps us in shape what makes us sick and how soon. my name is dr carson the i talk to medical experts. watch them at work. and then discuss what you can do to improve your health. stay jews and let's all try to stay. calm d.w. . be our fighters want to start families to become farmers or engineers everyone of them as a planet. the children who have always been the voice
7:58 pm
and those that will follow are part of a new. they could be the future of. granting opportunities global news that matters d. w. made for minds. of. the first little to say twentieth century. the war to end all wars cost millions of lives. the marks the hundredth anniversary of. what has humankind learned from the great more. obscure the beasts real
7:59 pm
peace and impossibilities the be . nineteen h. not for god to w.'s no member focus.
8:00 pm
playing. this is you don't use live from berlin u.s. investigators raised to track down suspects behind a string of mail bombs intercepted across the country ten explosive devices were addressed to well known democrats and c n n the latest two former vice president joe biden and actor robert de niro a vocal trump critic for new york city and with twelve days to go until america votes in midterm elections we check in with one of the many women trying to change u.s. politics stinks.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on