Skip to main content

tv   Quadriga - Trump vs. Putin A New Nuclear Arms Race  Deutsche Welle  October 26, 2018 8:30am-9:01am CEST

8:30 am
marks the hundredth anniversary of it. what has humankind learned from the great loss. as it learned anything about. nineteen eighteen not forgotten the w.'s november focus. alone a very warm welcome indeed to quadriga coming to you from the house of berlin and suddenly it seems we are going back to the future why well because of fears surrounding us presidents donald trump's announcement that he plans to abandon the decades old arms control treaty with russia the concern is that by scrapping the
8:31 am
intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or i n f as it is known moscow and washington could return to cold war levels of hostility and new clear stockpiling so question on quadriga this week is trump versus potent a new nuclear arms race and to discuss that question i'm joined here in the studio by three just to give observers and their lists beginning with berlin based pediatrician alex rosen he's president of the german section is 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 us is there a curse from all thirty journalist who writes for the los angeles times. 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 miss.
8:32 am
in violation of the oh yeah and that and a very warm welcome to the two hundred shelled out senior correspondent with reuters news agency where she focuses on security and defense issues and i'm dread believes that president trumps decision to spend but amount you can use confrontational style of politics but it also has to do with growing unease about china and other countries that were never post of the treaty. which will threaten being there according to today i'd like to begin with you andrea and i would like to ask you whether you will 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 had a 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
8:33 am
nuclear weapons in check being eroded and i recognize really clearly recognize that other that this treaty is outdated and needs to be updated 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 so it's risen give more to say is there and i don't mean this question through frivolously is it time now to start building bunkers in the garden as people not so long ago will essentially did 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 a military. military confrontation between the us and russia this is going to take
8:34 am
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 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 in secure an 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 of this needs to be discussed in negotiations and not through threats or ultimatums erika's from how serious is the situation the new york times says that people in europe in
8:35 am
the united states a calling it a cold war that has already begun to emerge is that public talk well i mean i think the cold war began in two thousand and fourteen with crimea so you can go back a bit further in two thousand and eight russia started installing these cruise missiles in western europe as well so 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 french 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 lobbying 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 your jim why is it why has he come out and why now. he's been told by his advisors
8:36 am
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 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 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's been growing
8:37 am
concern in the u.s. particularly and that you know that rhetoric or rather the discussion of the 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 i think we're making two fundamental mistakes in this in this discourse in this debate internationally
8:38 am
the first is we're we're again back to playing the blame game russia is accusing the us of breaking or violating the spirit of the treaty by 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
8:39 am
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 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 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 their security let's go back a little bit in terms. by the late one nine hundred ninety s.
8:40 am
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 so-called i an after treaty get banned both sides from owning and constructing land based intermediate range nuclear armed 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 berlin 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 as nine hundred eighty 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
8:41 am
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 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 and 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 evolution what we really need is the realisation that nuclear weapons per definition 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. to get rid of these nuclear weapons and
8:42 am
this does not happen overnight it takes a lot of confidence building it takes a lot of. intermediate steps and getting out of 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 ins as a treaty and. 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. in both russia and china are have they have tremendous economic problems coming out 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
8:43 am
against clinton. so perhaps the savvier thing to do would be to sit down at 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 and he's given the russians the excuse to say it was them they scrapped the goods they scrapped the agreement yeah i mean as he said there'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 in the end 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 united states agree totally with trump you have to be tough with with the russians you cannot just let them violate the
8:44 am
treaty for eight years or ten years and do nothing about it as as a member this is been talked about for a long time in the u.s. . you know letting them go on by by violating the treaty with no consequence it just 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 use nuclear weapons of hoping that no accident happens no hacker. reaches into the nuclear launch codes and that all governments are always sane and all military commanders are always responsible in their use with nuclear weapons that this will continue forever we see that in the past during the cold war they have been several dozens incidents where the world came very very close to nuclear annihilation and if you asked the
8:45 am
people responsible back then the militaries the politicians they unequivocal all agree that it was luck 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 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 a huge majority in all of the nuclear weapon states that oppose the continued use
8:46 am
of nuclear weapons so we should approach the problem from a 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 really good but 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 there will 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 that i mean it's an opportunity for europe to get unified around something that is the very near and dear to the heart of european because we're talking about shorter and medium intermediate range missiles that could reach here i mean that was why the i and after a day was negotiated in the first place because because it was so it was so much in
8:47 am
europe's interest so europe if they 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 that these these threats you said hopefully and this is exactly the point 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 we 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
8:48 am
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 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's 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 the islamists it was a new thing it's under our system so i mean i think i think germany has had that intermediary role and so 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
8:49 am
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 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 the jump over their shadows and get down and sit down and get down to business and do it but the thing is we i mean for the past decades we've always talked about the nuclear weapon 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
8:50 am
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 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 can see the 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. from
8:51 am
france and that his government's what it can start developing into mediate range nuclear missiles if russia does not agree to a new treaty. where that one said it stayed in the agreement and we bought it great but russia is not fortunately on to the agreement so we're going to terminate a baby we're going to pull out. by president putin countered that nato has 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 are constantly searching for some violations from our side and are consistently doing it themselves the same way as they have consistently want tom leaving the antiballistic missile treaty. trump france's putin
8:52 am
a new showdown in europe. versus putin american and the chinese in the equation as well how was i 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 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
8:53 am
the 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 and they go shooting dually does deletes results in united states he's extremely popular right now just the us for a few weeks in their states he's doing really really well the blue wave that 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 in the number of negotiating a rewrite of what some of the korean peninsula with threats being made and then to go she asians beginning are we seeing a lot again is the 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 deal it's taken a very long time to sort of move on to the next step it's just not happened yet
8:54 am
what. again i think that you know have a strong europe could really help in this case and i think a lot of people around the world are waiting for that chancellor here quite a strong europe but europe appears to many has been a would this been used in recent days quite often europe appears helpless faced with the current situation you have you or europe seems like a potential battlefield but not much more in the coach and 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. leading these principal players that are involved in these agreements. you know i
8:55 am
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 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 some sensible measures. more security in europe rather than less security so i do see as having a responsibility to act quickly and comfortable enough to leave it right now because further we're going to some we've been discussing today trumbo says for a new mukilteo question thanks very much for joining us come back next week.
8:56 am
8:57 am
clock because life on. the sea a judgment midfielder thomas to name his own work comes from the team's come success has most of the movies crush the fighting spirit. he tells us how he managed to control his temper and speaks of a troubling diagnosis he was given as
8:58 am
a trauma. surgeon. we make up oh but we watch was a hoax that kind of education we ought to some of the seven percent. name want to shape the continent's future. part of a good number in youngsters as they share their stories their dreams and their challenges going to the seventy seven percent of the platform for africa during. the. climate change. wished. the pollution. and isn't it time for good new eco
8:59 am
africa people and projects that are changing no one far meant for the better it's up to us to make a difference let's assume other. people and for employment magazine. long d.w. . where i come from we have to fight for a free press and was born and raised in a military dictatorship with just one to the shadow and a few newspapers with official information as a journalist i have worked on the streets of many counters and they have problems are almost the same for doing the social inequality a lack of the freedom of the press. corruption work on the floor to stay silent when it comes to the fans the humans and see them live through foals who have decided to put their trust in us. my name is jim curtis and i work
9:00 am
a d.w.i. . here . this is d w news wise from barclay who is behind a mail bomb plot aimed at critics of the u.s. president. u.s. investigators search a postal facility near miami as they home in on the culprits and they're warning more bombs might be out there also coming up a breakthrough in relations between japan and china as the leaders need to repair
9:01 am
ties that do strange despite ongoing tension and no need to search for gold. gold coast me to for.

33 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on