tv Up Front 2017 Ep 33 Al Jazeera November 11, 2017 5:32pm-6:01pm AST
six years of sit would be confronting that evil for quite some time now it's important for the whole international community that we continue to apply joint. iraqi forces have launched an offensive to capture one of the last remaining areas on the ice and control in the country to infantry divisions and suddenly tribal forces are carrying out the operation and province it's believed isis fighters are holding ten thousand civilians hostage in the town of. eleven asia pacific countries have reached a deal to form the basis of a free trade pact with the u.s. they struck an agreement to revive the trans-pacific partnership on the sidelines of the apec summit in vietnam that have been tense between police and protesters and the australian city said hundreds of people criticize the treatment of refugees at a recently closed prison camp on a man a sign and they demanded the refugees be resettled in a strange. history in government has lost its parliamentary majority off to another politician was forced to quit because he may hold dual citizenship conservative
m.p. john alexander resigned after discovering he might be a british citizen making him an eligible to sit in parliament. those are the headlines on al-jazeera do stay with us up front with the house and is coming up next thank you for watching. a mass exodus hundreds of thousands of have fled ethnic cleansing you mean mar for bangladesh one of the world's poorest countries when used investigates what their future holds at this time on how does iraq. as president donald trump sends more u.s. troops to fight the war in afghanistan the i.c.c. prosecutor is calling for an investigation into war crimes in that country so how complicit have afghan authorities been this week's headliner former president of afghanistan hamid karzai.
thanks permit cuz i thanks for joining me on up front in august u.s. president donald trump announced his plan to escalate the u.s. involvement in afghanistan america's longest ever war and to send more u.s. troops to fight the taliban you tweeted that you strongly oppose this new u.s. strategy that it's quote against the national interest of afghanistan how is it against the national interest of your country to have your allies sending you more troops to fight the number one threat to peace in your country the taliban the afghan people or second tired of war in whatever name that may be. when we welcomed the united states of afghanistan in two thousand and one the afghan people. for the first time accepted and supported and welcomed
foreign military power in the hope that finally will have peace and stability and for a number of years that was true but when attacks increased. violence increases. terrorism increased and no clear picture was offered in fighting it rather it was the same old thing of afghans continuing to suffer. we are by now very tired of the daily killing of the afghan people but the u.s. government would say that they're sending more troops now for the same reason that they sent troops in the first place in two thousand and one to defeat to fight to beat the taliban the taliban are the cause of the violence in afghanistan they would say not us troops they are not there not anymore the only cause of violence in afghanistan the war itself is breeding violence in afghanistan hamid karzai the
last time i interviewed you on this show in twenty fifteen you said and i quote i wish the afghan taliban who are truly from this country would come back to their own country and would help rebuild afghanistan and bring peace turns out the taliban has returned today that group controls the contest more than forty percent of the country the most amount of territory since it was driven from power by the us in two thousand and one the taliban is now carried out more than eighty attacks against innocent afghan civilians just this year alone i'm guessing this isn't the kind of taliban return you were hoping for yes exactly i want the taliban who belong to afghanistan who are afghans to come back to afghanistan and to. sit down with their own people and bring peace to afghanistan and through that bring the stability to our life that we need forty percent of the country or in the past three years. have fallen in the hands of the taliban that to speak for the failure
of the u.s. strategy in afghanistan. u.s. feared in afghanistan because. they did not target the sanctuaries they did not go to the sanctuaries to the sources of training and nursing and financing terrorism the rather on attacking afghan advantages afghan homes afghan children they created prisons in afghanistan they violated afghan sovereignty in every imaginable way the way they behaved in afghanistan the havey handed military behavior in afghanistan caused the afghan people's alienation in that in a nation is bringing about the troubles that we have you mention u.s. heavy handedness and the killing of civilians by the u.s. and the continuation of war but what about your own leadership you were president of afghanistan for a decade at the i.c.c. prosecutor the international criminal court prosecutor has just announced she's requesting an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed
in afghanistan going back to two thousand and three and in the i.c.c. is twenty sixteen report they said they had a reasonable basis to believe war crimes of torture and related ill treatment by afghan government forces did take place let's be clear that was on your watch as president of afghanistan yes yes yes he is right she is right to launch such an investigation that is exactly why things have gone wrong of ghana standard violation of the lives of the afghan people that's exactly why i've begun to have differences with the united states and with their heavy handed approach do you agree that there were human rights violations by afghan security forces while you were president we are aware of them at the time definity there were violations by the afghan security forces by the u.s. . and by others and that is exactly the reason that i'm asking for peace in
afghanistan but do you take responsibility. in the bilateral as head of israel to us do you take responsibility as head of state at that time for those violations surely surely very much very much i've spoken about this before i have issued instructions on this before i've issued instructions to our intelligence department or toward defense department told to internal the minister of interior repeatedly. in cabinet meetings through written instructions how could we be so much in trouble if there were no violations in that's exactly the pain of the afghan people for the past thirty years violations of the hands of our own governments and violations perpetrated by foreigners it is this that must end definitely we have to we have to we have to go to those roots in order to have peace in afghanistan if the i.c.c. whereas if you turn to our values after you personally you will cooperate with or you'll be willing to be interviewed give evidence etc of like hell of course of
said oakley well come in and i have been asking for this to so that they come to afghanistan and investigate as to what has happened in this country how much because i can i just clarify for the sake of our audience at home this is obviously a big legal and political issue when you say you welcome the i.c.c. investigation like hell you'll cooperate with them you know you'll you'll definitely cooperate with us are you saying you admit to guilt in relation to war crimes that took place on your what you're saying they did happen or are you saying yes let's have an investigation but you're not sure what happened no i am editing more honesty and an upper hand and on the high ground on morality in this issue ok i want those who have done it to take into account are you one of those who did it as the commander and one of our forces form at the time no no no i'm one of those who who stood against it. ok we're really and clearly and in writing and that is the issue of difference between the united states on this issue
and that is where things went wrong between us many human rights when i. told you at a time early on torture when they were going to do what it was going on abuse was going on and your government did nothing that's what a lot of human rights groups would say no no they're wrong they didn't kill me i told them ok i told the western human rights bodies as to what was going on in afghanistan ok they didn't tell me they were hiding it the western press was hiding it i told them i did it i mean there are human rights watch report from that time where they documented in two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven what was going on they would heavily dispute your claim on this and. exactly these reports were did these reports were based based on my state been so on my on my struggle against violation of ghana stand. by by a by the u.s. forces and their allies in here sure ok just turning to pakistan in august u.s.
president from called out pakistan for providing safe havens for terrorist organizations including the taliban your current president ashraf ghani agrees he's called pakistan the biggest obstacle to peace last time you were on this show you claim that pakistani militia forces were behind terrorist attacks quote unquote inside of afghanistan just to be clear you disagree with trump and garney on more u.s. troops but you agree with trump and garney on getting tougher with pakistan. yes i do agree that we must engage more effectively with park stand but president trumps recent tough stand against pakistan is not related to extremism or terrorism or violence in afghanistan here afghanistan is used as a pretext to put pressure on pakistan because of the larger issues that are not related to afghanistan immediately it is for this reason that again i oppose this because it uses afghanistan in
a big game for some what it does interest with pakistan we have our differences we have our issues yes a lot of violence has come to afghanistan from pakistan but that is an issue that we must address directly and pakistan at the u.s. and others must help that issue not to use us as a pretext for it or your confrontation region because a you told me on the show in twenty fifteen that isolate afghanistan has no ground here at all there is no element there is no medium for them to grow or rise or strengthen and yet just this year i salute carried out more than twenty attacks inside of afghanistan afghan officials say there are more than fifteen hundred eisel fighters on the ground in your country do you think you spoke too soon no no what time meant there was the they are not afghans that they are foreign created foreign nurtured for a foreign purpose. that they are not indigenous to us but they clearly have support
now inside of afghanistan they don't have any support inside afghanistan they are clearly funded by a broad and for a purpose related to abroad you mention abroad you've accused the united states of being behind it and you have said quote i do not differentiate at all between diet and america you've said icily is quote a us tool and that unmarked military helicopters are supplying eisel in afghanistan do you have even a shred of evidence for what are pretty controversial and inflammatory claims turned the evidence a server in the fact that they are there in spite of the us presence in afghanistan to fight extremism. emerged under their watch but would have ghana's time is completely other their air surveillance but that's evidence of yours is a qualia you notice again in the war alive without that's not an indication of us complicity you're claiming complicity of the us and isis are working together which
is a big clue we have more than that look we have suffered so much in this game that that never immoral being will be able to deny that extremism is a tool in the hands of the united states they did it when we were fighting the soviets the same tool they do using it in a bigger way now today just to be clear are you claiming that president donald trump is working with isis in afghanistan. well these are these are inflammatory statements that you're trying to make me make i'm not here to make you said i couldn't tell you i have a i do not different direction america they get unmarked military helicopters yes sir your claims not mine they're your influx of yes and yes i am saying that but i'm not going to link prison trying to this i mean this is this is a linking individuals i'm talking of
a system. therefore for me to link an individual is not the right thing ok let me rephrase the question then is the trump administration the u.s. government working with isis in afghanistan in my view and did the. presence surveyed in. military political intelligence that has emerged and for two years the afghan people came cried out of their suffering of violations nothing was done and then they drop a bomb the biggest non-nuclear bomb on our people in the name of fighting and the next day takes the next district in afghanistan that proves to us that there is a hand in it and that one can be no one else but them in afghanistan if that is not the case i will go back to my original statement to you live to come back to the
afghan people to see that their fate. then we will sit down with them ok in really draw a map of cooperation with the benefit of hindsight how many cars are looking back sixteen years on from nine eleven in the original intervention do you wish the u.s. had never intervene militarily in afghanistan after nine eleven that they'd never gone to war with the taliban to topple mullah omar's government do which afghans maybe had tried to do it on their own without us without foreign involvement or support oh oh on this question of us having been able to do it on our own of course a million times i wish they had not come i wish we had not been been naive enough to invite them then at that time thinking that they were going to bring good to us we as a people are very grateful to the help that has been given to us which we consider help where our hospitals are belt where our schools are belt where our
roads are belt word life has improved we're very grateful to the american people but you cannot tell me the type of giving you money so i have the right to bomb your house and if i complain don't bomb my house my house you say well does not gratefulness we differentiate where we are helped we are grateful were bombed imprisoned hurt we are not grateful we stand against it how many karzai thanks for joining me on our front. thank you good to talk to you us. this month the u.s. government released an exhaustive scientific report on climate change so i do humans is the dominant cause of global warming so should we still be optimistic about humanity's ability to combat climate change earlier i spoke with andrew
freedman senior science editor at mashable and david wallace well the author of a controversial new york magazine article titled the uninhabitable earth which paints a pessimistic doomsday scenario for the planet i began by asking david why he chose such a fatalistic approach my goal was to do a survey of the sciences best understanding of worst case climate scenarios so what i did was i took the un's projection for. what was their median projection for how warm the planet would get without human action to halt emissions which is about five degrees and i took their projection for the high and of how warm the planet would get by twenty one hundred if we took no action which was about eight degrees and i took that to a series of scientists with special to use in certain subfields and basically asked them what those temperatures would mean for their areas of expertise what it would mean for agricultural production what it would mean for heat stress what it would
and he says were pretty dire. they were and you know i want to be clear here i think i was in the article although some of my critics missed it that what i was presenting was really a were absolute worst case scenario survey and one of the things i wanted to do was show readers how the spectrum of terrifying possibilities could unfold let me put that point to andrew friedman and you're a science writer who spent more than a decade covering climate change in your view what are the odds the chances of all this all much of this actually happening of the earth becoming partially uninhabitable by the end of this century for example as david has suggested or is this is some of david's critics have suggested or just climate disaster pulled. you know it is very unlikely is it theoretically possible yes. but i would say you know that that's sort of gets to be my essential criticism of the
piece and i think what was a lot of people's criticism in the climate community which is that it didn't really get across the probabilities of the scenario that he was presenting so i have very little problems with the dire scenarios that he presented in the sense that here's how they would play out i don't think that he you know made fundamental mistakes in how those scenarios might play out however the reader comes away from that piece feeling terrified and not understanding really what the likelihood is of those terrifying outcomes versus somewhat less terrifying outcome or even and you know more manageable i've got to let me ask you this a lot of people when they do look at climate science will read stories about climate science you know they come away thinking oh it's bad because we're going to have rising sea levels or because we could have a bit more extreme weather few more hurricanes what's wrong with simply making the
public aware of just how bad things could theoretically get in. i don't know that there is anything technically i don't know that there is anything wrong with that i think you can ask the question of whether or not which approach is more effective in communicating the issue and what exactly is the value of focusing so much attention in a magazine cover story and thousands of words on the worst case scenario it's a little bit like if i was doing it t.v. weather forecast and i said there was a fifty five percent chance of six inches of snow and you know a two percent chance that we're going to get thirty five forty inches and have the city crippled for days and i went on for the entire weather forecast and just talked about the crippling scenario i want to come back to underage point he made about what's the best strategy for changing people's minds i want to come back to that in a moment before i do just on your piece there was
a flurry of all to go to david responses from respected climate scientists criticizing your approach and even some of the science behind it for example a very well known climatologist michael mann co-wrote a piece critiquing essay entitled doomsday scenarios are as harmful as climate change denial and he argued that the piece was undermined by exaggeration even in accuracies what's your response to him. well i think there are basically two issues one is the sort of narrow question of the scientific validity of the piece pre-shared andrew said earlier he doesn't take any major issues with that i that's my position then there's the kind of bigger question of what sort of writing about climate terrors is responsible or productive in terms of raising alarm about climate change it just doesn't seem plausible to me to look at the public and their understanding of climate change and say that climate fatalism is a bigger problem than climate complacency i think that while it's true that in the
ranks of advocates there is the problem of burnout and people do drop out and get discouraged i think when you look at the public as a whole it's just very very clear to me and honestly i don't see a counter-argument that the public is not alarmed enough about what is possible and not motivated enough by that alarm to take political action to do in response to that you know is climate to thehotel is i'm a bigger problem than climate complacency i think they're both big problems neither one of them is necessarily a solution i would prefer like climate change real is i'm here you know the debate in the scientific community is between this is going to be quite bad manageable in some ways but on manageable and others versus this is going to be very very bad there is very little discussion and we can limit this to extremely low levels where we're not really going to have to readjust as you and
where you've written i've yet to meet a pessimistic climate scientist is not part of the problem that scientists are either too cautious or maybe even too complacent and therefore they're not the best communicated of that you do need someone like david to come along and shake things up. you know i think that's not a bad argument and i think that you know regardless i was torn about this piece in some way it's because i read it and i reacted to it in a piece that i wrote and then i watched all the other discussions pour in and there are so many valid points being made and i think that climate scientists scientists in general tend to be terrible messengers about their work there are some that excel at it but too many of them talk about uncertainties before they talk about more confident conclusions ok and i think that that can be a drag on the public debate sometimes and just to just to pick up on that for one
quick second the question of uncertainty is really important you know and you mentioned earlier that my piece didn't have any probabilities of probabilities and it which is true and you know i would have liked to include them one one issue with coming up with them is just that there are so many uncertainties baked into all of our climate models but also our understanding of what kinds of action humans will take but we tend to as a public as a lay public we tend to take uncertainty as an excuse for i would say complacency and i think that if there are reasons to believe that things may not get as bad as scientists expect that they will rather than understanding that that uncertainty works in the other direction too and they could be considerably worse than scientists expect and one last question to both of you isn't the problem that the human brain told by lots of sun this is why i had to respond effectively to long slow moving threats like climate change were far more afraid of short term losses not long term losses not abstract threats is there
a way that climatologists and science writers such as yourselves can get through to people better communicate more effectively to make the public wake up and take action on climate change now while sticking to the facts under yeah i think there are and i think that we're doing that increasingly with coverage of c.l.o. arise with. average of extreme weather events in the context of climate change time people you know that this particular heat wave that you might be experiencing a given day will be much more normal in ten to twenty to thirty years and here's the science behind that really connecting it on a day to day to day. steady drumbeat of climate coverage i think is going to move the needle much more than fatalistic low probability events especially when you are ignoring the uncertainties with the advocates for you know out there on the front lines every day i think they're going to get they're going to end shooting themselves in the foot if they rely on that to try to get people to do it you know
go to the voting booth and think about climate change david last word i think that there are a huge number of biases in our brains in our psychology is that prevent us from taking action on climate change one of the ones that i was most focused on in the piece was it's because the climate messaging has been so focused on sea level rise most people tend to think that's that it's something that's going to happen somewhere else to some other people and one of the main messages of my piece i hope was that this is something that's going to touch every human life on the planet in some way or another and you can avoid it just by moving a few miles farther away from the shore and therefore it's really important to all of us take action on it together just a bit would have to leave it there thank you both for joining me in the arena that's our show from will be back next week.
the sky why should be no borders up here why only horizons. as an airline don't believe in boundaries we believe in bringing people together the world's better that way. it is a right for all of us to go where we need to go to feel the things we want to fail . to see the people we want to see. that's why we'll continue to fly the skies providing you with everything we can one treating everyone how they deserve to be treated we do this because we know the trouble goes beyond borders and prejudice. the travel teaches compassion the travel is a necessity. to travel is a right for. remember that this world is full of ours to explore. and it's a strange thing for us to be apart. cats are always going places together.
it's the end of the breeding season as we take a ferry through the straits of magellan to magdalen island today the island is a penguin colony sanctuary with access to tourists accompanied by foot nine this and penguin expert cloudy old boy we learned the penguin colonies in south america are under threat climate change is one reason it is well documented that changing rain patterns or spend was to abandon flooded nests warmer ocean temperatures have diminished the quantity and quality of fish for the penguins who was swim further and further away to feed their young overfishing and ocean contamination especially plastics are also killing penguins. this is al-jazeera.