tv Book Discussion on The Intel Trinity CSPAN August 24, 2014 7:25am-7:53am EDT
problem. earlier, and this also goes to one of the reasons the breakdown of the russian-u.s. relationship can you remember the balkan crisis in which the united states decided that self-determination required an independent kosovo, which was part of serbia. that was a violation of a lot of different things and the russians of us consider, i if yu go back and remember world war i, have always considered the southern's laws to be their protectors. they are the protectors of the soviet slobs. the fact that we're going to allow -- slavs. if you listen to the russians now they're saying we have the right to do in ukraine, maybe in lobby, maybe in estonia, which he did in the balkans. because we have russians living
there and you said that those people shouldn't live among the slavs. so from a legal and a struggle standpoint, this whole thing is modeled in part because of putin's ambitions whether we regard them as legitimate or not, and in part because we help model things up and de facto in courage or at least forced him to act on those ambitions. am i wrong about that, harmon? >> i agree with a lot of what you said about the balkans. when andre became russian minister in the early '90s he had a pro-west foreign policy but he another were discredited when they were used offensively in the balkans because the argument against the hardliners, no need to fear the west. made it is strictly a defensive organization. but let's go back to ukraine and other parts of the former soviet
union that putin has designs on. 2001, russia passed a law, the law is basis was used to annex crimea. this is in line with the thinking of the nationalists about the creation of a greater slavic state that would be belarus, ukraine, northern kazakhstan. that id was put forth many years ago, and others have picked it up. you now have a man by the name of dmitri who was russia's ambassador to nato and now deputy prime minister. he is russia's national snub one. already about 15 years ago he wrote in a book, no matter how unrealistic it seems today, we must persevere coming out like germany. russia has had long-term designs on these territories. the problem is with ukraine as
-- ukrainians remember 2 million people that were killed by the forced famine in the 1930s. >> more than that. >> two, three, four, but a lot of people were killed and many of them were killed in these eastern territories that are under contention and. the empty homes and were filled by russians who came from other parts of russia. if you go as far in russia to the pacific island of -- you'll find many people with ukrainian names. they were sent to the camps. that's not forgotten in ukraine. so russia covert ukraine but ukraine is not ready to embrace russia. >> putin is a nationalist, et cetera ideological i think it's hard to say. people uzbe who speak russia teg
his rhetoric has grown more nationalistic including using that i think a lot of political ratings have been down and politicians love to get that kind of war approval for i think it's a pre-1914 great power. that is, ideological contentiousness is gone. this is not some grand global competition with america over ideology. what he will because about is border security and its respect. i think the balkans is one where you screw with us, you don't take into anything account and toss her allies aside, we really get upset. you do it again to us again in ukraine. there's an elected leader, you overthrown, to organize a street revolution. you talk about nato. but i think what he is ambitious and artistic but also burden. so perhaps while he might like to have a russia that looks like russia in 1860 or something, my guess is he realizes he won't get a. one of the problems with ukraine, it's two countries.
so again the question of what he wants them how much you do, i think a lot of it is opportunistic. there's a moment he thought he could get it, get crimea and i nightly beginning as it comes out of the. if nothing else you spend the night in ukraine. you cause them trouble, the new leadership recognizes the need for stability so understands it better pay attention to you because five years from now they can play this game again even if they don't roll in and have a civil war. they just know that, and nader is off the table. so i think he's dangerous but think is dangerous in a very confined way. >> well, i think i'm a little more skeptic about mr. putin then maybe all of you. i have chaired the bulgarian transition team back in 90-93, and have been an advisor when he was the first non-congress prime minister of russia. besides the beginning of this
year, even though i'm economic columnist, at times i write about energy and other things, and i have done several articles about how europe was captive to soviet oil and gas. most of russia's hard currents or export our oil and gas, most of the going to western europe and particularly the southern, western european countries are almost totally hostage to a gap coming through ukraine. from my old contacts i had received a message about how certain members of a bulgarian parliament, basically the socialist party, the green party and even the turkish party, were receiving payments to vote against fracking in bulgaria. northern bulgaria is contiguous to romania, bulk area should be
an oil and gas exporter that should not be totally dependent on russian gas. this reminded me very much of the old days that some of us, i think all of us here, new there had been participants in one way or another in the cold war, and much became familiar. at the time i got this information, i was first trying to get some of the western european press to really run with it. and include some of the bigger newspapers. i have the contacts, and people are somewhat aware but people didn't want to go there. and what you have is sort of willing hostages in western europe. and, finally, i did a column for the "washington times," and since that time, you look at the last few months, there's been a lot of columns now. "the economist" magazine and others have brought very similar stories. in fact, the economist story was
almost word for word my story in the "washington times," but they were all afraid to break it. and this fear in western europe about exposing what's really going on, and even since that time i've been given some grief by some our old friend who did much like the fact that i did this. to me it's troublesome. this is a little personal because i've been more so -- >> there's no question that you're right about that. the anti-fracking effort in europe is reminiscent of old soviet propaganda campaigns because it's in the interest not to allow, or to prevent any way they can independence, not just in eastern european countries but the others that are more and more dependent upon their energy supplies. and this goes maybe to doug's point and some of the others, this is a round of russia versus the soviet union.
and maybe the difference isn't so great because it may end up in the same place. and that is putin and his friends have really sort of transformed post-cold war russia into a quasi-middle east trust estate which is totally dependent on its ability to sell energy to the west, because that's how they support not only their private greed, but the functioning of their government. i was in a meeting with russian oil officials and a close-knit enough to long ago. one of the american officials said, what would happen if the price of oil fell to $80 a barrel? the russian said that would happen. if it did happen, it would have to sell off the kremlin. because they would be good for about 60 days. they need 100-dollar up oil just to survive because they don't have much else. they haven't developed the
economy that they could develop if they followed the advice of your friends who fled to cato added earlier time. >> i'm not supposed to do this as moderate but -- europe has become willing hostages to russia. but the scenario that we've all sort of talk about, what happens to the price of oil when it falls. my guess is that some place in the world, a tanker will be software pipeline will be blown up, the price of oil will spike but there will be no russian fingerprints on it. let's just do a quick couple minutes here. let's focus on, because i want to have time for q&a. where do you think the next explosion will be on the globe? we talked quite a bit about ukraine and russia. herman. >> there's an area dealing with
china that gives me great concern, even though there's been little publicity about it. the doctrine of the chinese government that no u.s. surveillance or military ship should come within 200 miles of the coast of china. and that, of course, is contrary to the freedom of the seas. we've already had a number of incidences of abode rantings, of harassment of american ships by chinese ships, and the reason that it is of concern is there's no give. either we give up our understanding of freedom of the city, or we surrender or not. and china is not likely to change its doctrine. this great an opportunity for something unpleasant at sea that may or may not be handled well. >> i think there are a lot of
possible once. one is north korea. the older man who died, kim jong-il come seem to know exactly how far to push and rile up the south koreans and americans can and when to stop. is not at all clear that his son who is 31 and seems more radical, execute his own uncle, there is no family loved it. you could see war there out a mistake as opposed to intention. i think the japanese chinese tensions over the islands, most of them have been playing pretty tough. the japanese have assess and ally backing them up. i don't think the chinese will go to war with them but i think the potential problems there. collapse of iraq, you see isis or isil going over the border perhaps into jordan. they claim the levant, the whole territory that includes parts of lebanon, hearts of visual, parts of jordan, parts of syria, even parts of turkey. if they try to push all the sorts of claims, it could be a real mess. i think longer-term the question of the saudi monarchy.
the rulers are aged. uopen for the first time a depuy crown prince which they have never done. that leadership is a nervous, the family breaks with in terms of the brothers and to the mothers were. i think they're potentially unstable as well. that would be messy if they went down. >> david? >> i think going back to what all of us have said about, and the point that herman made earlier about the fanaticism of the middle east makes it less likely that the globe is going to come with the chinese. i once wrote that taiwan has a great, while they are in many ways situate like israel, a sea of enemies that they are blessed because they have a rational enemy. the chinese do not live in a fantasy world. they live in a world in which
they measure very carefully with the opportunities are and what their costs are. it is not an accident that these things took place at a time when the world has proceeded the united states as being gone awol. it's an area where as long as they know that the world works better if they get along with folks, they will always harbored those desires but they won't do anything stupid. that can't be said for the other part of the world. the only other place we're talking about the communists, they've now on earth -- unearth some of the correspondence christian had during the cuban missile crisis. the height of that, of course castro sent a message to christian that he should just go ahead and launch. christian wrote, what is this not that we've got over the court is willing to sacrifice his entire country, the soviet communists were not crazy to
they were evil. they were not crazy. the middle easterners are evil and crazy. >> a couple points to follow a. i agree with you on the chinese. they are very thoughtful, deliberate, but -- >> they will be around for a long time. >> but they may push this question up 200 miles of simply, and that's the danger. one big danger that has not been mentioned is out of pakistan. we talk a lot about iran getting the bomb. pakistan already has the bomb. who can be 100% sure the fundamentals in the country about infiltrated the army, or infiltrated the units regarding the nuclear storage, the prospect of an al-qaeda type group getting control of nuclear weapon is very unsettling. >> that's a cheery note to be can keep an a on. we have just a very few minutes for questions. given the shortage of time of
questions, those of you who have a question you can state in 15 seconds or less, i will give you your first opportunities. then those that have 30-second questions. been for those of you who have a four-hour statement, we will see if we can get to that. 15-second questions. this gentleman here. [inaudible] >> i'm not aware of any leaders announcing using of the weapons against the sugar everything i've seen is quite dramatic. they are billionaires squabbling for power but when they were involved in a bloody war with iraq, they sent other people out, the leadership in tehran didn't show up on the battlefield. israeli security folks that i've talked to think that, in fact, it's a rational to believe evil leadership they do believe it would be hard for the israeli premise or not to attack if it
actually had to nuke weapons for the good news for israel is it possesses nuclear weapons. the question is does iran want to be wiped off the map? that's what the leadership wants. i haven't seen anything to suggest that. there's lots of reasons to not want the leadership have that. the frightening thing is there's already -- >> anything to add to that? >> the real problem, there is the problem of what they can do under a nuclear threat is credible, which gives them a great deal of freedom which is one of the reasons why if they actually get it, they can expect the saudis to have one. we now have the saudis so scared their cooperative with israel because they don't want these other lunatics to be armed in ways they aren't. because while they dislike us, we are a down the road in any. we are an enemy right now because we are there, but they've got money of other
muslims to kill before they get around to us. >> right here. [inaudible] >> well, the question is what it does. the ottoman empire was an incompetent, utterly kind of useless creature. the tragedy of world war i is that all of the old empires that have destroyed were relatively liberal and ineffective ones, ones that might have fallen in a more liberal direction. direction. out of this rushing of our you the soviet union and joseph stalin to out of germany you go and get nazi germany and adolf hitler. out of the italian republic, mussolini.
one decrepit empire you get all of the low countries in the middle east that are not at war and falling apart and lines being redrawn. i was a world war i is a catastrophe. world war ii can out of world war i, and there was no cause for america to get involved. world war ii was a different creature. >> you might not have world war ii out for world war i. and i don't think there can be any question that the u.s. involvement in world war i, and the fact that the u.s., first of all, actually did in the war, put the force in there and think of the armistice on the basis of crazy promises from woodrow wilson that the germans and the middle east and ugland house excepted. and the result was nation states that are not nations. the result was that germany was so upset at the unfairness of the way it ended, that we got nazis and. way to communism, all these things as result of that war which was the signal, foreign
policy mistake of the united states and its entire history against the consequences from that point on. it was about war that made the 20th century the bloodiest century in history of mankind. and that was in large part a result of the well-intentioned, fumbling, progressive president and his allies who went in and bought up everything in a way that would get be able to overcome. >> world war ii, 2.5% o of the entire world died. we forget how bad it was. >> and if i can talk about what doug said, in response to the specific question. is world war i had not taken place and the caliphate existed, it was restricted to where it was. because the world, there were, in fact, boundaries and whether it was the ottoman empire or whatever, those boundaries
should be set and respected because they knew there was a problem if they went beyond it. that was very different from what's going on now. if the muslim world develop as it should have without all of what happened in the anointing of different well families and the like by the british in us and the french, it might've been a very different future. we can't go back. >> i want to get at least one or two more questions in. we libertarians believe in a rule of law or rule of the clock here to expand time. yes, ma'am. [inaudible] >> i want a quick question. we don't have time for a statement. soun[inaudible]
>> there's no question. we have a treaty alliance with japan. there's no question. [inaudible] >> okay, herman. we got the question. herman? >> treaty of alliance and we have made it known to the leadership in beijing that we would stand behind japan. we've also urged japan not to push the issue. >> okay, other questions? the gentleman right down here in front. [inaudible] >> we got it. how long can the u.s. and europe continue to ignore militant
islam? harmon state? i think we have been ordered to long already. one of the big mistakes we've made is assuming it's a single block. there are 1,600,000,000 muslims in the world. life for most muslims is very different in each of those countries can even in the arab world day-to-day life in morocco so different from saudi arabia. but for the fundamentalist there isn't so much difference. even if you assume there's 1% that has very stringent interpretation of islam, that 16 million people. that's a whole country. and not being engaged in the ideological and theological world with them, not dealing with elements that are reconcilable with the islamic
world is a tragedy that's going to come to bite us and it may not be an existential threat, but it's a threat where you can see casualties and hundreds of thousands of terrorist activity. and that's something we have to worry about a great deal. >> okay. we are out of time but i've got a final question for the panelists that you can answer in one word. if we have one of these crisis, one of these blowups that the thread you have outlined as possible, do you think the obama state department and defense department is up to the task? >> in unison now. >> one, two, three -- >> know. >> ladies and gentlemen, on the very hopeful note, thank you all for coming. next year i will see if mark
will allow us to have two hours, because -- >> don't forget to subscribe to the "washington times." >> yes, yes. you have instructions. you all have to sit guide to the "washington times," and you have to support the american foreign policy council and the cato institute to keep all of us alive to help you stay alive. thank you. [applause] >> every weekend booktv offers programming focus on nonfiction authors and books. keep watching for more to on spend too. watched any of our past programs online at booktv.org. >> beacon press out of massachusetts, one of publishers here at book expo america, the annual publishers trade show looking at some of the books that beacon press is coming out with in the fall of 2014. with helen at one whose the
publisher. first of all, tell us about beacon press. >> beacon press is celebrating its 160th anniversary this year. we are a very old press, founded by ralph all the way merchants cozen -- ralph waldo emerson's cousin. we are a nonprofit mission-driven press and we publish books in the public interest. so all of our books strive to add to the conversation about social justice in america, in a very broad sense. we have a new tagline this year, which is igniting hearts and minds. that's a we like to think we are doing with our publishing program. >> some very well-known people are publishing this fall with beacon. tells about some of your books. >> we are very proud about what is cornel west whose first book, race matters can was published by beacon 20 years ago.
and to his become a rather famous leader in this field of black prophetic fire, and who is writing this book about this very important part of our culture. and he's looking at many of the great figures in a black prophetic tradition in america. and one of them is martin luther king, jr., of course. so he is also edited a book for us called the radical king. because we are the exclusive trade publishers of all of martin luther king's works and have been for the last five years. so all of his work for the trade, for general readers, general bookstores is published by beacon press which i'm very proud of. this new edition, which was generated entirely by cornel west, is looking at martin luther king to say over the years we