tv [untitled] December 12, 2013 4:30am-5:01am EST
if there had been abuses etc but but it's a matter of all sides acting responsibly absolutely but i think and i know that you mad the foreign minister of here in ukraine and yes trust that all sides have to respect the law but i think we can also see from some of the european countries and the reaction from them has been that you know the people's right of free assembly has to be respected there is a lot of aphasic on the right a sample freely and i think it's not that simple because strict politics is obviously a very imprecise matter of assessing democratic attitudes and people who are gathered in the center of key if these the stadium of nothing less than the resignation of the government and early elections something that some part of the electorate may support and some part of the electorate may very strongly oppose but it seems that in their case and many european countries supported that very strongly it's not just about the boy seeing their views it's about demanding
nothing less than what they want it's my way or highway they don't care what the rest of the country may want so it seems that you know this interplay between security and democracy is very very tricky here what well of course it is and there's a see this is there's a lively debate and said you'll get a show on this but one should also pay attention not to confuse the internal political dynamics in any country in the basic need to expect some fundamental freedoms and principles saw you know to be extent that we see from from perspective in me but i tried to address this as institutionally as a as a can when i see the commitment of a government to to uphold the rule of law and to. guarantee a fundamental freedoms. in
a certain way i'm satisfied to see that there is this command in a sense if send in ukraine have you seen well let's see now for us to go in that direction no we have to see now if this investigation takes place and and all that but then there is also a political element and the real issue between the political actors which is really . in the realm of of the interaction and political interaction among the forces here and that's where the international community doesn't really have matter where all we can overall as. if this is something that is requested by the satyr as mediators and the dialogue is it was really the case because we have all the major players in european politics now in ukraine they're in negotiations not only with the ukrainian leadership but with the ukrainian opposition there is clearly a very strong push on the part of sound western countries to influence the decision
and to intervene in this what you say internal democratic process why hasn't always see condemned those efforts to intervene because this this is something that could clearly contribute to. you know making the situation less secure but that's because we don't pass judgment or assessments on. how can i say on political decisions and we don't assess a policy of a certain country its relations with its neighbor and. you know the also the fact that this relationship may have a certain color a certain connotation what we try to assess is whether these fundamental principles are expected and that's also what protects us in giving certain neutrality to the fact that we have been then the of course there is there is a political space willing which. operating there already.
represent the government over say a western country comes here and interacts with the government and the opposition and perhaps they can see a position more in favor of one of the other that's really his choice i mentioned that quote by george w. bush earlier and you know they did that you need to help democratize other countries. as a way of insuring your own security and i think it's still very popular in the west but and it is certainly i guess part of the only see mission especially since the collapse of the soviet union you've made some progress in that domain i wonder if you indeed agree with george w. bush on that that actively promoting democracy is not just a matter of your values or your ideology but it is indeed part of the security doctrine i would say that but this is the concept that these agreed by everybody in your city we have institutions whose name refers to the promotion of democratic
institutions if we have in our societies and in the structures of our countries checks and balances you have immense were. controlling somehow but the decisions of the governments governments reported to the parliaments if you have democratic processes over the actions that the laws that make sure the government's duty flecked to the will of the people then it is more difficult for a government to make a decision that can be dramatic but you are talking about internal institutions internal democratic institutions and i'm asking you about an outside efforts you bring democracy to any certain country and you mentioned earlier that everybody agrees on that model but i would like to mention one example at least where that model has significant could backfire there and this is libya and number of the always see founding member state actively aided bring. democracy to libya and three years down the line that produced and major security implications not only for
north africa but for europe itself i mean the issue of migration and the issue of terrorism is that on their gender do you think that european countries maybe european institutions including the always see may need to reconsider that approach to spreading democracy and maybe give a bit more thought the security implications that that process could have spreading democracy it's not a noisy concept and there are certain countries you mention libya this is really very little to do that you have that. mansion and. levy are requested to become a partner and it's still blocked powerfully in relation to the issues that you that you mentioned too from from beginning to the organization so we're really looking at libya as an external entity from but let's use it as a kind of an academic example and certainly this something or we do not doing
u.s.c. is exporting democracy as you see what we do we work with governments and it's a long term. always effort to promote a democratic evolution of these situations i personally don't believe in overnight change i don't think we can create democracies overnight this is an effort that always requires a long term a. long term engagement of everybody but there is one principle that is important to us is that we have accepted and this is the ability of the societies in general stability in one country is a contribution to stability to the region in a way and this gives a right to the other countries also to have a say in processes going on in other countries this is what obviously is creating sometimes ups but it's a principle that is recognised in the o.c. well i. i wonder if your a country man in our on the lot island of lampedusa do really see what happened in
libya as a hiccup because i think you know the flow of migrants from libya and increasingly from syria demonstrates that you know this ride that some countries in believe they have in. you know taking care of our affairs and other states certainly. backfired and produce very very negative consequences as the number of migrants in europe has significantly increased as a result of some of the european policies against some of the policies of the young member states and as a consequence we only suffer because of that should should there be some codified response ability for your action even such noble actions as spreading democracy in europe you're putting various things in the same basket if you look for instance in the issue of the mag rounds you wouldn't relate this necessarily only to one factor i think we are looking at the larger phenomenon that we need to assess.
things may have in the specifics may have made the issue worse in a way and fully fully accept that and as an italian more than is the secular general the sea. but but there is a trend the it is a larger trend and the reasons are many goes back to economic development to. societal developments to. the what we used to call the arab spring i'm not sure how to call it now little but countries that are really supported and aided the arab spring and promised all those people all those things that you just mentioned and as a result they intervened in their societies by the human scale to me to me i'm sorry but these are movements and also take place within the societies and we see also the debating side of the world we see also the contradictions of world and you know you're bringing me a. a lot outside now the u.s. syria but back to the issue the point we were starting is they see that there is no
holy see. how can they see exporting democracy we are really what we're doing we're working with each of the countries of the organization to help them be that their own institutions in their own way if some companies within the u.s. see. have policies that. can i say a more global or a that's really their issue and they would be accountable for that that there would be and this is part of this caution that we have inside the organization and there's you know it's a lively there's a lively debate well unfortunately it's tough at the level of debate rather than you know fully accepted responsibility just as any arrests have to take a very short break now but one of the comeback democracy has long been considered an area of rastan expertise by the size making phenolic and social changes shape of
the very foundation of many societies and then a time to review some of the all teachings that's coming up on all the parts in just a few moments. palladius street cleaner who's in love with the waitress on stage managing that there is an audience used to take drugs and drink like of. the police told me about the circus but i was such a punk i was like what circus. circus of clinton's gonna. break down stereotypes about kids from disadvantaged.
. list. welcome back to worlds apart from rio discussing the interplay between democracy and security with. the secretary general of the organization for security and cooperation in europe mr xavier the always see was created as an organization to facilitate the dialogue between east and west or. the cold war and to some extent
this divide ideological divide still remains and some may even argue that it has exacerbated in recent years in fact this recent toggle for between russia and the european union over ukrainian future may be seen as one example of that what do you think are we witnessing the formation of this new divide between east and west in europe because there's talk about. what we see is that the relations between the keep players a group of players in the us see space not necessarily become any easier in recent times and. in the process of the is the neighborhood and the development than in the run up to the ability of some meat has been as we have seen a. phase of. how can i say development of relationship between russia and the european union was not lead to
a deal so they're simply witnessing something that is happening in the us the space and what we're. asking ourselves is how can the u.s. see contribute to. helping everybody move beyond this and to try to do to work. on eliminating the impression that new division emergency in many western media this choice that ukraine faces at the moment has been prepared in terms of you know a bribe democratic future offered by the european union and the dark authoritarian past threatened by russia and i can understand why some europeans may run away with this sort of cold war framing but i think russia certainly doesn't see itself as. as an a talk or a scene or as a dictatorship in fact it sees itself as a democracy and it wants to develop as a democracy but on its own terms rather than terms hunted down from some of the old
established european democracies and i wonder if you think as an observer that some of the european countries would be ready to discuss democracy in this russia with other poissy members on equal terms not as teachers and students but rather as equal partners and talking about what democracy. really e's and what is the best way to achieve or improve it they have every opportunity to do so in the us c.n. we have discussions all the time around these issues what we're finding is that there is still at the bottom of everything a lack of truly conciliation. and perhaps following the end of the cold war there are still issues on which we can and should work and we're for supposedly examples from germany and from. poland the russia presenting some good models
of worst that forward so i think the first thing to do is really to do that to try to get a better environment for this discussion to take place and then on the agenda of the u.s.c. we also have a project and the project is the creation of a security community where everybody has its space so this is what we're working on and the more we managed to make progress and russia has quite a number of interesting proposals some of them more acceptable to others some of leds some of them less and and this is a negotiation that is starting now effect but if we manage and the further we manage to go in the direction of creating a security community the more we create good conditions for this kind of debate you could place you're being very politically correct here but i think there is a still a sense in europe. both in the east and in the west of here of that the old europe
is in an established democracy and the rest has to sort of grow up a little bit and my question was more about who determines what democracy really is because there are a number of social issues now in europe that are very challenging and you don't really understand whether they're democratic and not for example they can pay for al-tikriti rights in europe which is a very. general issue very broad issue and on the one hand it includes you know fair treatment nondiscriminatory treatment of individuals which everybody supports but on the other hand it may also include. total rejuvenation of the poor social institution which is marriage and many people strongly opposed that by then europe many governments took the route of you know pushing for these legislative changes from top down and for many here in the new europe that's not democratic that's plain authoritarian many of established democracies would still insist on that i
wonder how we can really come to a place when everybody's opinion the would with content equally rather than some having more in title meant to democracy than others. still a think the us c. is based on a. principle which is very very strongly held in the organization which is the principle consensus so we do not agree on anything unless and until everybody feels comfortable with it so the issue you may have or used to be well there is a general recognition that there should be no discrimination of minorities of any kind and i think everybody agrees to that when it comes to more active policies etc there is no agreement because there are countries and i wouldn't. single out russian but there are others that feel less comfortable because. there is back
values in within the societies. religious principles etc so the different levels of the us see shows that now i've heard you mention in many of your previous public appearances that you believe that the always seem model of consensus has been very successful and that it could be used as a. as an example to you imitate probably in other parts of the world and i wonder if that somewhat optimistic assessment was a bit premature because if you look at europe there is a rise of ethnic tensions there is a rise of xenophobia the. democracy index for last year noted an erosion of confidence in democracy in a number of european countries a sterrett imagine is there also having a very judgmental effect i wonder if you see those changes within europe and then the core of europe as something that is temporary or something that made to magically change the layout of europe in the long term well this is
a phenomena we see winning societies with the europeans are saying is that mental increasing rather radicalization even even making my own country have seen that then they also made this point a bit of vision. i think there are two issues. here one is the relationship between the group we in the group and they still remain convinced the consensus is the way to go because concise who protects everybody and i think it's important to say that now looking at the societies and development societies i'm worried as you are and they think we need to include in our policies increasingly to have more attention for these problems and to address the issues within the societies for instance they all theme of tolerance and nondiscrimination i think should become higher more prominent tonality and we need to work with the societies to avoid that these tendencies become structurally in
a way it could be it is increasing now because we see the impact of migration on the. changing nature of the society impact of the financial crisis as well as the fact or two and this is changing relations affected relation affecting also reaction of people so we need to work with the societies and this is something that we do in the u.s. see we are not only intergovernmental but we also we have a good ability to interact with the people and with the civil society etc and i think we should we should continue doing that because the stability of the societies and the openness of the societies to somehow accept the evolution of their own evolution in a way and to be able to come to terms with that is essential for if you term long term stability well it's a very interesting subject and i think it also brings us back to the issue of
democracy because. if you look back at history for example the beginning of last century the middle of last century hitler came to power through democratic choice of the people and as you mentioned there is a growth of far right movements all around european current continent including in russia it's a major problem here but. when you talk about working with the society what who do you think should be in charge of determining which views are legitimate should it be the people or should it be the governments the un so there is that first of all each of the governments has to play a role in assume it's all responsibilities this is not a debate about being right or left and it's not a question of the often very critical of member states when it when they don't live up to certain democratic expectations yes but again this is not the issue about
right or left it's an issue about about fundamentalism or extremist mean it we saw what we need to avoid these to avoid hate speech is to avoid this excessive radicalization that can lead to even to terrorism saw we need to make sure that there are healthy values within our societies and what that's what we try to promote through governments but health first is also a very. judgmental term what is healthy or marriage for one person is extremely unhealthy for somebody else saw you know the this is ultimately again a choice between whether you want in a democratic society whether you make the government the ultimate determinant of what is good or bad or the people does not turn into working with government but what we want to do is to have governments that do reflect the will of the people so that's why and it's a bit of
a circular argument but that's why we want to strengthen the democratic city of the institutions to make sure that governments do reflect what people expect and very quickly we have i think just a minute left but. you know that you mentioned there there have been some disagreements between. members of the oil see between russia and europe maybe growing divide and i wonder if there. more the call to ration in the title of your organization is still fitting because it seems like there are more disagreements more rivalries than actually you know those countries are working together well competition is at the same the metal but also the goal and we want to work through to see more cooperation in future and that this is always be. in away from this the c.s.c. one of the key the key elements there was no cooperation in the beginning but the name was still there so we we are moving we keep moving in the same direction well
here. from the we'll talk sports fifty rpm interview intriguing story for you. because it's our big. this is the magic automobile to connote. freedom particularly in american pop culture the automobile has always been the icon of freedom i see that ford motor company is going to market a mustang for the globe so that they can export america's idea of the open road and freedom to places like china where the air pollution is so thick it's wafting into the lobbies of buildings and people are falling dropping like flies and because of the mustang because of ford motor company environmental full cost proponent and propagator.
palladius street cleaner who's in love with a waitress i go on stage managing that there's an audience i used to take drugs and drink like a fish the police told me about the circus but i was such a punk i was like what circus. circus is clearly gives me a break down stereotypes about kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. anything. to teach me. this is
why you should watch only. the president speak so loud to be a pretense as russia is not seeking to dominate the globe but well start fun to protect its traditional values. washington says it's considering sanctions against ukraine preaching its way to behind anti-government protesters look at those who are rallying to defend their fish. and silent alliance israeli and saudi intelligence have reportedly been having secret meetings breakthrough a nuclear deal with iran that both countries are frustrated.