University of South Florida (USF) College of Arts and Sciences Polk Faculty - Lecture Series, Mr. Tom Gjelton Tape 2 of 2

Bait about the science underlying climate change and hotly debated the Pentagon this year and it's in its review of plans for the upcoming year for the first time set climate change as a security threat of the CIA has just established a new center for the study of climate change. I spent a lot of time with these guys and I said to them does this mean that you are convinced behind that the science of climate change is is sound. And they said no we don't take a position on that debate at all. We have no idea if climate change is taking place or not. And that is not our concern. We're going to leave that to Nassau and the science agencies. We're not into that. Our job and as national security professionals is to worry about worst case scenarios. That is what they have been trained to do from the moment they enter the military to have developed contingency plans for basically anything that can go wrong. And so what they do is they look at the climate change scenarios the worst climate change scenarios that anybody can

come up with and say what would this mean from a security perspective. And if by some remote chance these scenarios are actually legitimate We have to be prepared for the security repercussions. That's their view or so they take this very seriously they're spending a lot of time on it. But again that does not mean that they have taken a position in the debate. It just means that they're doing their job as national security people because they look like. Right. There were four. Oh yeah. Right. I actually wrote a book about the war in Bosnia. And. Those of us who cover the war in Bosnia works Greenly subject to efforts to influence the way that we told the story I had fact said that this was the first post

modern war in the sense that the outcome of the war in a in Bosnia depended more on the way the war was perceived than on the way it was fought. That was that was the big stake in Bosnia was how the outside world was going to perceive that war because of the outside world saw Western civilization as in jeopardy in Bosnia. If they saw the repeat of the Nazi Holocaust unfolding before their eyes they were far more likely to intervene on the side of the Bosnian government because it was generally the Serbs that were seen as as responsible for this. On the other hand if the outside world saw this war as eruption of lingering ancient hatreds that then there was very little that we could do. These people are going to have to sort the stuff out on their own. There's nothing for us at stake. You remember James Baker said we don't have a dog in that fight. So the those are two examples of the ways that you could perceive that war.

Now not surprisingly you know. The Bosnian government when we were there you know they would bring out all their playwrights and their you know their opera fans and their most sophisticated people and talk about how we are European and they're trying to impose this 17th century blood hatred stuff on us and we just want to live a cosmopolitan life. So you know you're convinced that this is an ethnic cleansing has taken place people are being killed on the basis of their city. And then I would go to I tell the story as what I went to Belgrade and what was somebody in the Foreign Ministry and he looked at my passport and he sees the names Gjelten. He says that's the regionalism. And I said yes it is. And he said you're never going to understand this conflict because you Norwegians you believe peace and love and coexistence and you people you Scandinavians are never going to understand us in the Balkans. We hate each other. Hatred is part of our hatred as part of our makeup you know and but what you have to

do is you have to look at what's the agenda here. The Serbs have a military advantage in this war. They do not as long as the outside world does not intervene. They're going to win because they have all the guns so they will have a stake in the outside world perceiving this as a as a battle of ancient paper. The Muslims have no guns. Their only hope is that the outside world intervene on their behalf. So they're going to exaggerate the humanitarian side of this. And it was very important as a reporter to keep those agendas in mind. Because you were you were constantly being spied on by one side or the other. And I think that happens more and more you know now that we're in this post-Cold War phase. You know there was a. You know we have hundred there are hundreds of wars that take place every year. Most of them we don't know anything about and the weather it out they rise to the level of our attention depends on the way they are reported. So I.

Said But what is right and why. So I tried hard. That state board. Decide what. Yeah yeah. Well I thought you know I'm speaking not as an NPR reporter because I have to be objective in covering you know policy debates just on the basis of my personal experience in Cuba. I actually think again personal opinion that travel unrestricted travel to Cuba would be would be a have a moderating effect on that regime for all the obvious reasons. Now you asked but that's. But there are people who have different points of view on that. And why why is the Delahunt bill. And you know there have been a number of bills that have actually passed in the first phase. In Congress they have for their majority supported both

Republicans and Democrats in favor of the travel ban yet never gets lifted. Why does it never get lifted. Because the people who are in favor of lifting the travel ban for them it's not that big a priority. They've got other they've got other issues. The people in Congress who are opposed to lifting the travel ban this is it this is their number one objective is to make sure that travel ban doesn't get lifted. So you know the way Congress works a bill comes up and you need to sit you need somebody to vote. Whether let's say health care reform you know and you go to a member of Congress that Congress that really feels strongly about the embargo is look I'll support you on this if you support me on not voting for the travel bad. So even though you may personally be in favor of that if you don't care about it that much you're willing to trade it away. Whereas if it's a really important issue to you you're not willing to trade away. And I think the only explanation is just the people that oppose the change in the policy feel more strongly about opposing it than the

people who support a change in policy feel about about changing the laws. Here's the kicker. Yeah. All right. So we're out we're out. You don't you know you don't. And this was I think that we in the press have and I was there as I said I was the I was the only national security reporter for NPR throughout the whole war in Afghanistan. And you know in the lead up to the By time they were in the lead up to the war the guy had somebody helping me. Another reporter helping me but you know when when the intelligence

community comes out and says We believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and when you've got the military coming out. And you're a you know you're a lonely I mean you're one reporter without. Access to intelligence no security clearance. You know what you can do is you can raise questions about it you can sort of convey a little bit of skepticism. You can say these are unconfirmed. This is what they're saying. There have been. False alarms in the past. I mean you can sort of suggest that stuff but you can't undermine it. You can't you know take it down because you don't have access to the intelligence to do that. And if they're going to if they're going to say that you have an obligation to report it. I mean you can ignore what they say when the when the British government came out with a white paper on this stuff you had to say OK here's the Pritish government you have to give a chance to say it. And you know later on you find out that there was a lot of deception involved etc. but you know maybe I'm sounding a little defensive years as a

journalist but I think people sort of have. Ideas about that we're kind of omniscient or something you know. And we can be fooled like anybody else. And we are for all the time. Yeah. How come that ship are some little odd. Right. Yeah. Well I think yeah it's interesting I did hear that. I did hear that I don't know. I must have heard another it was on NPR is where I live. Actually I think it. Was testimony he was testifying yesterday or something he said yesterday it was reported in a couple of thoughts on that one. I think I think it from a practical point of view it's true it's true there are some that line is never going to allow himself to be to one. He's never allowed

himself to be taken alive. The people that surround him are under absolutely strict orders to kill him. If it's at that point they had to. The only way at this point that we would be able to get him is through one of these drone strikes. So the idea that you know that you could somehow capture him alive I think is pretty farfetched. So that's the practical reality. I thought I was a little strange how definitive it was because you can never tell for sure. I mean it almost seems like he was saying that if you have the opportunity to take him alive you're still going to kill. Maybe that's a policy. Level. In any. For one a safe area. Where. There are harder to get a little break there rather come if you're like you so much. I. Mean or.

Gotten over the better. Or. I would buy or lead to a plan B you know next to Syria. Slow position. There are very reserved for the government to make dogs a society will be you know you have faired. Yeah.