tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 9, 2015 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: we begin with turkey -- parliamentary elections failed to produce a single party government. it's the first time the justice party faces the prospect of a coalition government and the first time -- joining us from washington is stephen cook on the council of foreign relations and a contributor to "foreign affairs" magazine. i'm pleased to have all of them on the program at this moment.
is this historic? guest: it's important, if not historic. since it came to power in 2002 it has run away with virtually every election and i think people were expecting vote totals to decrease but not by the almost 10% that it has. clearly, the turkish people have internalized ideas related to democracy. the fears the justice and development party had hollowed out those institutions were misplaced and i think the turkish people have clearly made a statement that the excesses of the president and party were not going to be tolerated. charlie: i assume you agree with
that -- tell me who are the winners in this election. guest: the winners are the kurds and liberals who entered the election through an alliance which help the party crossed the 10% threshold and also brought the liberals as a force to be reckoned for. there are number of liberals and leftists operation of the people's party. charlie: what other elements played a role in this? guest: in 2002, he campaigned on this message of inclusivity and reached out to the kurds and minorities. he said let's bring everyone in turkey together and a lot of people flocked to the akp because of that language. especially over the past five years, we have seen a different
rhetoric. it's a nationalistic tone that caters to a certain constituency in the rural countryside. he's turned his back on this inclusiveness and i think one of the reasons they party did so well that he campaigned on in 2002 where he talked about not just kurdish issues but the fact we need to focus on civil society matters. and let's talk a lot strengthening those elements. a liberal voters and secular voters were for the akp and they did not like this tone that he was speaking where he was focused on this message but not really delivering anything. one thing that akp has been able to do is really deliver on the economy. turkey has not been growing and
has been in a downfall and people all over the world vote with their pockets and we saw that happen yesterday. charlie: and the market is reacting today. let's talk about where he goes from here -- his ambition to be president is over? guest: it seems to be over but i would never count him out. he has this unbounded ambition and this has in his singular issue since at least 2011. by hook or by crook, he is going to try to let the political process play itself out and devise a new strategy and for him, it has become a personal issue.
it is a setback, but i don't think it is over for him. he has empowered the turkish presidency in ways other turkish presidents have not done before. the media keeps calling the powers of the turkish presidency ceremonial, but i don't think that's right. there ceremonial but they have empowered parts of the presidency in ways that make him a factor in politics. it's hard to imagine he is going to fold his cards and walk away from the table. this is not someone who is magnanimous in victory, so i can't imagine he will be magnanimous after this set act and i imagine he will try to get
what he wants in the political system. guest: one could argue his policies have been too good for his own sake -- they are now making some middle-class demands. charlie: i should point out he was not on the ballot. guest: i think there was a lot of criticism of that and also a lot of crackdown on the media and freedom of expression in the run-up to the polls. what is fascinating is i agree with stephen -- i never ruled erdogan out and i think he will do everything to get to an executive style presidency, but you are seeing an amount of liberation of the turkish media, to put it lightly, in the sense that people are voicing dissension in a way they did not
just a day ago. this is ultimately a sign that democracy works and it is the best system because it is finally shaking up some of the established practices of turkish society and i think people are coming up for clean air. charlie: i guess we could argue this was a referendum on him even though he's not on the ballot. guest: i agree. i think erdogan ran a campaign in a way that this was a parliament in holding suggesting the elected parliament in which he hoped the akp would hold an election and the electorate vetoed that. his party lost the majority for the first time, so this was the electorate's way of telling him we may like your policies, but we are not going to vote for you to become an executive style presidency. guest: i think that is right.
i think this was a referendum on erdogan and his growing authoritarian tendencies and this push he was going for to change the turkish constitution to move it from a elementary to presidential system. when we look at the results, they still garnered 40% of the popular vote and they still -- he kept his base and kept his party in turkey. charlie: what will happen to the new party? guest: what will be interesting is what will happen over the next 45 days. all of the parties have said they will not enter a coalition with the akp. that's going to be difficult moving forward if they are not able to form a coalition over
the next 45 days, there's a chance they have to go back to the polls and hold elections again. we will see a lot of horse trading and seeing if a coalition can be built out. in terms of what the kurds need to do, the kurdish peace process is on the table. one of the possible coalition partners they can align with is the htp but it will be a question whether they will be able to sit down with erdogan after his quite anti-kurdish rhetoric during the campaign and be able to form a coalition with him. he has said he will not form a coalition with the akp, so right now, the question of what happens to the kurds and the kurdish peace ross is is very much up in the air. charlie: what does this do for turkey's and erdogan's ability
to be a player in the region and have some influence as it has had not only in terms of what happened in syria that it's relationship with israel and other factors that are part of the mosaic of middle eastern and gulf politics? guest: it's a terrific question. we have seen turkey's strategic position in the middle east virtually collapsed. ingres has had difficulty relations with virtually every middle eastern capital. the fact that erdogan has then delivered somewhat of a blow, it is still the dominant party and has garnered about 41% of the vote. it has been defeated only
relative to its previous success. one would think a coalition government would reorient turkish foreign policy to some extent, but even the fact that the akp will remain dominant and will likely maintain its control over the most important foreign policymaking ministries in the country, it is hard to imagine there will be too much of a difference in foreign policy. it's likely if there is a coalition between the akp and the nationalists of the nationalist movement party there may be a break on relations between for example turkey and the kurdistan regional government or there may be some minor changes or alterations to turkey's approach to syria which the turks are cooperating to coordinate a number of groups that made some battlefield advances recently. overall, the general tenants of turkish foreign policy are unlikely to change in major ways
and the differences between ingres and cairo are likely to remain. despite the coming changes or suspected changes that will happened mystically, the foreign policy is likely to remain in the same band of policies we have seen thus far. charlie: president obama was said to have a good relationship with erdogan and they have talked on the phone as a relationship between two heads of state, but the president was upset about how money foreign fighters were going from turkey into syria and that put some distance between them. guest: it is certainly the case that there has been a cooling of relations between president obama and now president erdogan. they had coordinated rather closely around 2011 and 2012 but there have been two factors that have driven a deterioration in the relationship between the united states and turkey. first, the turks'willingness to turn a blind eye against those who want to engage in jihad
against the outside regime. there seems to be evidence the turks were coordinating with groups like those, but the accusations they coordinated with the islamic state don't seem to be the case. the second thing is the way president erdogan approached domestic projects, a thuggish way of intimidating his opponents and trying to shut down social media, going after critical journalists. president obama at the beginning of his first administration about a model partnership between the two countries that shared values. this was not something that reflected well on president
obama when his primary partner in the region is engaged in the kinds of policies that deposed arab dictators had engaged in. charlie: it was said that erdogan put the military back in the barracks after decades in which the military were compared to overthrow the government. is there any likelihood the military will regain some of its strength and play a role in turkish politics? guest: i don't see that. and one of the silver linings on yesterday's election was not only -- there was a democracy gain. people were talking and comparing erdogan to putin. i don't know that putin would have accepted yesterday's results. you didn't hear language about the military, so i think turkey has moved past that stage. guest: i also agree. i think the military is largely out of the picture.
what is interesting is turkey is entering a time of potential instability because for the first time, the akp has lost its majority in the parliament. there is one fact -- coalition and minority governments in turkey never finish their terms and coalition governments are prone to instability. so while erdogan has lost his grip on power and we have a liberal force coming up, the country and is a time of instability and the akp could benefit from that because the electorate might decide to put their support behind single party government, thinking that as a way to promote economic stability. alternately, they could paint them as responsible for that instability. guest: let me underline some of the points about the military. the fundamental change in
military relations in turkey is profound. in the past, the military might look for ways to undermine a government whereas now it is clear they have been wanting to wait out prime minister erdogan. that suggests there has been a democracy game even as erdogan sought to hollow up democratic institutions. charlie: what do the majority of turks want? guest: i think a majority of turks want to continue the prosperity they have seen, the gains they have seen over the past decade less. i think because a lot of turks hundreds and thousands of turks are in the middle class, they're making demands that middle-class people want. i think they want freedoms, they want and accountable government, i think they are troubled by accusations of corruption within the akp and against president erdogan himself.
i think because turkey has become a member of the g-20 and turks themselves have been much more in touch with the world globalization has affected profound change in turkey where turks are much more aware and connected to the rest of the world and they want very much to be part of that world on the same standing. charlie: they also wanted to be part of europe and the european union. will this election have any impact on that wish on the part of turkey? guest: probably not under an erdogan-led turkey. it takes two to tango and i think franco german objections to turkey possible membership also quieted the excitement. the process has not come to a standstill, but it has come down
to a very slow pace of movement. we are seeing a very interesting development and support for succession dipped under akp as erdogan took turkey to the middle east with the intent he would make it a middle east power. and then that support came up as it became apparent that turkey was not becoming a middle east player, that it was exposing itself to things like isis and the assad regime. it was left without allies proxies and friends in the region. not that the eu has made talks more realistic or anyone is pushing for it in brussels support for annexation among the turkish problem -- turkish public has come back to around 50%. in a way, turks are flirting in their mind, saying it's better to be a european country done a middle east power. with neighbors like that, it's going to be hard, but ultimately it will be on the forthcoming
liberals'ticket that it will become a reality. charlie: there is fear that while erdogan would give expression to secularism, it is becoming less secular. guest: it is true that erdogan used religion and religious symbols and waved the quran at an assembly. there was a significant backlash against that. it wasn't so much religion per se but old-fashioned authoritarianism. the comparison was with vladimir putin as opposed to some middle eastern theocracy. secularism remains an important plank of the turkish republic, although clearly, part of the genius of the justice and development party of the previous decade has been allowing turks to explore their religious identities in new and
different ways. that has contributed to their electoral success over many years. i don't think that's going to change. charlie: what should we expect? guest: over the next 45 days turkish politics will be locked in gridlock. i don't foresee elections in 45 days, but i think they will come up with some sort of compromise. i think we will see elections before a five-year term and. charlie: thank you for coming. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪
charlie: george mitchell is here, a former u.s. attorney senator from maine and majority leader of the senate who is also the special envoy who brokered the good friday peace agreement in northern ireland. he looks back at these moments in a new memoir called "the negotiator -- reflections on an american life." i'm pleased to have george mitchell back at the table. it has been a remarkable life. george: i have been very lucky. charlie: i want to talk a bit about family and maine. george: my mother emigrated from lebanon and could not read. my father was the orphan son of irish immigrants. they emigrated from ireland to boston. he never knew his parents and was raised in an orphanage there
and ultimately adopted by an elderly couple who were childless and ended up next door in a slum area to the house where my mother lived with her older sister who had preceded her as an immigrant from lebanon. charlie: what influence did they have on you? george: powerful. both of them, my father was a janitor and my mother worked nights in a textile mill. they were poor but we never felt poor. my parents lived and died penniless that they were successful because they achieved their dreams. the dream was that here in america, their children could go to and get a degree from college and would be successful. they had not only a profound but an exaggerated belief in the
power of education which may people who don't have education possess. all of us went to college and graduated and all of us live lives that would be completely unimaginable to our parents. charlie: your dad was a janitor? and he lost his job? george: he earlier worked as a laborer and lost his job when he was 50. he had been working since he was 10 years old. different jobs, in the woods. he was out of work for a year and it nearly destroyed him and our family. ]the loss of self-esteem, he tried so desperately to get a job. i was a senior in high school, insensitive myself, insecure didn't comprehend the despair that was consuming him. after a year of a very difficult time, he got a job as a janitor at a local school.
you would inc. he had been made president of the college. it revived him. the missed disappeared from his eyes and he smiled for the first time in a long time. it was a powerful lesson for me that there is self worth in every human being and dignity in every form of work. what people need is just the opportunity to have meaning in life, to be able to work and contribute. charlie: what did they live to see you become? george: my father died at the age of 72 at the age of 72 and i had by then become a lawyer and had been involved in politics. i had become united states attorney for maine. he saw some progress. my mother later went into the early stages of dementia, so she saw about the same but she lived beyond my father. she was in a nursing home for several years.
they never got to see me be a senator, but i know they are looking down and smiling even today. charlie: was ed muskie a father to you? george: he was a great man. the greatest environmental legislator. the fundamental environmental laws to this day, he wrote and got them past with help from many others. he would have been a great president, but he didn't make it. he was a powerful influence on me. my clinical values, my understanding of the concept of public office and ultimately the office i held had been his. charlie: you came from being a district court judge. george: i was a district court judge in maine for less than the year. i can brag was never reversed by an appeals court. charlie: some of those positions
had to do that he was a kind of sponsor of your career. george: we were very close and i worked for him in my early years. i traveled with him all around maine and was the chauffeur, the clerk, the gopher, the note taker, the assistant all rolled into one. charlie: but it was a great education. george: it was one of the best educations i ever had. i went to every town in maine and spoke at the graduation of every high school in maine while i was in the senate. charlie: you loved immigration ceremonies as a federal judge. george: it was very moving for me considering my parents background, to be able to make people americans, people who had come from every part of the world, people who understood america stands for freedom and opportunity. a young asian man who could barely speak english who had been an american for 10 minutes, when i asked him why he came some that the meeting of our country.
he said to me in very broken english -- he said i came because here in america, everybody has a chance. that is a great statement of what our country stands for and one of the reasons i wrote this book is the real hard fact is today, a kid in the circumstances i was in many years ago in maine probably has less chance than i did. charlie: why is that? george: we have reached a stage in our society where what i call the middle class, working-class jobs are disappearing, so the middle class it self is dissolving. most of it falling backwards some of it moving up. the intellectual information technological revolution through which we are passing means the skills they had are now obsolete and we have not come up with mechanisms to catch up in providing knowledge, skill opportunity and jobs for people
to replace those that existed. knowledge, skill, opportunity and jobs for people to replace those that existed. in my small town growing up as a kid, there were two small mills. not one of those facilities exist anymore and that's a microcosm of america. charlie: same for me in my hometown. george: there is a hidden hunger in small towns across america in two dimensions. physical lack of food. kids can't learn if they don't have food and secondly, there's a broader need for meaning in life. meaning that comes from a job. making you feel like you are an active, participating member of our society. that's what's missing in our country and we haven't figured out a way to transform that technological future throughout
the whole society. charlie: and do you think someone could develop that narrative how to fix that. there is a hunger to hear that kind of edge? george: absolutely. that's what's missing in this country today. charlie: in our political debate and everything else. george: because it's much easier in this and other cases to describe the problem than to prescribe a solution. people talk about it but coming up with a way to talk about it that is feasible is the task of leadership. charlie: why is society so deeply divided? george: it's far beyond my knowledge of power and far beyond the time we have on the show to describe it. i'll identify two factors. one is redistricting. because of advances in technology, congressional redistricting every 10 years is now so precise that only about 1/5 of the seats in the house of
representatives are truly contested as between the parties. charlie: and the person who has the most extreme positions generally wins in the primary. george: that's right because so few people participate. the other factor is money. our political process is drowning in money. charlie: on both sides. george: absolutely. the supreme court did not create the problem. it's been there from the beginning and throughout human history. the united decision will, in my judgment, go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made by any supreme court in american history. it made the amount of money coming in much greater and a non-intended consequence, i believe is the reduction of transparency.
now more money is coming in and less transparency of where it's coming from. charlie: what's the rationale behind it? essentially that it's free expression -- that money is an expression of -- george: money equals speech and corporations are entitled to the same rights at individuals. for one thing, if a corporation is the same as a person in this respect, why is a person not entitled to the same rights at corporation, which is, of course, the limitation of liability. that's not the case. charlie: what's your prediction to ameliorate the problem with too much money in politics? george: there has to be some restraint. when i was in the senate, david borland, a fine senator, and i proposed a bill which cast reasonable restraints on money in politics. not perfect. we passed it in the house and senate.
unfortunately the first president bush vetoed it and we could not override the veto. you can reduce the amounts of money coming in. it's a myth to say it can't be done. it can't be done perfectly. no law is perfect. we have laws against murder. nobody expects murder to go away completely. so you try to improve the system. but it can't be enacted into law now. cliff: a couple of questions about biography. you became the majority of the united states senator. that's a big job. george: it's a big job and a tough job. i was kind of surprised to be there myself. charlie: how did you get there? it's vote trading. it's being able to get your college to vote for you. it's political -- george: there was no vote trading, charlie.
i'd been there only a few years but i'd had some good breaks and a couple of my colleagues, max baucus of montana and bill bradley of missouri encouraged me to run and i did. charlie: why do you think they encouraged you? what skills did you have that made them rather have you? george: i really think you'd have to ask them. i can't speak for them. it sounds immodest to start talking about your -- charlie: no, i'm interested. how did george mitchell get to be the majority leader of the united states senate? my impression of you is a very smart man who works very hard and you got that from growing up in maine and the parents you had. george: that's right. i've worked all my life. i worked my way through college and law school.
everyone in my family worked from the time we were little kids. delivering papers, sweeping floors, washing cars. i used to be the janitor at the local boys club and i didn't mind sweeping or dusting. i didn't mind emptying the waste basket but i hated cleaning the latrine. charlie: i would assume that. george: that drove me to keep going. charlie: when did you set your sights on being majority leader? george: after senator byrd said he would no longer seek the position privately and two of my colleagues, senator inouye and senator johnston announced they were going to run. the thought did cross my mind but didn't do anything about it until backus and bill bradley urged me to run. i then went and talked to john glenn, someone i respected. its if he laughed at me i shouldn't do it but he
encouraged me and said he thought i could go do the job. then i ran for it and won. charlie: and it put new position to be the patrol protagonist of president george bush. george: we worked together the first two years. muskie has -- had a clean air act but needed improvement. we tried hard when president reagan was in office but he was adamantly opposed to both the clean air and clean water act. in clean air, when president george h. bush took office, he reversed the reagan position and announced affirmatively that he was for the legislation, which made enactment of the law possible. after he said that the debate was what will be in the clean air bill? we ultimately got a good, strong bill, which wouldn't have happened without president bush's support. charlie: what is it about negotiation that you think all of us should understand,
appreciate and use? george: patience and learning to listen to others. why are you a good interviewer? you listen. you actually listen and that doesn't happen much. doesn't happen much in the news business and doesn't happen much in life. most people concentrate on what they're saying and it's especially difficult for human beings to listen intently, patiently and seriously, especially with people who they don't like and disagree with. our minds are built in such a
way that we have wide-open receptors for information that is consistent with our prior beliefs. we digest it, understand it and recall it but information that is different from ours, we don't take it in, we don't remember it. charlie: what damage is gridlock doing to the country? george: of course, congress reflects the divisions in the country. this is a very big, diverse country with very many interests but i think it has severed the bond of trust between the public and their elected officials. it's the dysfunction, the polarization and the money. every time i speak i ask who here believes the politicians are more receptive to the constituents than the donors? the first time a woman raised her hand, the first time in four years i said you have to tell me why that's so.
you're the only person in america who's raised your hand up to that point. she said it's simple, my husband is a member of congress. the bond of trust between the people and the officials so essential to an effective democracy has been severed. charley: how do you rebuild it? take the money out of politics? george: money out of politics. restrain redistricting. iowa, california, and a few other states are trying to have a reduction in partisanship in the redistributing process. get it done as accurately as possible, not to the advantage of one party or the other. it looks like a rorschach test. he couldn't have invented these squiggly lines moving all over the place. i'm not a political scientist.
george: for about 48 hours i did. charlie: serious consideration? george: for about two days. charlie: you said you didn't go it because you felt a responsibility to the legislature that was crucial. george: it was the health care legislation. i had introduced the previous november the clinton health reform bill. john chafee, a terrific guy and close friend of mine had entrusted the republican response. 20 of them republican, including senator dole, who was the republican leader and chafee and i both thought we could put this together. when obama passed his bill the republicans said it's terrible. why? because it has an individual mandate, big government telling people they have to buy insurance. when clinton introduced it it had a mandate.
so the republicans came up with what the individual mandate. it was a republican idea first put into legislation by 20 republicans including the republican leader. and chafee and i thought if we democrats could accept the individual mandate they might be able too make other concessions. it didn't work out. not through any part of chafee's. the politics was such that we drifted further and further apart. at the time when clinton offered me an appointment to the supreme court, i thought i could pass a bill. it didn't work out but that's life. i made a decision based on the facts at the time. charlie: but you regret it? george: yes, but i wouldn't have gone to ireland, the middle east, who knows? charlie: are you more judicial than political in mindset, in frame of reference?
george: i think legal training has been good for me. i think serving as a united states attorney and as a federal judge was good for me. it allowed me to open up my mind to hear contrary arguments. it allowed me to establish the ability to have a fair procedure for debating issues where everybody gets their say and there has to be some qualification of evidence so i think it's been enormously helpful to me and i still do think in that context. charlie: why did you leave the senate? george: i decided after my first election in 1982 that i did not want to make this a lifetime job. many men and women do and i don't mean anything negative about them, but i had seen too
many instances where people stayed too long. charlie: a lot of people there in their 80's. george: i don't knock that anymore because i'm in my 80's now. i use told say it just like you did. but i felt i wanted to do other things with my life. i was inspired by muskie, who left early. charlie: he left to become secretary of state. george: right. i left to become u.s. representative to northern ireland. not quite the same thing. but i remember when muskie said. good to go when they want to you stay rather than wait million they want you to leave. charlie: two presidents i want to ask you about and then a conversation about the iran nuclear negotiations. ronald reagan, he's held in pretty high esteem in this country. george: democrats sort of made fun of him -- well, all he can do is read a speech on television but the ability to communicate through television is an act of leadership just as a thousand years ago riding a horse and wielding a sword was an attribute beauty of leadership.
we'd laugh now if a man ran for mountain and could riled a good horse and wield a sword. but not willing able to communicate means a lack of one of the things that's important in society. charlie: he had good leadership qualities, therefore -- george: he also conveyed conviction, in part because he wasn't nor nuanced. it was all black and white in his view of things and that helped him convey strong convictions and he did have strong convictions and that conveyed itself even to people who disagreed. i think on the substantive issues, i don't think he'll go down as one of the greatest presidents but i think he'll have a rank about where he is now, above the average.
charlie: or right below the greatest? george: right below the greatest. charlie: the greatest are lincoln, roosevelt, washington. george: lincoln, roosevelt -- charlie: obama? george: i think that obama will recover politically in much the same way that reagan dilt did. reagan was way down after the iran contra affair. bush 41. harry truman was a great example. i think he should go right at the top of the list. charlie: the top of the second list. george: right. obama ran for office saying he was going to end the wars in afghanistan and iraq. they're not over but they're coming to an end and they would have gone on for much longer but for him. now his critics are saying well, let's get into war in syria, bomb here, attack there.
in we didn't have obama i think we'd be in several wars now. so that's the first point. it's hard to get credit for a negative, that you didn't do something that someone else might have done. charlie: when his opponents say that the problem in iraq is that he did not negotiate hard enough to keep american troops there, even after the decision to pull out had been made, you say what? george: the iraqi governor -- government wouldn't do it. charlie: but they say he didn't try hard enough. george: of course they did. you can say that about every human effort. charlie: do you think he wanted it bad enough? george: i think so but not the kind that would have subjected american soldiers to iraqi law and he was right not to do that. charlie: should we do more in terms of an american presence to stop isis? george: certainly not ground troops.
charlie: special forces, people on the ground? george: there already have been special forces. there will be more. there are now 7 1/2 billion people in the world. one in five is muslim. in 2060 there will be 3 1/2 billion muslims. the conflicts now have been there for 2,500 years between sunni and shiah. this is going to go on for a very long time and the notion that the united states can bomb its way to success in the middle east -- charlie: i don't think anybody suggests that, although some lindsay graham and others are. john mccain. i don't know whether they're lining up to say send american boys and girls to fight against
isis. george: i think if you check you'll find there's more than one who have said that. charlie: the iran nuclear negotiations. george: yes, iran must not get nuclear weapons. it would undermine the nuclear proliferation regime. charlie: which they have agreed to. george: it would be a direct threat to israel. there are two ways to accomplish that by negotiation or by war. it makes plain common sense to try to negotiate an outcome before you resort to war. charlie: everybody knows that. george: charlie, you say that but a substantial portion of the president's critics in the congress and prime minister netanyahu or opposed to negotiations. charlie: no, they're not. george: they were opposed. charlie: there are people who agree with negotiating. it's the terms of the deal.
george: they were against the negotiations before there was an interim agreement outlining the terms. they're opposed to the negotiations now because they say the terms will be unacceptable. that's the reality. that's on the record with many, many saying that of the president's critics. charlie: many of the president's critics are also saying it's the terms. they analyzed the deal. secretary kissinger, secretary schultz and others have looked at the deal and shall secretary baker. three republican secretaries of state, but people you admire. george: i admire all three of them. charlie: they're saying if it's this and contains these protections, good. george: first off, there isn't a deal yet so you have to withhold judgment until you see the final agreement and in my view, the final agreement will be
acceptable or not raced on -- upon the verification procedures that are include. charlie: that's what they say too, the very verification. but my point is it is the nature of how inclusive the inspection can be that will be determinative. george: the determinative issue is can the united states and the five countries on our side of the table, china, russia britain, france, and germany rely upon to do what it says? the answer is we cannot trust them. the ayatollah has said iran doesn't want nuclear weapons but the government of iran contradict his words so trust is out of the question. then what provisions will there be in the agreement that provide us and those on our side of the table with reasonable assurances that iran will do what it says it will do? charlie: as far as you know as to what's on the table now as
far as inspections and verifications, how many centrifuges they can have and advances they may make in those, as far as you know about it, would you sell the deal? george: the inspection and verification regimens have not been set out in detail. you cannot make a judgment until you see the final agreement there. on the rest of it i think it is clearly acceptable. the interim agreement is far better than what anybody anticipated going in. the question is can we trust can we verify what they do not trusting them? charlie: and there have been no changes in their nuclear posture. a positive. george: when the interim agreement was reached over a year ago, the critics said it is a sellout to iran. iran will never comply with the
provisions of the interim agreement. the international agency on atomic energy has verified that they complied. that does not mean by itself they'll comply with the provisions of a permanent agreement. and the fact that the critics were wrong once doesn't mean they'll be wrong twice. you have to assess the verifications provisions in the final agreement. if they're acceptable i believe we should go guard. charlie: and as you and the -- charlie: and it is a you and the president have said, what's the alternative? george: a nuclear war or a war to prevent a nuclear armed iran. those are the alternatives that the president's critics have refused to confront and face. charlie: george mitchell's book again, "the negotiator." thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
investors say here's the double in the next few days. looking to the west for a boost the chairman says american small businesses will be a key part of alibaba's strategy. revenue generated from abroad are up 5%. alibaba could surpass walmart this year. do follow me on twitter #trending business. a step closer certainly investing. we've been talking to charles about it. charles: a lot of steps need to be done, in the latest review, stepping back and not including asia yet in the emerging markets index.