tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 11, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
♪ our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." secretary, this journey, this part of your life is coming to an end. we talk about iran first. how do you do that now? is that a primary legacy for john kerry? don't think there's any one thing, if i can say respectfully , that is the legacy. i think the legacy is several full to the degree that there is a legacy. years have been defined by a world around us
that is going through massive transformation. some people confuse that transformation with sins of omission or commission by administration, but there are forces that are at play that we can't necessarily stop or shift the direction of, we have to manage. and i'm speaking specifically of something like the arab spring. we couldn't stop the arab spring. and it happened because of a combination of new communications, aspiration, thatnity, the tensions have been created because of the invasion of iraq, which left shia and sunni with a new definition and contest. it happened because of aspirations of young people above all, because of bad governance, failing states. there are many forces that are unleashed right now.
so the task for any administration is to tame the worst manifestations of these forces, to try to put together a strategy for how the united states can in fact advance its values and protect its interests in the mix of that transformation. i believe we've done a pretty managing moreof of these crisis that have come simultaneously than any time in recent memory. if you look -- i have said too many people and i will stand by completely legitimate that the united states of america and the last four years has been more engaged, more proactively, in more places, with more crises of different
kinds, and with positive impact, than at any time in american history. you can look at africa, where we are on the cusp of a generation being born of kids free from aids, where we stopped ebola, without the million people dying they predicted, or the south china sea, where we asserted the rights of navigation, or ukraine, where we stood up against russia's incursion and put sanctions in place and held europe together, or iran, where we got an agreement to get a country we hadn't talked to in 35 years to stop its nuclear assumingprogram, that's where they were going, and joining the international to livey under the iaea up to standard straight we had a trifecta with respect to the environment, unprecedented. if we had done the paris agreement, that would have been
a huge deal. we sent a signal to the global marketplace about clean energy and alternative, renewable energy. we got the airline industry together, which altogether is the size of the 12th largest emitter in the world. we have them reducing their emissions under a new agreement. we've got about 200 nations came together in kigali, and rwanda. there we managed to phase out 1000gerants, which are times more potent than carbon dioxide and which in and of itself could save the planet 1/2 degree centigrade of warming. i'm just starting to describe the things. in afghanistan we held a government together that threaten to implode, politically with the afghan completely shredded as a result because of the bad election.
we put a unity government together. i can go from place to place, where i think the united states has offered leadership, and it contradicts completely this n otion of retreat or retrenchment, that the united states is somehow pulling back. charlie: let me come to that point. do you believe that the cause of the events over the several years, that there is a new world order emerging? secretary kerry: clearly they are -- there are strains because of this transformation i'm talking about. for many years, the united have been americans when event times, when we made bad decisions, because we were really the only power standing for a long period of time, after world war ii as
the order emerged and as we created the u.n., all these things emerged, which is the order as we have referred to it, nato and so forth, the united states has been critical to the development of all of these structures, but increasingly, other countries are more powerful. charlie: and want to participate. secretary kerry: and they want to participate. they don't simply want to sit there and take orders thomas or simply be passive about the choices we are making in the context of those institutions. china, 1.3 billion people. second-largest economy in the world, which will be automatically the largest economy in the world at some point in time, once to play differently. be moret to determinative of their future and protect their interests.
likewise, other countries, russia, if you have a leader of a country like russia was leader says the most tragic moment of the 20th century was the fall of the soviet union, you can have a sense of where that person is coming from as he moves in response to things that the united states -- he wants to restore a level of respect and acceptance, and perhaps even more than that. charlie: do we give him that? want to respect you, we want to give you a level of acceptance. you have the world's largest collection of nuclear weapons. charlie: it's important and clear from the diplomacy i pursued, i think it's very important to talk to russia. people need to take note of the certain reality. russia, when brought into the process and respected in the conversation and dealt with, actually produced.
we were able to cooperate even as we know they have a different attitude about certain things, a different worldview, a different outlook. we are not going to be easily walking hand-in-hand in some fashion down the road that brings us together because of the differences in that worldview and other interests. russia doesn't like nato. russia doesn't like the extension. russia doesn't like what we did in libya, where they believe that we reached beyond the u.n. resolution. russia doesn't like revolutions. they don't like what happened in ukraine. there are a bunch of things that they reacted. we will have to work through those kinds of things in the relationship. but look, when we had to get chemical weapons out of syria,
russia was the cooperating party that helps make that happen. you have been in a what has been unsuccessful effort to get them to help form a transition government. how many days? and how many hours and how many sessions, trying to help the form a transition government? instead of doing that, what they have done is supported assad on the ground and he is now stronger than he has been in a very long time. secretary kerry: he is stronger than he has been. charlie: because of their support. no,etary kerry: well, that's not completely the way it played out. there are a number of reasons why the cease-fire didn't work, and why we weren't able to move to the geneva thing at this point in time.
one of the reasons was our own internal division here in the united states. we had some folks who did not want to talk to russia. thought it was wrong to have engagement with russia, and put their distrust of russia ahead of any efforts to find their way to the table. hard, simple, real fact. there will be no political solution whatsoever to the crisis of syria without dealing with russia. the fact is what we succeeded in laying out in the course of the international support group meetings, and the u.n. resolutions, is the outline of how that political solution is going to look and come about. there will beu, ultimately some kind of negotiation because there has to be, and it will follow the framework of what we laid down. so, while we didn't get there yet, none of that diplomacy was
wasted, none of that time to have a cease-fire. and it has established a framework which ultimately will work. the russians made a decision that because of our own challenges here, we weren't able to develop the separation. one of the deals was we would separate. it wasn't able to be done. so, you know, i think -- separate them out, because they are al qaeda, and is no dealing with them. they represent al qaeda. unfortunately, the opposition we were supporting got enmeshed with them, and it was very hard to distinguish who was who. because it allowed us to continually bomb people and
pretending he was going after al qaeda when he was going after the opposition, and never really went after isil or daesh. this is more complicated than meets the eye. meanwhile, you had a major amount of proxy pressure being put on people. turkey had proxy interests. you had saudi arabia, qataris, a nd so forth. those proxy efforts complicated what people were willing to do and what you could hold accountable. charlie: two things about this. you said there were divisions in america. said there were divisions in the administration, that secretary of state, you wanted to do more on the ground to give you more leverage, and you could not bring the president at that
point. you had less leverage to deal and deliversians than you wanted. speak to that. history. kerry: it is the administration has another few days and i'm still here and i'm not going to be going backwards yet. there were divisions in the administration, that secretary of state, you wanted to do more on the ground to give you moreit's no secret that thee many debates within the differenttion, and concepts of how to try to deal with it. charlie: but you supported the 51 diplomats who said you can't negotiate without -- secretary kerry: you need to have some leverage to negotiate. negotiate whento the other side doesn't feel compelled to be accountable or do sin brings -- do certain things. the important thing is that while syria has been frustrating for everybody, including president obama, the fact is that we've, i think, managed to
marshall major initiative within the region that has strengthened our allies in the region. partly in response to the iran nuclear agreement. beyond that -- charlie: israel, you mean sunni arab state? secretary kerry: i mean israel, uae, the saudis. charlie: sunni arabs? secretary kerry: very much so. we had a major summit at camp david were they all came in, we strengthen the military support structure, the training, the flow of weaponry they felt they needed. we have enforced measures against iran that fell outside agreementn nuclear which regarded u.n. resolutions or arms trafficking, state sponsorship of terrorism, so
forth. make itwe've managed to clear that the united states has been solidly engaged. we put together a 68-coalition country effort to defeat daesh. how can people suggest we are retreating when isil is moving across iraq, threatening baghdad, black flags flying, and the president of the united states immediately moved to put our aircraft in the sky and begin to take them on, to retrain the army, rebuild the army, and now we have liberated 65% of iraq that was taken over by daesh, 35% to 40% of syria. we are in the liberation of mosul, and i'm telling you without any question in my mind, daesh, isilarmy, and now we havd 65% of is going to be
defeated sometime in the course year.t driving them out of those two power centers. secretary kerry: it's more than that. driving them out of the power centers will not fully deal with the problem. it could go into the next year. it's within a measurable period confident wei am are going to be able to liberate. charlie: the way that isil came out of al qaeda, won't there be some other terrorist organization that will be worse than they are that will follow isil? where are we in the long struggle against terrorism? secretary kerry: at the beginning of that struggle, which will go on for some period of time. i said today that the united
states naval academy i think is generational. there's boko haram. there's al-shabab. you can run the list of these people, from africa to southeast-central asia. need to go,k we where the world has got to put effort, is into -- we need a new marshall plan. we need a greater engagement not just by the united states, but by all be developed and near developed worlds, need to come together more effectively to deal with this astounding --in many parts of the world, where you have young people who in many places, they are not going to go to school and they don't
have opportunity, and if all tively, as, collec leave them to the devices of radical religious extremists who grab those young minds, everybody is going to have a problem going forward. in terms of foreign policy, it is a mistake for somebody to say, we are not going to deal with over there. there is no over there anymore. everywhere is in the same place you can't deny that after the so-called red line was crossed and there was not an american reaction, though you will say the reaction was to get the chemical weapons out, others expected more and were prepared for more, and so were you -- we can talk about that specifically. after what happened to mosad, peopleto mubarak, many believed our allies had no
questions about where the u.s. was and can account on them. the united states had to go to those nations and reassure them. secretary kerry: fair to say that some people through a message from the departure of mubarak and the red line. thing, i think that is erroneous because in dy by virtuek alrea of the decision of the egyptian in the streetsut in the tens of millions, it was clear mubarak wasn't going to swallow that. president obama simply made clear publicly what was already clear on the ground, that he was gone, fundamentally. and that got hung on somehow on president, became this moment of doubt. now to the red line with respect to syria. the president of the united states never, ever retreated
from his position that he was going to strike. he announced that he would strike, he announced we would take action, and he went to congress to ask congress for permission to do that. cameron,at after david prime minister of britain, had gone to parliament and been turned down. i was on a telephone call with congressmen, many of whom were saying, you have to come to us. the president decided to go to congress. in the intervening time will congress was deliberating, and congress became far more difficult to persuade than anybody thought they would be, but while that have, i was asked at a press conference in london, is there any way that assad could avoid being bombed? and i said declaratively, yes.
you could get all the chemical weapons out of syria. called minister lavrov it within a couple hours and said, i heard what you said in london. we need to work on that. president obama and president putin had talked about it. we went to work on it and in a matter of days we came to an agreement to get all of the chemical weapons out of syria. in effect, in reality, we by having saidre we were going to bomb, getting all the chemical weapons out, but people interpreted the president going to congress as an avoidance of the bombing. and i will absolutely confirm with you right here. yes, it did hurt us. it took hold. somehow there was this perception that the president backed off. is ife: the perception you cross a line and you say you are going to attack if there's a red line, and then you don't -- secretary kerry: what was the
reason for the red line? it was to tell him, don't use these. what was the best way to not use them? take them away. we accomplished the goal exponentially beyond what we would. i concede, the fact of how it played out created this mythology and perception that somehow the president wasn't willing to do that. it did cost us. i know it cost us. i heard it, and i felt it, and i had to argue it with many people. charlie: and you had to convince them it was not the reality? secretary kerry: that's one of the reasons why we built up what we built up with camp david, the assurance program, the training, the increased efforts on the ground. a lot was done in terms of reassurance. charlie: as you remember, i was week talking to assad a
before that and he said at that time that he would give up the chemical weapons if there was no strike because he thought it would be good to avoid war. london,member you in looking at that, and how timely it was. there's also this in terms of history. the famous walk around the white house lawn, with a man i interviewed yesterday, the chief of staff. it is said the president came back from that walk and announced he would not attack. charlie: -- secretary kerry: he announced he was going to go to congress to get the permission. charlie: there was nothing discussed and no decision made as a result of that walk. consulting with the secretary of state, the national security advisor. he took a walk, and that was a decisive moment in his own confirmation of his own thinking.
secretary kerry: did the chief of staff tell you the president made a decision not to strike, or to go to congress? i got a phone call at 9:30 that night from the president saying, here's my thinking. it was the night after the walk. the president said to me, i think we have to go to congress and get permission. he never said to me, i decided not to strike. he went to congress to get permission to strike. the foreign relations committee voted something like 13-7. we were still on a track to strike. secretary kerry: -- charlie: so the decision was to go to congress. secretary kerry: that's as i understand it. assume you are right. much has been made of that walk. secretary kerry: i know. it was a walk about whether or not he would strike on saturday, literally, or whether we have to go to congress. one of the reasons people felt
compelled that the congress thing made sense was because david cameron, our close ally, british parliament, refused him permission to strike. beendemocracy and ally had refused permission to join in this, was the president on weaker ground therefore, to go ahead and strike notwithstanding, or if it wasn't wiser to go to congress in our democracy and get the affirmation of the american people? charlie: there were those who argued you did not have to go to congress. secretary kerry: true. we weren't arguing, charlie. we knew the president had the authority constitutionally to do the strike. that wasn't the issue. the issue was, should he go. was he wiser to get the permission and buy-in from the american people for use of force, and many members of congress argued he ought to do that. in the liberations of the
national security council, i the vast majority of people there -- it may have people, but one or two held that congress would give permission and do it pretty quickly. it was with that in mind that the president made the decision to go. turned out not to be something congress was ready to do quickly. it was not put forward in that fashion, to the best of my recollection. charlie: one, where is syria today? what would it have taken to have a better result? secretary kerry: syria is a colossal catastrophe and he -- tremendous humanitarian situa tion today. i hate what i see. it's painful to watch her
children being bombed, historic communities being destroyed. the passions of revenge and hatred yang stoked. and harder and harder to put back together as a nation. if thenally believe russians felt some pressure, we would've had greater capacity. charlie: what kind of pressure? secretary kerry: any kind of pressure. i think what happened is the russians wouldn't put pressure. russians never help them completely accountable. permissiveness to outside actions which raised everybody's hackles about russia's approach to this. charlie: has assad won? has he won temporarily? secretary kerry: no, he's in a dominant position today, but
there is no victory without a political solution. no military solution to syria. it will continue to be suicide bombings and car bombs and insurrection and low grade insurgency for a long period of time, if you don't lose all the fundamental, underlying questions of the future of syria. charlie: is it the most disappointing part of your secretary of state-ship? i don't view it as over. i don't view it as our failure. i think it's a collective failure. i view it is a failure of everybody who has touched it and been involved in it, that the international community could not come together and unite around a standard of decency and
behavior, as is expressed within the u.n. and international community with respect to war and laws of war. that we to the fact were not able as an international community to prevent the carnage of syria. and, the things that might have been done or that weren't done or weren't considered are a fair subject of debate once we are finished. charlie: i hope to talk to you then. ♪
charlie: first, the iran deal. many people thought that was such a tower in diplomatic achievement, that it almost deserved or did deserve a nobel prize for you and the foreign minister of iran. how difficult was it? tell us how you did it. what was the essence of all those hours and all those talks and all those people who had their own interests? well, leavingy: myself out of this, just as an observer -- charlie: was there no person more central to it then you? secretary kerry: no. i'm trying to make a comment about it because i don't want to make it sound like i'm building it up. this was tough. i've been involved in these
discussions and these efforts for 34 years, 32 years, or something. 28 years in the senate, plus. to sit down with a nation with whom we've had no formal, high-level discussions for 35 years, to break the barrier of mistress to be able to get to a table and start working down a road, where a country was talking about intrusive inspections, a country particularly as full of pridea d privacy as asm and country like iran, was really hard and complicated. and they had interests, we had interests. you have to always find a way to thread the needle in a way to satisfy interests but still get the job done.
we needed to know that if we got an agreement, we were not puttingisrael at risk, countries in the region at risk. we needed to know this was not just an agreement for 15 years, but for life, which is why the additional protocol allows a demand inspection at any time in the life of this agreement. if we see a facility at some now, it'sears from being developed, and we have cause to believe that enrichment is taking place, there is a breakout effort underway. we have a right to inspect. legitimacy, we have in challenging that particular activity. we are never without recourse in the course of this particular agreement. it was critical to be able to achieve that, for frankly, hard for iran to be able to come to the table and make an agreement and say, ok, we are doing this for the long haul.
and were not going to have weaponry, and we are prepared to let the outside world look in. charlie: why do you think you were able to do it? secretary kerry: we both had an interest in doing it. it was clear that the supreme leader had made a fundamental decision that their nation needed to grow, they needed to do better by their people. because of the sanctions regime, which was a huge success, they were simply not capable of doing that. now, if they think they have averted an ultimate confrontation of what their program is, they're mistaken. what is in place will always know whether or not and to challenge whether or not they are trying to move towards -- we will always have the time to be able to protect our friends in the region and protect our own interests. that and weto do needed to make sure they didn't
have a pathway to a nuclear weapon. you combine those 2 interests and put them together, that was really the bedrock foundation of what would bring the 2 countries,the 7 p5+1, to the table. charlie: this is an area where russia was very helpful. secretary kerry: russia was one of the key players in helping to get to this agreement. russia also was a key player in getting the chemical weapons out of syria. russia was a key player in helping us to move on the environmental agreements i discussed. russia was key to getting the fewne area protected a weeks ago. we have been able to get some cooperation from russia even as we disagreed that early over ukraine, over crimea, -- bit terly over ukraine, crimea,
syria. we still manage to move on some of these other issues. coming back to iran, there were just hours and hours of very detailed and complicated issues, point, they became affected by the desire of congress to pass more sanctions, because they didn't understand where we were in the process. charlie: if a new congress would impose new sanctions, what would happen to the agreement? secretary kerry: they could break the agreement apart. charlie: so far they have kept the bargain. secretary kerry: iran has definitively kept the bargain. there have been a couple things there that they had to tweak to make sure we are staying where we are. we have set it up now that it is on a track to be able to move
are cooperating on iran, on climate. secretary kerry: yeah, but -- charlie: trying to interrupt the democratic process in america. secretary kerry: putin alleges that we try to disrupt his process, as you know. it's one of the reasons why he chose not to like hillary clinton and her candidacy. and he believes the obama -- administration interfered with the legitimate the of his own race. deeply believe we were involved -- i'm not giving it legitimacy, i'm not saying that's a reason for us to not believe what we believe, i'm just saying if you don't understand where the other person is coming from or the other countries are coming from, you have a problem. not that it's an excuse, anything he did particularly after the president of the united states made it clear to him this was unacceptable. charlie: this was at the g20
meeting. secretary kerry: i raised it. charlie: they have stopped it because you raised it with lavrov? happened kerry: what is the horses were already out of the barn. they had already invaded wiki leaks. but there was not evidence that other things grew significantly after that. damage done. charlie: there was a meeting between turkey and back to syria. turkey, iran, russia. you were not there. secretary kerry: the reason we were not there is because we perceived for certain reasons we are unable to deliver on what we've said we will deliver on. charlie: were they right? secretary kerry: we didn't deliver. charlie: tell me when you became
secretary of state, what did you think you could do, and why? beening something that had unattainable so far, to bring the palestinians and the iranians to an agreement supported by both? --rlie: secretary kerry: this is an issue i've lived with for 30+ years. i traveled to israel in 1986 for the first time as a young of myr, with 15 or so friends in massachusetts, and we traveled all around the country and i got to know it. that was my introduction. i love israel. with abeautiful country spectacular founding idea. -- hertzel and company came together and
zionism was born, it was the idea of creating this homeland. it wasorld war ii, 1948, created. we recognized it within 8 minutes. but the arab world did not. and so for years, there has been this question of how do you make peace here. there's been an evolution in that process, through various presidencies, republican and democrat alike, all of whom have opposed settlements. republican and democrats alike have continually said, settlements are an obstacle to peace. settlements, unilaterally decided upon, announced, and built are an obstacle to the two state solution. in 1993 the oslo accords were
signed, which embrace this notion of two states for two people living side-by-side in peace and security. that's all that we support. and this administration has been more supportive of israel historically than any administration. we gave them the iron dome. we saved thousands of lives of israelis because of iron dome. a $38 billion, 10-year mou. charlie: their prime minister and u.s. ambassador have acknowledged that. more military support and more things in terms of that nature. at the same time, their prime minister comes here and speaks to congress against the nuclear deal. secretary kerry: he was opposed to the nuclear deal. that's ok. this is important. the united states has continually, and we, for four years, i have defended israel in various forums where people have brought de-legitimizing and
unfair resolutions, whether unesco or the human rights council or u.n., we said no. charlie: vetoed it every camp. secretary kerry: either said no or vetoed it before it got off the ground. why the timing? we waited because we were negotiating for a year. negotiation going. after the negotiation there was a presidential race. if we didn't announce something in both presidential -- did and out something in the middle of a presidential race, it would be dead on arrrival. couldn't walk away and leave people with a sense that this didn't matter, that there was impunity for the continued building of settlements. charlie: you couldn't walk away from what has been a principle of american policy having to do with israel and its neighbors.
secretary kerry: yes, more than that. what has been happening because of the continued process is the slow destruction, deterioration, blockage of the possibility of the two-state solution. why is that so important to us? because it's important to israel, and the palestinians. you cannot possibly have a democracy and a jewish state and be a single state, a unitary state. if israel doesn't create two states, it will be that unitary state. there are more non-jews today right now -- [inaudible] charlie: netanyahu recognizes it. a unitary state, they will face these problems. secretary kerry: he says he does recognize that. still inhe says he is
favor of a two state solution and settlements at the same time. secretary kerry: he says he has to do x number of settlements because his coalition is a coalition which is built up of many people, the majority of his ministers don't believe in a two state solution. in effect, you have a settler is driving those politics, and that's what creates this tension. you have many more people in israel who, by all polls, believe in two states. why did we push this? because we support israel, we care about and israel that can be a jewish state and a democracy. unless there are two states -- charlie: a firestorm of criticism among the jewish community in america. secretary kerry: i don't believe so. look at the polls. i've seen polls that show the majority of jews in america
support the idea of a two state solution. charlie: i'm talking about not be doing the resolution. secretary kerry: i saw polls that showed 36% supported what we did, 29% or 30% opposed and the rest undecided. i've seen polls that show this division. is not the division that's important, it's the policy that's important. israel, to be a democracy and a jewish state at the same time, it's got to resolve this issue and make a choice. the choice is, you've got to create that state, or you give up on the idea -- charlie: it is been trending this way for a while. the settlement has continued in one administration to another. it's reaching a tipping point. secretary kerry: yes, and after many discussions -- i've had over something like 375to 400
hours of conversation with the prime minister of israel. would consider us friends. i've known him for a long time, we get along, we talked for many hours, we spent great times together. i said to him, mr. prime minister, you are taking your country to a place where it will be increasingly hard for us to fend off resolutions and still be true to our own policy. that's a choice we face. we are a sovereign nation. we are israel's best friend. if we stood up and said we have to be true to the two-tsatstate everys, to the policy administration has reported, and so we voted the way we did. we didn't support it, we abstained. we allowed it to go through. we also didn't sit there -- why didn't we agree with it? there were things in the resolution.
charlie: you think it could lead to the destruction of the state of israel as we know it. some people even use the word apartheid. secretary kerry: some people have used that word in other words. what i am using is, you will have two different, separate laws strictly palestinians live in the west bank under military law. israeli settlers who live in the west bank live under israeli cilvvil law. increasingly there has been a reverse of the oslo process. palestinian homes in the west bank, built illegally, only one permit was granted for construction in 2014 and 2015. those have been demolished. charlie: how much aid did we give israel last year? secretary kerry: $3.1 billion. than 50% ofves more
all of the foreign military sales support of the united states. and yes, we give them a lot of aid. i think we should. israel's our ally, our friend, and israel has been under siege. israel does need to have the security to protect itself great part of the guiding principle how we approach this process was to absolutely make certain israel could defend itself by itself. you know what the israelis say. say to you, will the u.n. is not the way to go. the way to go is negotiations between israel and the palestinians. secretary kerry: you are correct. we affirmed that in the resolution. we've affirmed say to you, the u.n.that every step of the way. cannotal status issues be imposed by the united nations. they must be resolved by the
parties. we completely support and enforce that principle. in the resolution that was passed in the united nations, there was no final status issue decision that was made. jerusalem, i put forward principles around which they yould negotiate, suggesting won't have a solution to the problem unless you have a capital for each state somewhere in jerusalem, they have to resolve that. where is it going to be? solution have a without that. we also said you have to solve the refugee issue in a way that is fair and just and along the lines of what the arab peace commission is. you have to solve borders, and you have to make sure that israel has the ability to defend itself, and even if things were to change in 20 years or whatever, they could then still defend themselves because they have a right to be able to ultimately respond to that crisis legally, even if it meant
they have to push back in the region temporarily to deal with it. there are all kinds of ways we have acknowledged that the final status issues must be resolved by the two parties. nothing in the resolution that passed in the united nations -- settlements are not a final status issue. settlements depend on borders. charlie: you are inexhaustible. , until theeliever last breath you keep trying. secretary kerry: i believe you can make peace. i believe in rationality. charlie: your time is better spent on other issues. you need to be in syria, in china. this is a fool's errand to belie ve you will try what everyone else has tried. secretary kerry: i didn't give up working on any of the issues. i traveled 7 times to china.
charlie: what is that about you? secretary kerry: i worked on the global climate change agreement, on all these other agreements. i've negotiated in afghanistan. that's the nature of this job. it's an intense job and you work hard at it. moreie: you travel a lot in terms of trying to pursue a middle east peace then secretary clinton did. secretary kerry: maybe some of it has to do with the lessons i learned as a young man, the war is a failure of diplomacy, and if countries lie or avoid reality or don't try, particularly the united states of america, a lot of bad things can happen. when i came back from vietnam, i resolved that if i ever had a chance or i was in a position of responsibility, i would do everything in my power to guarantee that i didn't fall into that hit and make the same mistakes or lose the opportunity. we had a saying, my crew and the guys i was with over there.
those of us who are lucky enough to make it back have a saying that every day is extra. so, you go at it that way. charlie: where will you be six months from now? secretary kerry: i don't know. i will continue to try to contribute, to find ways to stay in this debate, the climate lenge is a norm us and we have a lot of work to do. i want to try to be involved in some track two diplomacy and some other efforts. and i want to do some private-sector stuff. i'm very excited about what is happening in the private sector, the changes that can take place. private-sector investment and choices we make, it's a huge opportunity to push public policy. there are all kinds of investments we can make in countries that could meet some of the challenges i talked about earlier, about young people an opportunity. i want to be engaged in that in
♪ >> steady as she goes, stronger exports boost in japan's account surplus. defiant and defend, donald trump attacking the media in his first press conference as president-elect. the samsung heir summoned by prosecutors. transpacific tensions, donald trump spake for secretary of state says china must be warned off disputed islands. this is the second hour of "daybreak: asia.