tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 18, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." harlie: national security advisor to the president of the united states. are you ready to leave? >> very mixed feelings. it has been an extraordinary privilege to serve our country again, to serve particularly under this president. i love the work i do, i love the team i work with. i'm going to be very sorry to leave that. on the other hand, after eight as national security advisor or u.n. ambassador and two years prior to that,
supporting obama's election, 10 years of intensity, working on some of the most intractable and challenging problems, there is a real part of me that is looking forward to getting a rest. charlie: close to power, the national security advisor, person who presents the options to the president. deal ofhere's a great learned. let me talk about what i learned about the role of national security advisor. first and foremost, it's my job to ensure that the deal of learned. advice, analysis, recommendations provided to the president of the united states are well thought fact, andased in fairly reflect the opinions and recommendations of the level national security. youlie: conflicts, understand there is a conflict in recommendation which i still often have. andn: it happens enough
it's vitally important that my colleagues at the principals cane and the president trust that i am not putting a filter on that or any spin, whatever is the ok view of the president's cabinet officials is fully and fairly represented to him. charlie: what were your impressions of michael flynn? susan: i can't say that i know him well. we have spent a number of hours together in our meetings, whereas i have been trying to make hard that we are -- make sure we are giving him the information he needs. charlie: you have some impression of his security, his intellect, his values and judgments? susan: it's not appropriate for me to characterize my successor. our meetings have been constructive. and, i think we are doing the business we were meant to do of affecting this
handoff. from the national security council's point of view, we have been working since the beginning of the year, 2016, to prepare for this transition. obviously without knowing to whom we would be handing off. i personally reviewed over 100 transition memos to general flynn and those on his team. in addition to that, at the lower levels, i prepared another 175 pieces of paper. there's a huge volume of material that we have provided to them for their consumption, and on top of that, we sat down for many hours to talk through the challenges, to be responsive to their questions and concerns. charlie: you also know well what the president-elect has been saying, whether nato is isolete, whether nato to with draw sanctions, if to with draw sanctions,
if the russians will give him something. what indication does that give you about where the trump administration is going? susan: like most american consumers of the news, we are all watching and listening and trying to figure out what this portends. in a number of areas quite frankly, we've heard different messages. nominees, fromt the president-elect himself at different times on different topics. i think we need to wait and see. charlie: what lessons do you want to impart to michael flynn? susan: necessity in running a transparent and honest process and serving the president-elect, soon to be president, with the integrity and the fairness that this position requires. secondly, it is essential to be a consumer of substance. there are no shortcuts in this business. foreven if you are vehicle communication is a shortcut, substantive policy work that comes behind it has to be serious and rigorous. i've also tried to impart the quality of the staff we are handing off to, the new team. the national council that security council staff, career
experts from around the different agencies that have been detailed for the white house, they are extremely knowledgeable, experienced, and effective. and i've been very proud to lead as we have tried to ready the next administration for the challenges they will face. i hope they will trust in the wisdom and experience of the foriegn service and military. charlie: what is your biggest nightmare? what has kept you up late? choose whatever idea expresses the sense that as you sit here with me, this has worried me the most. susan: i have a number of worries. i wish i had one. this is a world where the nature of the threats is very diverse and the challenges are multiple. let me list a few. i think anybody in my position would worry about a catastrophic attack on the homeland or on american personnel abroad.
that is nightmare number one. and particularly, if it were god for bid to be combined with some sort of weapons of mass destruction, biological weapon, especially wmd, terrorism. , i think we need to be very concerned about the potential, deliberate or inadvertent, for russia to miscalculate and provoke a conflict in the european theater. because russia's actions have been increasingly aggressive, whether it is surveilling our diplomatic personnel and harassing them, making very unsafe approaches on air, and i in the whatutin'sunclear p intentions are, especially after the annexation of crimea and the illegal occupation of ukraine, and the atrocities he has been party to in syria. i worry about russia.
probable but catastrophic scenarios, pandemic flu, is a major concern. north korea continuing to advance and perfect its nuclear missile program. or even an unforeseen conflict between india and pakistan. thatnuclear, armed nations are constantly skirmishing in kashmir. russia. we talked about latimer putin said on tuesday he accused the outgoing u.s. administration of trying to undermine president-elect trump by spreading false allegations. he described it as part of an effort by president obama, he said the dossier alleging trump's sexual activities at a moscow hotel was fake and he charged as being worse than prostitution. he's talking about your administration. vladimir putin saying --
has told more lies than i can count. whether about syria, ukraine, or about his role in any engineering of our elections. i don't take anything he says as gospel truth. in this case, it's completely dishonest and counterfactual. president obama had no knowledge of, no role in this alleged and obviously, it is the consensus, high confidence of our collective 17 intelligence agencies that vladimir putin made a deliberate attempt to interfere with our elections. that's the fact. interfere with our election and make sure that donald trump was elected? susan: i don't think it's possible to say make sure. by denigrating secretary clinton -- charlie: so putin wanted to do
whatever he could to benefit the election or add to or contribute to. susan: that is what our intelligence community has - has -- charlie: this goes to the heart of the democratic process. have we retaliated in kind? have we done something to putin, either face-to-face or in china, that putin says, are not going to do that again because they will -- susan: we have retaliated, and we have responded in a serious fashion. we said from the outset we will respond in a manner and time of our choosing, and all of it may be evident to the american people. it has begun. a significant element of it was announced at the end of last month, when the president the russian military intelligence and other russian intelligence agencies and their
leadership for their direct role in trying to involve themselves in our election. he also expelled 35 russian intelligence officials, close down two very facilities they operated in the united states, put out in great detail the forensics that showed how russia conducted these attacks, and a variety of significant steps. now, you mentioned china. back in early september, as we were beginning to see indications of this, the president did convey a very forceful message to president putin. it's our assessment that as this circumstance involved and became -- having greater confidence in conclusions, as you know, the intelligence community and fbi, made it clear to the american people on october 7 that russia was
playing a nefarious role at the highest level designed to interfere with our elections. the fact of the matter is that russia's behavior, as bad as it was, and it was significant, could have been worse. and might have been worse, i did not been for the fact that they understood -- charlie: have a stopped? susan: doing what? charlie: hacking. susan: no. russia and other state and nonstate actors will continue to hack. election --d in the this went beyond intelligence beyond hacking for commercial gain. this was hacking to acquire information and then to use it to influence the election. charlie: samantha power made a speech in which she said, this demonstrates how committed a country russia is to breaking
rules and tearing down the existing world order. she cited ukraine, crimea, and syria. that's interesting. breaking the rules and tearing down the existing world order. is that what vladimir putin wants to do? susan: i don't know that that is an accurate reflection of his intent. he's trying to bend the rules of the world order. i think he is certainly trying to manipulate the rules to his benefit. his invasion of ukraine, annexation of crimea, was a blatant violation of international rules. he did so to advantage his own interests. at the same time as he's doing that, he purports to uphold international law by virtue of his role as a member of the security council. there's a duality there. when it's convenient for russia, in the present, they are violating international rules to cement their appropriate points to syria.
as another example. in other instances, it tries to wag its finger and beauty champion of the so-called international rules and norms. is a dishonest game, a manipulative one. it's all about serving what he believes to be his interests. charlie: vladimir putin has said the u.s.-russia relationship is as bad as he's ever seen it. susan: you and i are old enough to remember the cold war. i think we have a little bit of perspective, even in the midst of what is a difficult period in our relationship, there's no doubt. i would not be prepared to characterize it that way. even as we have reached very difficult times i virtue of what has happened with respect to our election and ukraine and syria, there are still other areas where the u.s. and russia on a daily basis are working together, and are continuing to find areas where our interests
coincide, for example implementation of the iran nuclear deal. charlie: john kerry said to me last week they were a great help to getting that deal done. susan: that is true. and that's where their interests and hours coincide. we negotiated and we are both still adhering to the new start treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenals. there are areas where our interests do converge and where we are able to cooperate. there are increasingly a number of areas where they diverge. charlie: donald trump has said he's prepared to consider reducing the sanctions, if there is an action on the part of vladimir putin and russia suggesting something within a nuclear treaty. can you imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate to reduce the sanctions that have been posed by your administration? susan: we have different
sanctions for different purposes. we have sanctions on russia for their annexation of crimea and ukraine. for those we have said as long as they are holding on to crimea, certain sanctions will remain in effect. when it comes to ukraine, if russia were to fulfill its commitment and fully implement and ourk agreement, we european partners have indicated for a long time that sanctions could be pulled down for their involvement in ukraine. we have a separate set of sanctions that relate to some of their abuses internally, human rights. thatve other sanctions now relate to their involvement in the election. i think for this latter group of human rights related and election related, the bar ought to be very high for reducing sanctions because the damage has been enduring. ♪
charlie: talking about taking a little -- new look at the one china policy. do you think that's a wise thing to do? susan: i don't. the one china policy has served the united states, taiwan and china well. it has been a foundational elements of the u.s.-china relationship since normalization back in 1979. we are a friend and partner of
taiwan, adhered to the taiwan relations act, we provide defense equipment and support to taiwan. that has served taiwan and the united states well. to abrogate the one china policy or bring it into ancillary issue iions or trade think would be a grave mistake and i think we will find that china, with whom we have managed to forge a far more pragmatic and effective relationship where we cooperate in a far wider range of areas than ever before, whether it's climate change or peacekeeping or global health, nonproliferation, and manage our differences and competition within the economic sphere or on the south china sea in a constructive fashion to avoid conflict, that whole balance could be upset in a very devastating way. charlie: not only that, north korea. susan: china for better or for
worse is an indispensable player when it comes to north korea. our global economy is such that the u.s. and china's economies are intimately linked. they hold a high proportion of our debt. there are many ways in which we andt afford to play fast loose with what is the most consequential bilateral relationship on the planet. susan: -- charlie: people see xi jinping at davos giving a major speech. the first time the president of china has been there. saying, globalization is good. when the whole populist revolution is about globalism is bad. he's over there saying, we believe in world market, we believe we have to monitor what happens with globalization. it's almost like china is saying, we are the champion of mobilization. not the united states. hasn: the united states been the biggest beneficiary of globalization and free trade and
open markets. we enforced democratic rule in many places. raise living standards. exports are a huge basis of our economy. i think we would be very remiss the mantled -- ceded of leadership on free trade and economic openness to china. that's why the president has been so committed to the transpacific partnership. which he did not get past. -- passed. susan: negotiating which he didt past. it, the deal, and getting trade promotion authority, which we did, to enable it to be passed, and then unfortunately in the latter months of the year, the leadership in congress make clear they would not pick it up. charlie: tell me where you see the possibilities of the chinese relationship. there much more aggressive in the south china sea. even putting -- building of
those islands, with some military equipment and defensive equipment. are building up their navy to be an outreach of their global power. a continent they know a lot about, they have a presence in africa. china is the most consequential bilateral relationship in the world. i have spent more time traveling as national security adviser than to any other country. i've personally been engaged very directly with my chinese counterparts, and met myself with xi jinping on a number of occasions to help shepherd this complex relationship. it now stands the entirety of the u.s. government, everything from wildlife trafficking to public health in africa, to our defense relationship.
it's complicated, it's intense, it's got economic and security and we need tot, recognize the when the united solve and china can problems together, that's beneficial for both countries and the world. we saw that most are medically in the climate sphere solve problems together, that's beneficial for both countries and the where the paris agreement was forged. when the united states and china are a confrontation, whether in the economic sphere or security realm, it's quite dangerous, and we have to be quite clear to stand up for what we believe in, and that's freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight. they have been adding to their presence. china's obviously the largest player in that regard. and we've insisted on,
don't take a view on whose claims are legitimate under international law, is that we are the united states and our commercial vessels, our military vessels, will operate where we need to. we will defend our allies, defend the international rules and norms, and we've done that. china doesn't like it, and there is potential for disagreements in this realm to escalate. for now, we have manage them, and i think manage them responsibly. i will give you another area where we have major differences we have managed to mitigate the conflict and turn down the temperature. that is in the cyber realm. china has been very aggressive over many years, particularly in stealcyber tools to economic assets. charlie: the argument also being made by the united states, that the government of china was
benefiting. susan: they are stealing our stuff. charlie: so they would have an advantage in the world market. made a very strong argument. did they stop? susan: they have much reduced it. it happened because in september 2015, i apologize, on the eve of president xi jinping's state visit to the united states, following my visit to china in august, we made very clear that unless it was stopped and we reached an understanding about what the rules of the road were going to not onlyhey foreswore deed, commercial
espionage using ciber, that we were going to impose sanctions because we understood it. we reached a deed, commercial espionage using ciber, that we were going to impose sanctions because we understood it. we reached a five-point agreement that the president announced in september. i think if you ask our commercial partners, u.s. companies, or our deed, say inte community, they will all that the frequency and the nature has been reduced. charlie: do you agree that donald trump is a candidate for president of the united states was able to speak to people who lost their jobs and be able to tell them that it was in part because of unfair trade practices by china, and the loss of their job, the moving of factors, and all of that? china was not playing on a level playing field and was costing american jobs, and he was going to do something about it, even if it meant imposing it for a 5% tax? susan: there's no question that we've had for many years a number of economic grievances as it relates to china. we need to deal with them each in their own right. we have taken more trade actions in this administration against china, including just this past week, for where we see unfair
trade practices. we are enforcing the rules of the road and making sure that where american companies are disadvantaged that there is where american companies are disadvantaged that there is adequate and full summer retaliation. on the other hand, we have to be realistic. our economies are intertwined. goodsriff on chinese would not only harm china, but the united states in a meeting away and trigger a trade war. has been xi jinping clear about that. that's not good for any of us or the global economy. we need to find calibrated and responsible ways to protect our businesses where they are threatened and our industry, and thehe same time not tank world economy in the process. and where we have workers that have been displaced and disadvantaged by trade with orna, or in the past, currency concerns with china. onlyed to defend them not
in the relationship with china, but in terms of helping them adjust back here at home. charlie: we clearly saw the impact of sanctions in iran. we got a nuclear deal out of that. can you tell me one way that sanctions against russia have altered their policies? susan: let's go to the ukraine. those sanctions have been in longer. the ones we just discussed related to the election have only been in place since last month. on the ukraine sanctions, what we can say is the united states working in concert with europe and having a unified approach to createds certainly economic pain in russia and exacerbated what has already been a precarious situation because of lower oil prices. it has led to the minsk agreement that were signed, but not fully implemented. that's where the challenge -- it's both. minsks, there would be no agreements and no agreed framework for how to resolve the conflict without the united
states and europe and the other members of our partners in the g7 standing together. i think it's important that those pressures remain in place until minsk is implemented. in the meantime we have supported ukraine to develop its economy, to get back on its feet, to build up its defensive capabilities. charlie: do you think the russians are going to once again change their policy about crimea? isn't that a done deal? susan: they may think it's a done deal. it's not accepted by anyone else in the international community. whether they change their posture, i'm not here to predict whether that will happen. what i can say is it's not been accepted by any country as legitimate. it is -- was an illegal annexation of another country's territory. charlie: which stands today. it stands and it can't be accepted. ♪
militarily. and it looks like their intervention made a significant difference. does that hurt our standing in the world? susan: what i think would hurt our standing far more than russia deciding to commit itself militarily -- charlie: we didn't go in, russia went in -- susan: they are taking the losses, they are very the cost of what we think is a misguided policy to back side. what are our interests? is it in the united states interest to get caught in another hot war in the middle east? i don't think so. we got an hour. let me finish. in ourer thing that is interests is dealing with the terrorist threat that has arisen in iraq and syria.
and doing so in an effective and sustainable way. we have been involved, we were involved militarily in syria. to try and defeat isil in a coalition with others, and iraq the same way, working with the iraqi government. we have rolled back the gains isil has made in iraq and syria. we've taken out many of the senior leaders. as we are seeing in mosul and we thatsoon see in rocca, campaign is making critical progress. that serves directly our interests because there are people in iraq and syria plotting to attack the united states and our european partners and others. that is where we need to engage. a choice to involve ourselves in would havecivil war been a world of choice and one in which our direct interests and the president's judgment, and my judgment, were not implicated to the extent that a warrant to the loss of american life. charlie: failure of negotiations
between russia and the united states so far, in order to find some alternative to bashar al-assad? susan: whether or not the united states had chosen to intervene in syria -- militarily in the civil war. charlie: you have intervened. susan: what i'm talking about is theher we got involved in way you just described russia got involved. we have not. i think that was the right choice. will have always needed to end at the negotiating table. there's no question about that. back to the beginning, before it was the u.s. and russia talking, it was the united nations back in 2012. back to the beginning, before it was the u.s. and we had been involved in these negotiations from the very beginning because the only sustainable way in our judgment to end the conflict and see assad leave the scene is going to be through negotiation. charlie: the only alternative as was as you are concerned
significant number of boots on the ground. it was the only thing in your judgment that could turn the civil war in the favor of the rebels? susan: i'm not even sure that would have. you are asking why -- intensely ineshed the war in syria prior to the i can'tintervention, predict with certainty what effect that would have had, but that would have been the most direct and impactful way for us to try to effect a situation, as we had done just years before in iraq with tens of thousands of u.s. troops on the ground. thatw in that circumstance it was important as the gains that were made in that conflict on the ground were, they proved ultimately to be very fleeting in their sustainability. charlie: look at the consequences. i know to ask any question of you and the president, how much
everyone of you has anguished over this. you don't look at aleppo and not feel the tragedy there. understand that. the question is, were your assumptions right, because of the ramifications. look at europe, and what happened with migration. look at the political future of one of the president's best friends. angela merkel is facing reelection in july. look at what happened to the rise of populism, all a product in part -- populism had many other dimensions. we discussed some of them. let me say this. what haso doubt that evolved in syria as a result of the civil conflict, particularly the refugee outflow, and particularly the outflow as it has gone to europe, as been destabilized. there's no question about that. the united states getting involved in the war on the
ground or even the war in the thewouldn't have lessened fact of the refugees. it might've even exacerbated -- charlie: but you didn't do anything. you had a presence on the ground, and you tried hard. men and women on the ground. the argument is made, was a nothing you can do? the president has said in interviews that he asked people constantly, was searching for alternatives, and you are saying and he is saying, we found no way. susan: we are talking about, was there a military way to effect the outcome of the civil war such that assad was defeated and the opposition was victorious? ok? said,swer is, as you just we have wrestled with this problem, rolled over in our table at the principal's
, every potential option. not that we couldn't, but we assessed the risks and costs of much increased american-u.s. direct military involvement in the conflict were not outweighed by the benefits. and so, to involve the united states directly in a civil conflict where we are putting american lives in significant numbers on the line to try to notat assad, we judged was ultimately in america's interest. we have been actively involved in trying to end this war from the beginning, through diplomacy. we are the biggest provider of humanitarian assistance, providing over $6 billion to the people who suffered from this conflict. we have supported our european partners and played a role in trying to support the maritime introduction. we have supported neighboring
countries, like jordan, like lebanon, like turkey, that have needed support. above all, we have taken the fight to isil, which is much more of a threat to the united states and to europe. so you look for alternatives and you couldn't find them, even though there are -- suitable didn't find alternatives. there were people advocating for a no-fly zone. let's talk about that. what would a no-fly zone have done? the concept was to create a swath of territory, most of the time that was discussed on the northern border of syria with turkey, where people could flee the fighting and have relative security. that was the concept. no-fly zone, however -- just to be clear, and try to prevent assad from using air power, barrel bombs against civilians. we could have done that, but it would have been at great cost to the counter-isil campaign in
terms of diversion of assets and resources. charlie: we don't have enough power to do both? doing a lot of things in the world simultaneously. had we chosen to enforce a significant no-fly zone, it would have taken assets away from the counter-isil fight in iraq and syria. that's the choice we could have made, wasn't one we thought was directly serving our proximate interests. just haveyou can't folks protecting people on the ground through air power in the skies. you need to have somebody on the ground providing that protection. and there wasn't a nato country at the time willing to provide that kind of protection. so, it was an idea that sounded good in theory. that when you peeled it back and talked about what would it actually entail, what diminution of our supports to the isil campaign, who would provide the ground force, how many air caps with that require, it did not
end up making sense. charlie: you never know if you go into a civil war and you defeat the regime -- susan: that wouldn't have defeated the regime, it just would have protected civilians. charlie: let me make my point. if you go to the civil war and defeat the regime, you don't necessarily know what's going to follow. all you have to do is look at the arab spring to be confirmed in that view. susan: that's true too. onefact of the matter is, of the reasons why a negotiated solution is the only sustainable one is that's the only way to have some influence over who comes behind. charlie: history will have a hard look at this, and the pain is deep and it continues and it continues. susan: it continues. as you said yourself, this is in my view the most difficult, vexing, painful policy challenge i've seen in my years in government.
there aren't any satisfactory silver bullet solutions. if there were, we would have utilize them. charlie: isil, isis, islamic state. will be captured reasonably soon, we assume. i'm not going to put a timeline on it. but you've made significant advances. the iraqis have made significant advances. there is at some point of effort against rocca. ash carter suggested it will take place in 2017, but both mos ul and rocca will be captured. wille leadership of isil be captured or killed. do you believe that? susan: i think there's a reasonable chance. charlie: just a reasonable chance? caharlie, we are going
to capture mosul and rocca. you are asking me to be precise about a timeline. done.k it can be i think it probably will be done. can i be 100% certain? no. i'm not going to pretend to be. i have great respect for ash carter's judgment. he has run this campaign with extraordinary effect so far and we have made more rapid progress in both iraq and syria then we might have judged. i'm an optimist on this. it will happen. i'm not going to be nailed to -- and mosul isocca necessary but it's not sufficient. isil is, for example, just today, putting up a major fight against the russians and syrians roccather city south of inside of syria. it's not as if isil is only in mosul and rocca. those are the centers of
gravity. they must be taken, they will be taken. then there will still be worked to be done. and syria,t in iraq because isil has global ambitions and global presence. we're dealing with isil in places like libya, west africa, parts of southeast asia, and in south asia. charlie: agreement has held. nuclear agreement. do you think it will continue to hold? the administration coming to power will do away with it? susan: could do away with it. charlie: what are the consequences? susan: let's step back. this nuclear deal that was agreed and negotiated with iran, along with the european union, france, britain, germany, russia, and china, as well as
iran,tself, the p5+1 plus has endured. it's been adhered to in all of its elements by the iranian side. in contrast to where we were before the agreement a few years 2/3 2/3 of itsed centrifuges and disabled them. it shifts out 98% of its enriched uranium, poured concrete in the core of the plutonium reactor. [inaudible] the material is at least one year away as opposed to 2 or 3 months. that is the success of this deal. we have achieved the objective of cutting off every one of iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon without the use of force, in a far more sustainable way.
so for the new administration or any administration to decide to abrogate that deal, they would be saying that success is not good enough, and instead we are trying to accomplish something else. i'm not sure what that would be. if they were to do that, what would happen? iran, which held up its side of the bargain, would be out from under, no obligations, we would have abrogated the agreement and they would have no obligations that bind them to adhere to the steps they've taken. they can shrink their breakout time, without being in the wrong, so to speak. one other really important point, our partners who negotiated this deal with us, that europe and russia and china who believe in this deal, would feel no obligation and would be under no pressure to reinstate the sanctions regime that was a major source of pressure on our hands. fromwould not only be out under sanctions, able to pursue its nuclear program unconstrained, we would be the
outlier, not the leader that we were in building the coalition that got us the deal in the first place. charlie: why our allies in the region opposed to the deal? susan: it depends who you are talking to. israel, you've heard prime minister netanyahu be very vocal against the deal. we've also heard the leadership in the israeli military and intelligence community say it's working. it serves their interests. if you ask the saudi's and the emirates for their view, if you ask them what they think, they will tell you, they acknowledge that this deal has extended a breakout time and reduced a nuclear threat. the problem is for the region, and was particularly talk about the gulf states, their principal concern is not only the nuclear programs, it's other iranian nefarious behavior which we share a serious concern about. charlie: it's fair to say anything about it. susan: i wouldn't say we have
not done anything about. the nuclear deal was not about terrorism and ballistic missiles and a lot of other things that concerned us greatly about iranian behavior. our view is, and if you press them, they would acknowledge as bad, that given iran's behavior, better that it not have a nuclear weapons capacity. better that it have a constraint, small, verified, monitored civilian program, and it not have the power to threaten israel or our partners in the region with a nuclear weapon. charlie: one of the things you've said, and it is this notion, back to a broad picture of the world, or be looking as you leave office at a world that is much more unstable than when you came to, because of not just actions, but especially not because of actions by the
administration, but the changing complexity of the world? are we looking in 2017 at a much , unstableex, fragile world? susan: certainly we were looking at a complex world. i said this last week at the institute for peace where i gave a speech on where we are. the nature of the threats we face is much more diverse. in other respects, we face it from a position of greater strength. our economy has rebounded. we are no longer on the verge of a global depression. we are growing now, and that is a great source of strength. have an al qaeda is thesama bin laden only organization that has managed to conduct a successful foreign directed plot on u.s. soil.
they are substantially diminished. osama bin laden is dead. been, knock on wood, a successful foreign directed terrorist attack on our soil. that is better. we are fighting issa with a fromlation of 68 countries a position of strength and in a way that is a much more sustainable approach than having to invest tens of thousands of our forces on the ground for an extended period of time. there are many ways in which we're in a better place than we were. we have a global climate agreement which we didn't have the prospect for dealing with an existential threat to the planet. i could go on. we have iran that doesn't have the ability to pursue a nuclear weapon, which they did in 2008. what we do have are some other forces that have created greater complexity. russia has been more aggressive and we have to point to that. charlie: north korea. susan: i think the north korean
threat has been growing. back in 2008, they had nuclear weapons, then they had ballistic missiles. they have continued to pursue those programs, and the in place,we have put the efforts and the pressures we have put in place have been insignificant, but they have not ended their nuclear program. charlie: soon they will have icbm's that can deliver nuclear weapons. susan: in place, the efforts and the pressures we we had a nuclear -- a north korea with nuclear weapons some years ago, and i problem persists. it is not getting better. me, you ask me what worries that was one of the things i pointed to. but, i thought you were talking about things that have evolved or changed. charlie: no, i was talking about everything. susan: in a way that is meaningfully different than
where we were some years ago. i think what we are seeing is the nature of the threats are more diffuse. they are of a different nature. we have state actors like russia that are problematic. we have nonstate actors like isil, which is equally a threat. and is sort of multiheaded hydra, if you look at the geographic orientation. we have threats that we knew of in 2008 but they could arise at any moment, like pandemic flu. that's not new, but it's persistent. charlie: i noticed that in what you have been saying. how serious do you see that? susan: pandemic flu? it's a fact. it will happen. we have seen it historically over periods of years. the most brave instance was in died.where many people
i think what we are seeing is the nature of the threats are morehundreds of thousands, mills have potential to die from something like this because now our world is that much more interconnected through trade, commerce, air, connectivity. therefore, what happens in one part of the world can quickly spread to another. one of the things this administration has done which is little known, and we started this before the ebola epidemic, was to work with countries around the world to put in place in the weakest links, the poore st, weakest countries in the world, much improved global health infrastructure so they can protect and surveilled disease, they can contain it before it spreads straight we have called that the global health security agenda and we have 50 countries that are actively part of this. that's the kind of long-term effort we are going to need to build and sustain around the world to diminish the risk of pandemic. we're not going to eliminate it. charlie: number one, these are national security issues. climate is a national security
issue. they are transnational. susan: just like terrorism. charlie: unless you have global cooperation -- susan: exactly. i often put it this way. the nature of the threats we ever, thoseely, if that can be resolved unilaterally by the united states acting alone and really resolved through the barrel of a gun, traditional use of force. most of the threats we face, the most difficult threats we face, are going to require effective collective action. that means the united states has to lead, we have to rally other countries to work with us. they need to see it as in their interests to act, whether to combat the ebola epidemic, whether it's to confront aggression through sanctions on russia when it annexes crimea, or whether it's dealing with a new, emergent terrorist threat
like isil. this requires collective action, global leadership. paris climate agreement is a great example. the united states has historically been the leader in this regard under president obama. very effective in bringing countries together to deal with the transnational global challenges, and that's going to be the responsibility and imperative for the next administration as well. charlie: thank you for having this trip around the world with us, and much success to you, wherever you are going to be. susan: thank you, charlie. i appreciate this. it's always a privilege to get to talk about such a wide range of issues with you. nationalsusan rice, security advisor to president obama until january 20. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪