tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg October 26, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EDT
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: china's communist party congress comes to an end today and the new politburo standing committee unveiled with no successor to president xi. this comes after president xi jinping was joined to a new party charter. he declared a new era for china, saying it would take center stage in world affairs. xi now emerges from the congress as the most powerful leader in china in decades. joining me from boston is richard mcgregor, a former washington
and beijing chief for the financial times. and also joining me is jiayang fan, a staff writer from "the new yorker." her latest piece is titled at the communist party congress, xi jinping plays the emperor. i am pleased to have both of them. let me begin with you, richard. where does xi come out of this? richard: he comes out more powerful than ever. rivals, it is dangerous to challenge him and heresy to challenge him. he dominates not just the politburo, in the central committee, over the last year he has all of his people into the heads of the big provinces and cities. the big question is, what does he want to do with his power? it is not that clear. charlie: he clearly suggested china has a broader role to play
in the world. richard: that has been the most astounding thing about this congress. a transformative event. in some ways xi jinping is not , the story, the communist party is the story. china for many years had a this --allen victim for for their foreign-policy. the same thing applies to the congress party, they did not go around as an opaque secretive , organization or promote themselves. if you look at the material out of this congress, they are talking about themselves is not quite the shining city on the hill, but an authoritarian shining city on the hill. it is an example for other countries in the world for how to develop and how to position yourself. in that respect, it has been a transformative event, this congress. charlie: who who were the losers? richard: i guess there has been a trail of losers for the last five years with xi jinping because he has put so many people away or eliminated them. a couple of senior people you
-- who might have got up and did not get up. anybody who thought they may have a chance of being nominated clearly as a successor, is a loser, as well. the person who was the most important ally for the first five years of his term, i suspect we will see him stay on in some sort of advisory forum. what we say about this idea that he is now in the chinese constitution, with his principles of socialism, chinese characteristics in the new era? what do we learn from that? jiayang: first of all, the fact monumentalded is of importance. it really puts them in the ranks of mao. he now is completely unassailable in a way that no
leader has been in decades. one ofught really is rejuvenation of the chinese nation. putting the country back in the center of the stage. i think xi has done that. if mao where the communist founding father who made the country independent and unified and if another made china rich he would be the one who makes , china strong. china its proper glory, the glory that has been denied china in his opinion for centuries, but that is rightfully belongs to the country. it is very evident from xi jinping that he wants to lead china into the center of the world. he wants the world to see the country, not as just another
superpower, but as the superpower. it is also quite obvious he does not intend to lead the country on the path of liberal democracy. he wants to show the model of ofe that he has exemplified disciplined authoritarian state, possible anda very for otherl of rule countries around the world. charlie: many expected him to be a political reformer, that is not going to happen. richard: no, when you and i mention the word reform we think , of liberalization which leads to more like the west and america. more market reform. when the chinese talk about reform, they are not talking about that, they are talking about refining the communist the hybrid economy in
which you are getting not just state sector reform in the growing private sector, but the state and the private sector together. no, he is not a political reformer. he does not make any bones about that. frankly, it is much easier for them to be able to do that. people, if you believe in democracy, look at america, look at the u.k., it is not a model for us and may not be a model for anyone. jiayang: donald trump is a real gift to xi jinping as the state of american democracy and politics is a real boon to chinese politics. and really how people in china feel about the chinese model policy. charlie: they say we are a better system than that? jiayang: they say, look at the buffoons running the world's most powerful country, and look
at the disciplined leader we have the planned 30 years ahead of time. trump does not seem to control what he writes three hours ahead of time. that contrast is very evident to the world. especially at this moment to the chinese people, who are thinking twice about, what is the ideal political system for them to be living in? charlie: richard, do you think we will ever see them move by the chinese to respect human rights? richard: not in the way we see it. charlie: how do they see it? richard: the argument the chinese have dip human -- human rights is lifting people out of poverty and giving people a better life, and this is more importing. human rights depends on an independent legal system, independent democracy, people able to challenge state power and not get in trouble for it. that is not happening. in fact, the opposite is happening. one of the groups targeted in xi jinping's first five years have
been activist lawyers. so-called rights lawyers. it didn't make ground, there is no change on the horizon there. charlie: who is the strongest influence on xi jinping? richard: that is a good question. he is not so much the cardinal but the ideologue of the oboe. he has been elevated by xi jinping, with ideology, propaganda, party organization, party building. because he used to be a professor in shanghai, he has left a vast paper trail. he is the architect of neo-authoritarianism and the architect of arguments against western democracy for china. i think his inclusion signals to
me a hardening of the arteries in china in support of their system. as they say, contempt for western democracy and western criticism of them. charlie: the chinese see that what they are beginning to do is simply the destiny they already have. everything that has happened over the last 200 years has been an interruption. or 100 years. jiayang: and that sense of shame about what has happened at the hands of foreign forces 200 years ago. also, and inherent exceptionalism, that china is fated to be the most powerful country in the world. that combination is very volatile. and it can be toxic. because many in china, chinese politicians and chinese people, believe that it has been the
west that has kept china down. that so much of western ideology has been about containment. and a deliberate subjugation of the chinese people. that is a very, very powerful -- that inspires a very powerful patriotism. but it also turns the people against anything that has the whiff of western ideology, individualism, liberal democracy. that reflexive sense of contempt for anything western can derail progress in china, moving forward. charlie: any possibilities that the region will become alarmed and vietnam and india and south korea, all will feel a sense that they must come together in order to restrain china?
richard: that is a fascinating point. even though china is announcing its arrival on the global stage, peak china, think about it. china has territorial disputes with japan, vietnam, malaysia, indonesia, brunei, the philippines. it is currently beating up on south korea. on with northt korea, in theory, its ally. it just had a big dispute with india and the like. that is china's big failing. they are telling everybody how wonderful their system is and how beneficial it is for everybody, but people do not feel reassured. that is big trouble ahead in those areas. those other countries i mentioned are all organizing themselves in part because of the relative decline of the u.s., organizing themselves together in ways to push back against china. jiayang: we have to keep in mind
the history of china in asia as the most dominant power. its system of tributary states -- vietnam, korea, used all the inferior states that would offer tributary gifts to china. that relationship has always been one of appeasement and fear. the surrounding countries now, i must imagine, have a similar sense of fear of a growing china. also, this anxiety about being on the wrong side of china. the sense of both fear and wanting to appease this growing power are both present. charlie: china in its five-year plans has made he decision to move from being an export economy to a domestic consumption economy. have they made progress on that? richard: absolutely they have
made progress on that. maybe not as fast as some say. the growth in consumption has outpaced that of exports for many, many years. it is starting to get greater parity with investment. that is one trend. the other big trend is about technology and china's greater technological advancement. they have a big policy to be by 2025 the leader on parity with the u.s. in a range of technologies, like ai, semiconductors. that is an immense challenge for the u.s. and western countries to keep pace with china's advancement and manage the issue in terms of trade conflict. in terms ofis also environmental. richard: massive investment in china, biomedical, the rice genome and that sort of thing, china is working on that. charlie: it seems that china has made both a financial and apollo
see commitment to the future. we can have long conversations about whether a country that does not allow freedom of expression, that will be an inhibiting factor. but you clearly have a commitment to science and the future. jiayang: that is very much true. for xi jinping, you asked about who he is listening to. i see a curious comparison between he and china's first emperor. he was the emperor who unified the state into what is now modern-day china. his two catchwords were unity and discipline. if you listen to the party xi's 3.5 hour in speech those were his , catchwords. the sense that china will be the greatest empire on earth. in order for it to live and
thrive, it needs to keep itself in order, and it needs to make long-term goals in technology and in economics. most important, it is about keeping its economy growing at -- and its people, for the most part prosperous and , satisfied. charlie: i did not ask about the premier, li keqiang. richard: he survived, i always thought he would survive. there are always rumors before these congresses. the issue is whether he will have more autonomy, more ability to run the economy. as his position suggests, or -- he should, or whether he will be in xi jinping's shadow. you will find many people saying that xi jinping and li keqiang are on the same page with the economy. but one person cannot take responsibility for all of these
policy areas and political areas, and diplomatic areas. as xi jinping does. i think he has to let go. they are quite right to talk about the unity and discipline. but i am not sure this approach works in the longer term. jiayang: i very much agree on that front. you sense from this party of xi's the vastness the sense- vision and it is built on himself being at the center of all of these different streams of power. you wonder, given the lofty goals he set out for china and for himself at the top of china, are they, you know, feasible, given he is one man and the country is complicated? charlie: how old is he? jiayang: i think he is 64.
richard: i think that is right. charlie: we do not know who is the most influential person. you mentioned wang qishan. the number three or four guy who was his chief of staff, i think is also influential. you have people coming up in the politburo, not the standing committee. charlie: any women? richard: no. [laughter] richard: there is one woman in the politburo. you can speak to that, if you like. jiayang: i have been so demoralized by the pictures of the party congress over the last week. the sea of suits. you see so few women. richard, i would like your sense on this, but i feel like the
women who do get in do so by toeing the party line and being rigorously confident. but there is not a sense that they are pushing for the rights of women or trying to rewrite the rules in a meaningful sense. richard: no, they often come up through party organizations like the china woman's federation. i think you will find, in china, in the private sector, the entrepreneurial sector, there is a ton of really successful women. there are a lot of arguments about whether china did emancipate women immediately after the 1949 resolution. -- revolution. whatever happened with that is not happening now. there is no -- you would expect queue of people trying to get through the top ranks, but they are not there. charlie: one last question, how did he do it? how did this man, a victim of
a cultural revolution, rise to the powerful position he has? the economist magazine said the , most powerful man in the world. jiayang: i think he has the advantage of being a princeling, the son of a very prominent communist member -- charlie: who was a victim of the call to revolution and who fought with mao. jiayang: but then bounced back and served in a prominent capacity in the government. i think he was very strategic in his reticence, and in shielding the world for the most part from the scope of his ambition, up until 2007. i think he has been a very astute observer of the past few generations of leaders. and he has said to himself, i want
to be rewriting the rules like mao. i want to be putting china on the map. i do not want to be another colorless technocrat. like hu jintao. his immediate predecessor. he spent his first five years running a powerful -- ranruption campaign by his trusty lieutenant, that very conveniently wiped out many of his rivals. this is a real victory for him. this moment in party congress. he has reached the apex of power. now, he has harnessed as much political capital as he can.
we will see how much -- how capable he is as a leader in instilling changes. charlie: president trump is going to asia, on his way to beijing. xi jinping is talking about making this a giant celebration for donald trump in a sense. [laughter] charlie: north korea hangs over them. lots of conflict they need to work out. do we know anything about how he feels about president trump? richard: trump says he has a xiat relationship with xi, says he has a great relationship with trump. the chinese are good at ceremony and flattery. [laughter] richard: i think they will treat trump sumptuously. but i doubt trump will get much out of it. jiayang: i very much agree on that front. greatest fear
columnist for the new york times and the recipient of the pulitzer prize. he is best known for attacking big ideas and complicated issues. he is a self-confessed explanatory journalists. his goal is to translate from english to english. his latest new york times bestseller is just out in paperback, called "thank you for being late -- an optimist guide to thriving in the age of acceleration." i am pleased to have tom friedman back on this program. welcome, sir. tom: great to be with you, charlie. charlie: can i start with the column you wrote today in the new york times? general mattis, stand up to donald trump or he will drag you down. in march, in the form of a memo to james mattis and others, the cia director and secretary of state rex tillerson. you go on to say, you are writing another letter to mr. pompeo you think would not necessarily receive it and the advice you wanted to give. what are you trying to say?
i am really trying to say, of these five gentlemen who i thought would be the key boundary setters for this administration -- general mattis, h.r. mcmaster, the security advisor, pompeo, the number one in his class at west point and cia director. john kelly. the now chief of staff, former general also, and rex tillerson. i thought they would be able to build the boundary around the sky and constrain his behavior and put him in the right direction. unfortunately, mcmaster does not seem to have built much of a relationship with the president. tillerson has blown himself up and had to explain why he was not castrated. not a good sign with the secretary of state. charlie: we can joke about it. tom: john kelly, we have already seen what happened to him last week. he has been sullied by trump's
metastasizing ethical cancer. pompeo, last week came out and said that the intelligence community determined that the russian meddling in our election had no impact on the election. it did not affect the outcome. the intelligence community concluded no such thing and specifically said it was not equipped to look at that. i think he is gone over to the dark side. really politicized. it leaves secretary of defense mattis, the last man standing. charlie: probably the strongest. tom: was the strongest, and from the very beginning never , engaged in the north korean like themes of dear leader, you are so wonderful. all i am saying is that i think that, when you are the last man standing, it is not enough to just stand there. i think that the intervention we need most is not in syria or afghanistan, it is with the
president. it is in the oval office. i think it is getting so off, the president starts his day tweeting against a gold star mother. we know the stories. this is something not presidential behavior. what worries me most is that we are making big decisions. both about taking things apart and about initiating new things. whether it is a tax bill or taking down nafta or tpp. all of this is being done without a take on the world, being done for "i need a victory." health care, give me something to sign, give me a tax bill to sign so i can say i cut taxes. charlie: i am for this today and tomorrow i am against it. there is no one waking up in the morning saying "what , world are we living in and what are the big trends in the world? hideaway align my citizens with these trends and take advantage of them?"
you have the sense of something utterly scattershot. this is happening without a crisis. we have not had a crisis yet. all the crises have been self-induced by trump. imagine what happens when we have a real crisis. charlie: like what? tom: that we feel we have to take military action against north korea, intervene in the middle east. god forbid -- charlie: somebody attack somebody and under nato we have to come to action. tom: or uneconomic prices. a friend of mine said there is two kind of authority, moral authority and formal authority. the president has formal authority, because he is president. but he has no moral authority. he has lost the moral authority of most of the people around him, except general mattis. when the white house press secretary has to lecture journalists saying, you would not want to question the authority of a marine four-star general, would you?
that means you have completely lost your moral authority. all you can try to do is summon the 4 -- the formal authority of the man's uniform. it is going down a bad track. those of us in the news business, it gets worse every week. signs the getting worse, we saw this week, jeff flake, the senator from arizona announced that he is bowing out and went out by saying that the indecent,is an dishonest man. charlie: compared into joseph mccarthy and what had to happen, somebody had to stand up to him. tom: here is what i wish that corker and flake had done made , the exact diagnosis and then said, and that is why i am running. i am not going to let the been ins decide this, i may go down in flames but i will fight these , ideas. i will not just tell you how bad trump is, i will run and fight
for what i think are real conservative principles. he is not a conservative and bannon is not a conservative. in the middle east, they said, extremists go all the way and moderates tend to go away. that is what i feel we are seeing in the republican party. it is wonderful you are critiquing trump, but why not take it to a meaningful let -- level? charlie: you are suggesting secretary mattis and h.r. mcmaster and john kelly, rex tillerson go to the president and say, unless you change, we are leaving. tom: you can govern with your kids and sarah huckabee sanders. charlie: if we leave, your last fashion of credibility is gone. tom: yes, because they have been giving him cover and it gets worse every week. i worry about their personal reputations kelly has hurt ,himself and tillerson has
hurt himself. leaders in basketball, the best players make everyone around them better. trump makes everyone around him worse. charlie: the interesting thing is, in a sense, if you -- no one believes trump will change. no one believes it. everyone who thinks that he is about to change, donald trump will say i was not elected to be any different than i am. that will be the argument he makes and he will constantly go back to his base and ask for their applause to reconfirm the fact he is doing exactly what he should be doing. if you're listening for applause it is hard to say when some of the comes in, you are simply wrong. tom: my answer is applause are one thing, you can get applause for 30% of the country, even if you shoot someone on fifth avenue. the question is what have you , accomplished? your base elected you not just to generate applause, i hope,
but to accomplish things and for that you need compromise. to change things for the better. these are people who said they voted for you because they were hurting. what have you done to make them hurt less, thrive more? is, obamadoctrine built it, i broke it, you fix it. obama build it, i broke it, you fix it. is or is saying, i am waiting for congress to deliver something. but what are your ideas? when republican and democratic congressman get together and senators and reach a compromise the only way ,to get something done, you run back to your base. are you the president of your base or to the country? do you want to make a point or a difference? charlie: you have senator mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, saying i am trying to get a tax reform passed. this is a distraction for me.
the president's conduct, his tweets, i do not care about. i am trying to get a bill passed, that was what i was elected by the people of kentucky to do. i am trying to get legislation passed. tom: what legislation? charlie: my house is on fire. tom: in what context? exactly. the reason with this book, this is not an artificial segue -- if you want to think about the world, ask what are the big , trends? what is in our favor and working against us and how to align ourselves with the best? if you say, i am here to cut taxes, why are we cutting taxes? who will it benefit, in what context are we doing it? this is completely missing from the debate. everyone is looking for a win. but a win for what, who, what, how? charlie: a notion that the clinton campaign may have funded
the group that went out to create the dossier. does that bother you? tom: yes, it does not surprise me, politics is dirty, donald trump upon kid met with someone who enticed him by saying we can do the same with clinton. not something i would be particularly proud of. something we should find out about. charlie: here is the other problem, and we talked about this in different places -- how do you what truth is in this existing world? are we setting different norms? in one of the more interesting speeches made, by george bush 43, without mentioning donald trump, spoke to where he thinks the country is suffering. you knew who he was talking about. tom: absolutely. charlie: what used to be the norms and the standards and the references, you cannot do that anymore because those references, standards,
norms, the credibility of the people who we have made credible. tom: exactly, and trusted. charlie: and the people that have been there to advise leaders. if the leader has attacked their credibility, -- tom: if we cannot agree that black is black and white is white, if we cannot agree that an african-american presided over the unveiling of the federal building and at that ceremony, on tape, she acknowledged republicans and democrats, she did not boast about herself but boasted about the building being named for two fbi officers killed in action. if we cannot agree that that is what she said, and that what john kelly said she said is simply not true. and john kelly cannot come out and say, i got that wrong. i still have a problem with her and the way she behaved but i got that wrong. where are we?
then black is not black and white is not white and blue is not blue. how can you build anything? charlie: you often have said to me, the question you have to ask is what happens tomorrow but the day after tomorrow. tom: i learned this covering the middle east. it is all about the morning after. the morning after, i was just in london. it was very interesting being there. you just have to be there for 24 hours to realize they are trying to do brexit, pulling out of the european union and nobody has a clue what to do. what do you see? what is the lesson? to me, that is what happens when a whole country swallows someone -- the majority follow someone who has a policy that is just one paragraph and no second paragraph. brexit, we would get out of the european union. boris johnson. and others. we are just going to get out of the e.u. and it will be fine and
we will have more money. there was no second paragraph. all these big principles, you you will feel like a proud brit. nobody had a plan. if you want to know what bannon's ideas look like the morning after the morning after, study brexit. when he tells you, i am a globalist, free trade, ok, i will accept that. i will tell you how i think it cans and why i think you make more people better, exactly how. i can tell you how i think we should improve it and fix it. i will show you examples all over the world. show me yours. show me a country thriving that is disconnecting from a connected world, putting up walls, limiting immigration, show me that country. is it north korea? that is a good example. the closest one i can think of. bannon has nothing for the morning after the morning after.
his own power, put his own people, did not nominate a successor suggesting he , may want another term after the next five-year term. you once said, you will have to remind me what it was exactly, i would like to be head of china for a day. why did you say that? tom: that was in the previous book. a chapter in the book called i would just like to be china for a day. because our democracy is not working. therefore, we are so paralyzed partisanized, so tribal lysed, and divided. we cannot do anything big and hard. everything we need to do today is big and hard, health care, tax reform, infrastructure. big, hard things can only be done together. i would like to do what china does democratically, the way china does it, autocratic way. the fact is they are getting , stuff done. how it will end, maybe it will blowup on them.
caveat for all of you who want to turn me into a china lover. i do not know what is going to happen. but i see a country starting every day, saying what world are we living in? charlie: different emission standards for cars than we have. they are becoming the leading producer of alternative fuel. tom: they're also becoming the world's first cashless country. my chinese friends do not have wallets. women do not carry purses. i quoted a chinese newspaper about how you can donate to a beggar. they put codes wave your phone and you can over. that is what they claim. you can buy potatoes from a farmer on the side of the road with your phone. let me say one thing, why this is a really important thing. what worries me about this moment, trump is a brain-eating disease. he sucks up all of the oxygen in the room. we feel we have to write about him so much.
on the one hand i do not want to because i do not learn anything. i am emoting, expressing my concern. the fact is, a lot is happening in the world. i am worried that a whole generation of journalists and columnists will wake up four years from now and realize, i did not learn anything. i spent four years writing about trump. meanwhile, a big thing happened in the world. the big thing that happened was back in when we let china into 2001 the world trade organization. it really was our call, in the end. we thought china would reform and open. back then it was all these reformers. what happened was china reformed , and closed. they learn to use this to control their people, to listen to their people, to direct their people more efficiently. and obviously, to innovate, as well. i think that is a huge challenge.
tencent and alibaba, china's big tech companies, they can have their own cloud server in silicon valley. amazon and microsoft cannot. we have a problem. charlie: and a level playing field. other people have made this point. tom: some things are true even if donald trump does not believe them. charlie: let me go to the final point -- this is from my tom friedman memory machine. in previous books, you made this analogy about how you look at china versus india. india had a long-term goal. explain it. tom: whenever i went to india, people asked me about china. when i went to china people asked me about india. if you think we compete, they are really competing. we ought to pay a lot of attention to india. tom: i finally developed an answer for both of them. china is a perfect six lane superhighway, perfectly paved and all the lanes divided.
street, sidewalks, and everyone is going 80 miles per hour. there is just one problem. down the road there is a speedbump and it is called political reform. when 1.3 billion people hit a speedbump, one of two things happen -- the car jumps up, slams down, everyone asked, is everything ok? they drive off. the other thing is the car jumps up and slams down and all the wheels fall off. we do not know what will happen down the road. india, six lane superhighway, half the sidewalks are not finished and most of the street lights are out and no lanes are colored. but often the distance it looks , like it smooths into a perfect six lane superhighway. is it a mirage or the oasis? these two giant countries have big question marks about what happens down the road, different but big ones. charlie: why did you call this book "thank you for being late?" with a new paperback and an afterword. tom: the title comes
from meeting people for breakfast in washington, d.c. once in a while someone would come 10, 15 minutes late. one day, with one of them, an entrepreneur came and said i am sorry, it was the weather, traffic, and i said -- "thank you for being late." because you were late i have been eavesdropping on the conversation and people-watching the lobby. best of all, i just connected to ideas i've been struggling with for a month. so thank you for being late. people got into it and said, you are welcome. they understood i had permission to slow down. -- they understood i was giving them permission deposits, slow down. there is a great quote, when you press the pause button on a computer, it stops. but when you press the pause button on a human being, it starts. reflect, re-think, reimagine.
and don't we think -- need to be doing a lot of that now in this age of acceleration? the other reason i called it that, the book celebrates everything old and slow. the underlying theme is, in the world getting really fast and connected, actually what matters most or all the things you cannot download. the things you have to upload the old-fashioned way. good friend to good friend, good teacher to good student, good minister to good flock, good government official to good citizen, good parent to good child. they matter more. we are interacting with each other so fast and without barriers and boundaries, as a parent, you will not be on your kid's shoulder on twitter, facebook. if you have not built internal
software into your kid the old-fashioned way, with the old-time values, we have a real problem. that is what i want to celebrate. that is the other reason i called it "thank you for being late." charlie: the other thing that is the other thing that is a passion of yours is global warming. does the u.s. withdraw from the paris accord? will it have the grave consequences we thought it would have, or will the private sector and other places pick up and lessen the impact in other countries? even though the united states says it will abandon it. tom: it is a good question. let me tie it back to trump. the argument of the book is we are in the middle of three accelerations at the same time -- one in climate change called mother nature, the other the market globalization, and the , other is technology. they all look like hockey sticks. let's think about the news. my argument in the front of the book, to understand this world
today, this is from my friend who taught systems analysis, they say, never think inside or outside the box you must think , without a box. get rid of the boxes. if you want to see the world whole, you have to meld what is going on in technology and globalization and climate, all three together. charlie: i would add what is going on in biology. tom: i will put that under mother nature, science, technology. all three of those you have to meld. let's talk about the news, two weeks ago, the news in niger. we discovered there are 1000 american soldiers in niger. four of them were tragically killed in an ambush. i happen to know a little bit about niger because i did a documentary for years of living dangerously on niger. what is the story? why are those troops there?
this took everybody by surprise. the documentary we did we started in northern senegal. why did we start their? because the village and senegal is already at two degrees rise in higher temperature. they have already hit the temperature limit the paris agreement was meant to prevent. they are already at a two degree rise and heading for four degrees. centigrade. literally off the charts. what has happened is, small -- small-scale agriculture has collapsed or is collapsing in places like northern senegal, nigeria, a -- mali, chad. that is going on on one track. on another, and incredible population explosion in africa. nigeria will be the fourth largest country in the world by 2050. they will be bigger than us. when we were in niger, the average woman has seven kids. most of the
people we interviewed had 13, 14 children. the climate is hammering the land and there are so many people the land cannot sustain them. we go to these villages in northern senegal, and all the men are gone. from 18 to 60, they are gone trying to get into europe. how do they do it? iger and come up with an area where there is a huge human trafficking operation going on. every monday, a 200 car caravan goes to libya because we decapitated the regime in libya and uncorked africa. through libya, they spread out and try to get into europe. that is what is going on. meanwhile, the competition over land has been opening for isis and al qaeda. they will come along and offer someone $50 per month. that is like a king's ransom now. that is why you have these terrorist groups emerging, all competing over human trafficking and resources, land. we come back to the trump
administration. trump says we will help the french because they are operating there. i have 1000 guys will be back these al qaeda guys. that is with his left hand. what is he doing with his right hand? he is eliminating all family planning funding for foreign countries. and he is basically the knucklehead, a nice way of talking about scott pruitt, he is basically banned the study of climate change. think about what we are doing. with his left hand he we are sending troops to niger, all dealing with a human tragedy and disorder driven in great deal , by climate and population. charlie: things he has turned his back on. tom: two things he has turned his back on. that is flat out stupid. that is not connecting the dots. if you do not wake up in the morning and say, what is going on in the world and how do we
tie it together? i do not want to send 10,000 troops there, but if we do not have a climate policy and a population policy, and a governance, helping them govern, all of these countries -- there will be not enough troops to keep them back. trump says he will build a wall? is your wall going to be deeper and wider than the mediterranean because it has not ,cap these people out of europe? the rio grande is a drinking fountain next to the , mediterranean. you have to connect the dots which he is not doing. he said, i attacked planned parenthood. my base is applauding. i took away your climate change policy and look how the oil companies are applauding. look at me, i sent green berets to africa, niger. men send green--
berets. it is completely incomprehensible. that is a travesty. charlie: bill clinton said to me what is the best example of political intelligence. he said it is the capacity to connect the dots. tom: and in a more interdependent world, it matters more than ever. what happens when the world gets interdependent one of the , themes of the book, we have gone from an interconnected world to an interdependent world. what happens in this world, you get a geopolitical inversion where your friends can kill you faster than your enemies. if greek and italian banks go under we , will feel it in new york city. greece and italy, they are in nato, the e.u. they can kill us today. your rivals falling becomes more dangerous than your rivals rising. if china takes six more islands in the south china sea, we could not care less. sleep like a baby tonight. if china loses 6% growth, wow, this building will be half-full.
the world is so much more interdependent. you think you can come along and disconnect from a connected world? and it will be better? show me how. show me how. charlie: do you believe we are od of timeaid peri right now in the history of the world, where they will examine this and say how could they let , that happen? tom: i do worry, i worry a lot because -- charlie: one of the questions of people who oppose the president but who very well believe that they should be in the role they have, they say i stand between this president and what i think is a greater danger. i am doing my country a service by remaining here. on the other hand, there are those who say you can only take that so far. if enough people say no and resist, then you perhaps can
washington, you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your first word news. president trump today declared the opioid crisis a national emergency. pres. trump: i will be looking at the federal government bringing lawsuits against bad actors. what they have and what they are doing against our people has been unheard of. we will be doing major lawsuits against people and companies that are hurting our people. alisa: the white house says today's house passage of a $4 trillion budget was necessary for a tax overhaul and sets the stage to give americans economief