tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN June 16, 2013 7:00am-8:01am PDT
congressman. >> that's right. >> what's the biggest lesson about politics that your dad taught you? >> count the votes. make sure you have the votes. >> happy father's day to our dads and yours. i'm candy crowley in washington. don't forget to watch "new day," cnn's new morning show starts tomorrow at 6:00 eastern. fareed zakaria starts now. this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world, i'm fareed zakaria. we've got a great show for you. first up, does the u.s. government spy on you? moik al hayden, who has run both of america's major spy agencies, the nsa and the cia, will give us some straight answers. then is edward snowden a hero or a zero. two of the new yorker magazine's finest journalists who follow the subject disagree.
je jeff toobin versus john cassidy, a fight to the finish. >> then we look at the middle east, turkey, egypt and much more. what to make of it all. >> and -- 50 years later, we'll talk about that speech and another one, one that jeffrey sachs says is the most important presidential speech of the modern era. >> and that is the most important topic on earth, peace. >> but first here's my take. so, the obama administration has now decided that syria's use of chemical weapons crosses a red line. as a result, the united states will supply the opposition with small arms and ammunition. this strikes me as a risky decision. too little to have a real impact and enough to commit the united states in a complex civil war. first let's be clear. this will not ease the humanitarian nightmare unfolding
in syria. the opposition forces will now have some more arms and they will fight back, presumably killing more of the regime's soldiers and supporters. so levels of violence might well rise, not decline. what exactly is the objective of this policy shift? is it the defeat of assad? if so, can such a small shift in american support for the opposition really do that? the opposition forces are disorganized. joshua landers, the serious scholar at the university of oklahoma, estimates that there are 1,000 me liilitias that mak the rebel forces. they would need a lot more than small weapons and ammunition to succeed. they would need training, organization, centralization. if they did succeed, that would be a good outcome but it would almost certainly mean that the various opposition militias would then begin a massacre of the sect that the assad regime
comes from. it's unclear what would happen to the christians and kurds who have tended to stay neutral in this conflict, but they too might feel the wrath of the newly empowered sunni militias. the allowites, christians and kurds make up a third of syrians so this could become a large many cornered struggle. remember with 180,000 troops in iraq, the united states could not stop massacres, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights violations. we are now planning to achieve lofty aims in syria with almost no means. the most likely scenario is that the small step up in american assistance will not make much difference. at that point pressure will build on the administration. john mccain will make speeches saying now america's credibility is on the line. having supported the opposition, we have to ensure that they succeed. the administration will face a choice between seeming
ineffectual or plunging deeper into a complex and bloody civil war. now, it is possible that the administration can just stand pat and do the its that it is doing. that would be a clever, effect i've, brutal strategy to bleed america's enemies. contrary to much of the media contrary, the fact that iran and hezbollah are sending militias, arms and money into syria is not a sign of strength, it is a sign that they're worried that the regime might fall and are desperately seeking to shore it up. keeping them engaged and pouring resources into syria bleeds them. it weakens them substantially. but can the united states pursue such a cold-blooded strategy of real paul particular which would have huge human costs? bill clinton recently said that he favored some kind of american intervention in syria because sometimes it's just best to get caught trying as long as you don't overcommit. that suggests that supporters of
intervention see it as some kind of symbolic policy, to show that we care. but this is like trying to get a little bit pregnant. the outcome is rarely what you want. let's get started. let's get right to it with michael hayden, a man who has run both the national security agency and the cia. general hayden, welcome. >> good morning, fareed. >> tell me what yr reaction is to the revelations of edward snowden. >> well, i'm very disappointed that these legitimately secret things have been pushed into the public domain where they help our enemy and punish our friends. our friends overseas and our friends in corporate america. but in terms of what the agency is doing, frankly, fareed, i think it's what the nation
expects the agency to be doing. to be defending the united states while still respecting american law and american values. >> so let's first try to understand what it is that the agency is doing. you know, we've heard so many characterizatio characterizations. so i want to ask you, is the nsa listening in on american -- on phone calls that americans make? >> no, it's not unless, of course, it's got a very specific individualized fisa warrant which has been the situation for more than three decades. in terms of the one program which i'll just call the meta data program, the one that the fisa ordered to verizon seemed to reveal, this is indeed about meta data. it's about fact of call. nsa is getting from the telecom providers records that they create for their own purposes. these are essentially billing records that the telecom providers are sharing with nsa.
fareed, nsa puts them in a very large database. and then sits and waits until it has a predicate related to terrorism, an arguable proposition that a reasonable man would look at and say, yeah, this is correct to ask that database a question. let me give you a concrete example. we raid a safe house somewhere in yemen. we pick up a cell phone we've never seen before. there's pocket litter in the possession of the individual clearly indicating he's affiliated with al qaeda, he's a terrorist. we take that new phone number and we simply ask that database does this phone number show up in connection with any of the phone numbers, any of the phones events that we have gathered here? and if, for example, a phone number in the bronx kind of raises its hand and says, well yes, i've been in contact with that phone regularly for the past three months, we then get to ask the phone in the bronx
who else do you call? and which point, fareed, we're done in terms of what this program authorizes. if we want to do anything more with that domestic u.s. number, we've got to go back to the court. >> so would it be fair to describe this, as i've seen somebody do, as the meta data program is collecting data in a way that is on the outside of an envelope. who you wrote to, what the return address was, but nothing about what's inside the envelope? >> no, that's absolutely correct and that's almost a perfect analogy. it's the outside of the envelope. by the way, the supreme court ruled back in 1979 that that outside of the envelope information, the meta data, is not protected by the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to that information. >> do you feel as though when you were at nsa or watching when
you were at cia looking at these things that there were areas where you wouldn't go, even though you felt as though it might be useful, because of privacy concerns? in other words, did the privacy war come up and you guys would say, well, we could try to find this kind of data but that would be too much? >> fareed, the first thing you have to understand, when it comes to privacy, what cia, nsa, all of the elements of the american intelligence community are concerned with is the privacy of u.s. persons, which i think you know is a group a bit larger than just american citizens. it includes everyone in the united states and u.s. citizens, no matter where they are in the world. those are the people whose privacy is protected by the american constitution. and that's the guiding light. that's the guide post for american intelligence collection. >> do you think that the fallout here, though, just in terms of the diplomatic fallout, political fallout, how bad is
it? how should we think about it? >> there's going to be some fallout, some operational fallout. we will have reminded our enemies how good and comprehensive we are at this. we will have punished american business who have cooperated with under u.s. law at the direction of a u.s. court. this is bound to be bad news for them in terms of their international business. and then finally globally, a country or a source that might be thinking of cooperating with the united states should have almost no confidence in our discretion or in our ability to keep a secret. all that's harmful. >> what do you think should appear to edward snowden? >> look, this looks like a very troubled young man but he did a very bad thing. i would not call him a whistleblower. a whistleblower is someone who, a, points out wrongdoing and, b, follows the procedures laid out in law which gives a
whistleblower protection. raise your hand, talk to your supervisor, talk to the inspector general, talk to the general counsel, talk to congress. he didn't do any of this. he fled the cntry with incredibly sensitive documents, gave them to two newspapers, who badly mangled the story so that we're now dealing domestically and abroad with the misperceptions created by the stories, and now, lord knows what will happen to him and whatever he took with him now that he's in hong kong. >> general michael hayden, thank you very much. up next, a debate. two new yorker writers debate the fate of edward snowden. one is in favor of him, the other opposed, when we come back. hourly associates. there's opportunity here. i can use walmart's education benefits to get a degree, maybe work in it, or be an engineer, helping walmart conserve energy. even
today, when our store does well, i earn quarterly bonuses. when people look at me, i hope they see someone working their way up. vo: opportunity, that's the real walmart. but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can help make this a great block party. ♪ [ male announcer ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function.
[ male announcer ] advair diskus fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com. get your first prescription free uh-oguess what day it is!is?? huh...anybody? julie! hey...guess what day it is?? ah come on, i know you can hear me. mike mike mike mike mike... what day is it mike? ha ha ha ha ha ha! leslie, guess what today is? it's hump day. whoot whoot! ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? i'd say happier than a camel on wednesday. hump day!!! yay!! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
man: how did i get here? dumb luck? or good decisions? ones i've made. ones we've all made. about marriage. children. money. about tomorrow. here's to good decisions. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your family's future? we'll help you get there.
...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke. so edward snowden, the former cia employee, who leaked u.s. intelligence secrets to the world. do you think he's a hero or a traitor or somewhere in between. we saw two smart columns on opposite sides of the issue in one magazine, the "new yorker." we assumed the magazine was too jen teal to have its writers duke it out in person so they'll do it here. john cassidy was pro-snowden and
jeffrey toobin was against him. gentlemen, enguard. >> i wasn't making a personal argument, obviously i don't know edward snowden from adam, but i think the contribution is made in revealing something that the public deserves to know in terms of what the nsa is doing. we all know the nsa is a spy agency, but the sacale of this. the fact that they could get everybody's phone records on a routine basis for seven years without anybody knowing it. i think putting that out into the open was a public service and that's why i think to some extent he was a hero. obviously he took a big risk doing it. we don't know what's going to happen to him but he could well end up serving decades in jail for what he's done. i don't think we can dismiss his motives lightly. >> jeff. >> first of all, it's a crime what he did, but it's illegal. i guess it's the former prosecutor in me that's offended by that for starters. but is this a legitimate act of civil disobedience, and i think
not. there are channels to protest what the nsa does, especially if you're an insider. and i know that the whistleblower laws are not that strong and i know that it's difficult to go to congress, but i'm sorry, to take it upon yourself, to undo the work of thousands of people who work in these programs who spent billions of taxpayer dollars because you don't like something, not that you think -- he doesn't even think it's illegal, he just doesn't think it's right. i think that's an offensive act. >> what about the point that jeff makes, which is, you know, you quote daniel elsburg as saying he revealed dangerous constitutional activity. that strikes me as wrong because in fact these programs were authorized by law, reauthorized by law. the congress put in place what they regarded as constitutional safeguards. courts then oversee the process. so this has all been done by a democratically elected
government under congressional supervision. how is it unconstitutional? >> i didn't make the argument that it's constitutional. i accept most of this is actually legal and i think that's the great scandal. my argument here is that in a sort of broader context, we go back to after 9/11, several things happened to the u.s. you know, we had some positive things, we all came together, a sort of wave of patriotism. that's all good. but we then took several steps in foreign policy invading iraq, in national security, renditions, kwagone tone mow, de attacks and domestic surveillance. as president obama said about a month ago in his speech on drone attacks and the war on terror, it's time to reassess whether we went too far in certain areas. i think we did. i see snowden's leaks as part of that process. maybe it went too far on domestic surveillance and it's time to scale it back. as you say, the people in the know, the lawyers, the people
who follow capitol hill hearings closely know that we did set up these courts and everything is done boy the book but that's part of the scandal, isn't it? aren't they a bit of a joke? even google when it gets an order to hand over your e-mail accounts, they can't disclose the fact they even received an order, there's a gag order. that doesn't seem to me to be very democratic. >> i guess the scandal is a little mysterious to me. when i sent john an e-mail from i g-mail account to set up a golf date as i have done in my life, google reads that e-mail and tries to sell me golf clubs in an ad. that's what's done on the internet now. why is what's -- what the government is doing here so different from that and so -- you know, so damaging that it has to be thrown out in public? >> so you're saying that in any case a lot of this mass data is ing are gated and sold to
walmart, to stores. >> and the phone company knows all the numbers that i call. why is that so different from what was going on here? >> sure, when we do a deal with google to provide internet service, we know they're going to use their privacy -- stwing upon our privacy in some ways, with golf club ads, whatever, based upon our usage of the internet. but i don't think we knew that the government was going to write down or record somewhere every call we've made and be able to go back and check it out at any point in the future. it seems there's an enormous scale for abuse here. once this database is in place, the law enforcement agencies at some point would love to see that data. >> so that policy debate is i think a perfectly interesting and rich one. but there is this question of when you can take the law into your own hands. you write a lot about business. how would you feel if some american businesses were to start saying we believe that the current tax structure is prohibitive and violates the clause of the fifth amendment so
we're just not going to -- we're going to violate the law. you would say that's criminal behavior, right? or that's a violation of the law. that's essentially what this guy said. he said i don't agree with these laws so i'm going to break them. >> he violated the law willingly, obviously. i haven't made the argument that he should be completely pardoned. some people have made that argument online. i don't think any nsa or cia employee should be able to say whatever he wants to the public. but you've got to balance that against what sort of contribution he's made to the public good. in my estimation, because he's part of this big public debate we need post-9/11 or post post-9/11 i think on balance it was a public service but i think it would be better if he came back -- >> and i certainly think that this policy debate is important. but when you consider that he has gone to, of all places, hong kong, which is controlled by china, which is our leading adversary when it comes to intelligence matter, who could easily take the stuff he has and use it for their own purposes
and, believe me, they are not in favor of free speech and free access to the internet, so i think he is a very -- he's not a great symbol for the people who care about this debate. but the debate is still worth having. >> all right. so we are going to have to leave it at that. i will leave it to the audience to decide who won. up next, gps, why china wants to build a canal in nicaragua and why the u.s. better get ready for it. vo: i've always thought the best part about this country is that we get to create our future. you get to take ownership of the choices you make. the person you become. i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it.
the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not sitting by as their life unfolds. and they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. ♪ ♪ ♪
now for our "what in the world" segment. we know that china does infrastructure better than anyone in the world. their trains, their roads, their airports action their subways have been built at amazing speed on a grand scale with great foresight. well, the next great chinese stwra stwrurkt project is a canal. but this canal will link the
atlantic ocean to the pacific ocean. sound familiar? yes. we have one of those already in panama. but a chinese company wants to help build another one. the hk nicaragua canal development investment company, limited, will help finance a nick rock juan canal at a total cost of about $40 billion. gee graphically a canal there might make sense, it's just 12 miles from the pacific to lake nick rock wau and from the lake the liver flows to the caribbean and thus to the atlantic. for nicaragua as a nation the canal makes sense. the proponents claim the canal will more than double the nation's gdp which last year was just $3300. but why build the canal when we already have one just a few hundred miles away? well, here's one reason. there is so much demand for the
panama canal, that the average wait to transit can top 12 days. here's another. the biggest cargo ships that can go through the panama canal are called panamax. each ship can carry 4,500 shipping containers but there are newer bigger ships called post-pannamax. they can hold more than 18,000 containers, that's four times the capacity of a panamax ship. here's what 18,000 containers would look like stacked in times square. >> higher than many of the buildings beside. >> the first will be delivered on june 28th. these ships obviously have to find other routes since the panama canal cannot accommodate them and that is exactly what they're doing. in the meantime, panama is frantically trying to revamp its canal to accommodate bigger ships, but it still won't be
able to accommodate the biggest ships. this massive effort in panama will just about double the canal's capacity and cost more than $5 billion. now, when the panama canal is widened, and if the nicaragua canal project actually comes to fruition, those post-panamax ships will need some with to dock, to pick up goods and to dock. therein lies the problem for the united states. by fwichbt when the enlargement of the pan law canal is expected to be complete, only ten of the united states' 55 major commercial ports will be ready for the bigger ships, according to the chief economist of collie colliers. but will that be enough? listen to this. in just 18 years' time, 60% to 70% of shipping will be on the bigger post-panamax ships and a report from the u.s. army corps of engineers says that over the next 30 years, u.s. imports are
expected to grow four dld fold and exports more than seven-fold. the u.s. needs to keep up with that demand and stay competitive with the rest of the world's ports. and yet the american society of civil engineers gives america's ports a "c" rating. that shouldn't be the case. they collect a federal harbor maintenance tax of about 0.1% on each container that comes into port. that money is supposed to go back to the waterways, most importantly perhaps helping u.s. ports stay competitive. but for the last 20 years congress has diverted more than half of those funds. congress does not seem to understand that this kind of spending is an investment in the nation's future economic growth. if we don't modernize our ports, the new big ships won't dock there and we will be the losers. up next, inside the turmoil in turkey, and what it means for the rest of the world.
she's always been able to brighten your day. it's just her way. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include
headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. there's a reason no one says "easy like monday morning."
sundays are the warrior's day to unplug and recharge. what if this feeling could last all week? with centurylink as your trusted partner, it can. our visionary cloud infrastructure and global broadband network free you to focus on what matters. with custom communications solutions and dedicated support, your business can shine all week long.
colorado springs and has killed two people. russia is warning the united states that enforcing a no-fly zone overseer -- syria could vie international law. so far the white house has not said it plans to establish a no-fly zone but president obama has decided to send military aid to syrian rebels who have been engaged in a two-year war in the syrian government. and russian president slat mir putin is accused of theft. the item, a super bowl ring. the "new york post" reports robert kraft says putin stole the diamond-encrusted ring back in a 2005 ring in russia. putin says he tried to get the ring back but the bush white house encouraged to give it as a gift. a spokesman for the president says the ring was indeed a gift. those are your top stories. now back to "fareed zakaria gps." the tu multiple in turkey
continues but let's not forget that other countries in the region are also grappling with the dilemmas of democracy. let's talk about it with two smart observers of the middle east. steven cook is a senior fellow from middle eastern studies at the council on foreign relations. mona eltahawy is an egyptian born columnist who has lived in the united states and now lives in cairo. she writes on issues in the arab world. mona, how does it look to you from cairo, what is going on in taksim square? >> i think the most important thing about what's happening in turkey is that for me it seems like turks are trying to find a middle ground or third way between what what used to be the nationalist sway and the islamist way as modern as it is for erdogan. and for me as a muslim from the middle east, that's really important. >> steve, does it strike you that they will find this middle way? because it's a middle way not just between hypersecularism and hyperislamism, it's also a middle way between
authoritarianism and democracy. because it's a strange hybrid. he's an elected leader, very popular, but essentially in many ways something of an at that authorize tear january. >> over the course of the last four or five years there has been this authoritarian turn in politics. it's unclear whether the groups protesting now can translate their enthusiasm and their opposition into a viable political movement. they do have an opportunity. turkey's opposition parties are extraordinarily weak and have very little to offer. these groups, although they remain a minority, clearly have struck a chord with many, many turks who are upset about the kind of closing of kdemocracy, the closing of the liberal opening that happened in 2003 and 2004. >> mona, i have to ask you about the role of women. you spent ten years in america and have gone back to cairo. do you worry that while you would like to see a more secular
republic, you're worried about the muslimism but on the ground when they have put on moderate restrictions on the sale of retail alcohol or he talks about women being allowed to wear the head scarf in, my experience all my friends in istanbul hate him for it, but the country at large likes it because these are 99% muslim country, most people devout. that actually resonates a lot more than people think. and i assume the same is true in egypt. do you worry that your preferences are actually the preferences of a very small, urban kind of educated class? >> i often compare the muslim brotherhood and their platform to the christian fundamentalists in the u.s. who love to tout moral values. it's very easy to tout moral values, to be against abortion and same-sex values but in the middle east it's very easy to say i'm going to ban alcohol and
i'm going to make sure all girls can or should wear head scarves. that is too easy and is a violation of people's rights. be as muslim as you want, be as religious as you want. but i think the goal of the revolution was never about banning alcohol. the goal of the revolution was never about head scarves. the goal of the revolution was liberty and social justice. in that spirit i think we should be aiming for rights that encompass everybody and their way of life. so i think when it comes to women especially, we're unfortunately very cheap bargaining chips. but what helps us is that women are side by side with men on the street. this revolution is ours as well. it might not have been a revolution for women's rights, but now that we started the political revolution, we don't have a social sexual revolution that works on the ground, that political revolution will fail. it's not about replacing one patriarch with another. >> are you hopeful about -- on this issue? >> well, knowing what i know about egyptian women as well as turkish women, i would not bet against them. i certainly think that given that in both countries women have been at the forefront of
social critique, they are not going to give it up so quickly. but the turn towards authoritarianism, it's really not about islam, it's about authoritarian politics, about a crackdown on the press, it's about punitive pressures against all kinds of people who happen to disagree with the government. it is about the marginalization of people. the government has called them marginal but it's actually been the marginalization. similar to egypt, these people are responding to a system that is rigged in favor of those people in power. they don't want to let that happen. >> quickly tell me about girl rising. >> it's a fantastic documentary that paired women writers with girls from their countries. i was paired with a wonderful 13-year-old girl in egypt who was a survivor of rape. i myself was sexually assaulted in 2011 so when the two of us met, we had a lot to share. there i was at the time, 44 years old, 43 years old and she was 13. and the spirit of this girl, who
had never had any kind of formal education, the way that she fought back, the way she and her mother went to the police to demand justice for the rape that she survived and her enthusiasm for education and her mother's agreement to have her darby paired with me and have her story told was just wonderful. i urge everyone to watch the film because it really goes to the heart of this. when girls are educated, everybody benefits. so i'm glad to be a part of it. >> thank you both very much. "girl rising" this documentary mona is a part of airs tonight on cnn and cnn international at 9:00 p.m. eastern. don't miss it. up next, if i asked you to quote a line from a speech by john f. kennedy, you would probably say ask not what your country can do for you or perhaps -- jeff sachs believes kennedy gave a more important speech 50 years ago this month. we'll tell you what it is.
strong are just. >> on wednesday, president obama will deliver a speech in berlin. it will come almost 50 years after president john f. kennedy delivered his berliner speech that is remains one of his best moan speeches. but my next guest, jeffrey sachs, says it's a series of speeches that are lesser known today that we should take a closer look at. sachs is the director of the earth institute at columbia university and the author of a new book, "to move the world, jfk's quest for peace." welcome back to the show, jeff. >> thanks a lot, fareed. >> you say that 50 years ago kennedy delivered what you describe as the most important speeches any american president has ever delivered. >> i think it is the most important speech of the modern presidency. it was a commencement address at american university. it was 50 years ago just now. and it said there's a way to
make peace with the soviet union. it was so compelling that nikita crui cruise chef had it printed in full and said to the u.s. envoy at the time, avril, harroman, said that is the finest speech of a united states president, and seven weeks later, the treatly. and the speech that was just a few days after this was part of a strategy. it was not just an isolated event, it was an incredible well thought, brilliantly led strategy by president kennedy to pull the u.s. and the soviet union back from the brink of nuclear annihilation, which of course was the brink at the cuban missile crisis. and kennedy and kruschev felt
that they had as the two leaders something different has to be done. kennedy took incredible risks and pulled it off. >> and you see the centerpiece as being kennedy's recognition that this kind of nuclear brinksmanship, the nuclear arms race was very dangerous, was something that could result in a catastrophe and that there had to be not simply a tinkering around the edges, but a fundamental shift in the way we were thinking about great power relations with these massive powerful weapons. >> absolutely. and the experts of the day talked about mutual assured destruction or m.a.d. as it was called by its acronym, and it was a bit mad that the idea that there was a balance of terror that kept the peace. but kennedy realized and
kruschchev also real size this wasn't a balance, it was an imbalance, it was a set of accidents waiting to destroy the world. kennedy came into office as president in 1961 very much conscious of world war i as a war that had no reason to have taken place, resulted from a set of alliances and trip wires and accidents and miscalculations that led to this massive destruction, unprecedented destruction, and he was determined to not have that happen and to prevent that from happening in his own time. >> so how would you react to somebody who would say, look, all that is true but we didn't go down the path that kennedy asked, there was a partial test ban but there was a nuclear arms race, we had nuclear weapons, we had thousands and thousands of them, multiple warheads, and look at the net result is we haven't had a great power war and perhaps we haven't had a great power war because the
countries at the end of the day pulled back because of the fear of nuclear annihilation. in other words, m.a.d., mutually assured destruction, has worked. >> well, there's some truth to that in a way, exempt cept if y look at the spiral of events from the late '60s up to the cuban missile crisis and up to this moment in 1963 that we're talking about, it wasn't working and there was one showdown after another. what stopped in essentially this moment in 1963 was the brinksmanship. so i would say what kennedy proved decisively was a proposition that krushchev also wanted to prove that peaceful coexistence was possible, that sabre rattling and worse was extremely dangerous. there has to be a measure of trust, not simply a balance of terror. >> is that the message going forward? is that the message of kennedy's
speech, that it is possible to make -- to negotiate peace with bitter adversaries? >> you talk to the adversaries, you envision the reasons why they should care as well whether it's iran, whether it's hamas, whether it's north korea, and one of the things that's absolutely relevant for us today, the reason that kennedy went forward in part was that he came to profoundly distrust the cia and the military on giving him advice on what would lead to peace. they were trained, the cia, to spy or to cause unrest. and the military, of course, to fight wars. neither of them is the right instrument for envisioning how to actually reach agreements with the other side. i fear that our recent presidents have not had that discerning understanding that the security agencies will not
make peace. they may know how to spy, but they will not find a way to peace. and it takes leadership to understand that there's something that only a president can do, not nsa, not cia, not the military, to find that other path that's also crucial. the path that is based on the idea that both sides have a strong stake in peace. there are human beings on the other side. that was kennedy's huge message to the american people. do not demonize the russian people. they are a people of virtue. they have great courage. they should be praised for their achievements. what a message at the height of the cold war. but that's the one also that krushchev heard and led to the successful treaty. >> jeff sachs, thank you very much. up next -- >> i am delighted to greet members and guests. >> why world leaders might want to think twice before trying a foreign language they aren't entirely comfortable with. ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪
♪ hooking up the country helping business run ♪ ♪ build! we're investing big to keep our country in the lead. ♪ load! we keep moving to deliver what you need. and that means growth, lots of cargo going all around the globe. cars and parts, fuel and steel, peas and rice, hey that's nice! ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪ ♪ helping this big country move ahead as one ♪ ♪ norfolk southern how's that function? ♪ there is a pursuit we all share.
pinera sitting at the desk of the president of the united states in the oval office, the famous desk. don't worry, chile hasn't invaded america, this was all fun and games, just a world leader who wanted to see what it felt like to be leader of the free world. granted, it was a bit of a breach of protocol. it brings me to our question of the week from the gps challenge. which president was the first to use that desk, the resolute desk? was it abraham lincoln, rutherford hayes, franklin roosevelt or john f. kennedy? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. go to cnn.com/fareed for more of the gps challenge and lots of insight and analysis. you can also follow us on facebook and twitter. also, remember you can go to itunes.com/fareed if you ever miss a show or a special. this week's book of the week is "presidential leadership and the creation of the american era" by joseph nye. nye is one of the finest scholars of international relations around.
this is a very smart set of essays on presidential leadership with some surprising conclusions. anyone interested in what makes a good leader should read the book. now for the last look. the world has known russian president putin to be a man who knows what he wants and knows how to get it. [ speaking foreign language ] he certainly is not the shy and retiring type. that's why earlier this week i was surprised to see this. >> not once. sure the time has come to change this. >> it was putin asking very nicely and gently for the world expo to be held in russia in 2020, please. >> but in all this time russia has not hosted the world expo. not once. >> having sat with him at close quarters, i was stunned by this putin. he seemed so soft and tame. perhaps it was because uncharacteristically he was
speaking in english. now, to be fair, at least he can speak english and quite well. >> completely free of charge. >> very few american or british leaders can speak any language other than english. remember, newt gingrich's bilingual apology a few years ago. [ speaking spanish ] >> or here's president obama trying his hand at hebrew. [ speaking foreign language ] >> maybe they should all listen to tony blair, who admitted that trying to speak french was a bad idea. [ speaking foreign language ] >> but then again, he tried it anyway. [ speaking foreign language ] the correct answer to our gps challenge question was b. the resolute desk was presented to president rutherford b. hayes by queen victoria in 1880. it was constructed by the timbers of the hms resolute, a british warship that had been abandoned in the canadian
arctic, only to be found by american sailors and returned to queen victoria. the desk was a token of good will and friendship, as the plaque on it attests. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. stay tuned for "reliable sources." when we interviewed glenn greenwald on last sunday's program, i was a little puzzled that the guardian columnist was in hong kong. hours later, he had followed his source on the administration's massive surveillance program, ed snowden, and it was there that they made a video. >> i'm no different from anybody else. i don't have special skills. i'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes this is something that's not our place to decide. the public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong. >>