tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN June 30, 2013 10:00am-11:01am PDT
that we just saw a shot and that was actually alexandria, virginia, a coastal city and -- i'm sorry, alexandria, egypt. and that is where protests are also taking place today. so it is, in fact, across the country. we want to thank our you viewers for joining us here. a special edition of state of the union. right now fareed zakari gps. . we'll start the show with an exclusive with tom donilon, president's national security
adviser today is his last day in office. he sat down with me for an exit interview. we talk about edward snowden, the nsa, russia, china, syria, iran, and reflections on his teen you are at the president's side. then, 24 years ago andrew sullivan laid out the first major intellectual argument for same-sex marriage. the idea was controversial at the time. today it seems inevitable. we'll talk to him about this fascinating journey. and the rhodes scholarship of the 21st century. that's what one of america's wealthiest men says he has just started. at yale, harvard, princeton, stanford? nope. stay tuned to find out where. then africa, not one but two american presidents visited there this week. chinese president xi hit it on his first trip abroad. i will give you my views on the hottest continent. but first here's my take. one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty. that was martin luther king jr.'s definition of civil disobedience. it does not appear to be edward snowden's.
he has tried by every method possible to escape any judgment or punishment for his actions. snowden has been compared to daniel ellsberg, the man who leaked the pentagon papers to "the new york times." but ellsberg did not hop on a plane to hong kong or moscow once he had unloaded his cache of documents. he stood trial and faced the possibilitof more than 100 years in prison before the court dismissed the case against him because of the prosecution's mistakes and abuses of justice. mahatma gandhi spent years in prison in their native land. while snowden is no hero, his revelations have focused attention on a brave new world of total information. we're living with the consequences of two powerful interrelated trends these days. the first is digital life. your life today has a digital signature, where you eat, shop and travel, whom you call, e-mail and text, every website,
cafe and museum you have ever visited, it's all stored in the great digital cloud. and you cannot delete anything ever. the second is big data. americans were probably most shocked by the revelation that the u.s. government is collecting massive quantities of their digital signatures, billions of phone calls and e-mails and internet searches. the feds aren't monitoring every last one, but they could easily, and that is the essence of the age of big data. in their excellent book, "big data," they write about the police in richmond, virginia. they track criminal incidents against a variety of events. corporate paydays, sports events, concerts, gun shows and dozens of other possible triggers. and the computer then identifies patterns. for example, two weeks after a gun show, there is always a jump in violent crime.
now, multiply this example by thousands and you understand what the nsa computers are doing. they don't use samples anymore, but rather the entire data set. and they don't try to construct algorithms or logic trees to predict an event, they just look through the data for correlations. as they point out, if computers can make predictions based on data analysis, should we prevent bad actions by arresting people before they act? remember the movie "minority report"? but it's not just fiction. the nsa program p.r.i.s.m. aims to identify suspicious patterns to allow the government to prevent terrorism. that is, to act before a terrorist event takes place. a research project at the department of homeland security that tried to predict terrorist behavior based on people's vital signs, physiological patterns was 70% accurate according to
the authors. as far as we know, the u.s. government has broken no laws with all of this surveillance. it has followed all established procedures. congress approved these programs, though it did so in secret, writing laws that aren't public. shouldn't we know more about the actual checks and balances for this kind of surveillance? the larger question "big data" raises is this. should any government be permitted to use computer analysis, even if highly accurate, to observe, inform, quarantine or even arrest people because they are likely to do something bad? that seems like a scenario from a sci-fi thriller, yet here we are very close to a real world version. for more on this, go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my column in "time" magazine. let's get started. president obama's first
meeting every morning is with tom donilon, the national security adviser. donilon briefs president obama on his portfolio, which the president has said is literally the entire world. henry kissinger said he believed on this program that donilon fulfilled his job superbly. on friday he sat down with me for an exit interview. tom donilon, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you, fareed, good to see you. >> i've got to ask you first the news of the moment. >> okay. >> do you have assurances from the russian government that edward snowden is not going to be allowed to stay in russia and that he will have to go somewhere else? >> i'll say a few things about that. number one, the view of the united states and the position of the united states that we've been pursuing is that snowden should be returned to the united states. he is not -- he has a revoked passport, he's not traveling on valid papers and he should be returned to the united states because he's wanted here for a crime.
we've been in discussions through law enforcement channels with the russian government on a regular basis about this issue. and i have to agree with president putin when he said the other day that it would be better for mr. snowden to decide when he's leaving, sooner rather than later. we agree with that. the sooner that this can be resolved, the better. >> but you don't have a specific assurance that he will not be allowed to stay in russia? >> well, he's currently been in the transit lounge, as you know, in the russian airport. and these discussions have taken place in law enforcement channels, which i think is the place for them to take place. you know, as the president said yesterday, we have broad relations with russia. we have a lot of issues to work through with russia and other countries. this is appropriately, i think, in a law enforcement -- in a law enforcement channel. >> but isn't that signaling to the russians or as it did perhaps to the chinese that this is not an urgent priority? "the washington post" had an article saying the administration gambled that it could -- use entirely legal channels to address this issue
rather than putting diplomatic and political pressure on both the hong kong and chinese authorities and the russian authorities and in both cases, the article argues the strategy failed. >> well, we've had a lot of conversations with the russians about this through a variety of channels. but the principal channel really is the law enforcement channel. we have had a history of law enforcement issues being resolved effectively, including cooperation on the boston marathon bombing with the russians, and that's the appropriate channel. and again, i think president putin's point, this should be resolved sooner rather than later is correct. >> so there will be no great consequences for the chinese and the russians if they don't cooperate? >> let's see where this ends up. as the president said yesterday, this is a law enforcement issue. this is -- we have broad relationships with both the countries that you mentioned. very complex set of relationships. a number of things that we have to work with these countries on.
and they shouldn't be dominated, frankly, by a single law enforcement issue involving, as the president said yesterday, a 29-year-old hacker. >> we have an election in iran with a seemingly moderate reform-minded president. first, do you read it as such? and secondly, is the united states going to take advantage of that opportunity and present iran with some kind of negotiated package that it can live with? >> the united states from the outset has indicated that it would sit down with iran and talk about the nuclear issue face to face and in a bona fide fashion. the elections were interesting in iran. they reflected among other things the state of the iranian economy, which in turn, of course, reflected the effectiveness of the sanctions that the united states has led and the west has put on iran, and there were discussions about the west. the economy and the situation in iran is not going to get better unless iran takes policy changes, which would improve its relationship with the west.
>> but now will the united states propose some kind of package that there has -- presumably in any negotiation there has to be something in it for the iranians. we know what we want them to not do. what do they get? what's the upside? >> there's a lot in this for this iranian people and i think this is what the iranians have to consider. we have had numerous discussions with the iranians. there are any number of proposals that can be put on the table and they are awaiting an iranian response. but what will have to happen is two or three things. one, we'll have to see if iran is willing to come to the table in a bona fide way and address the international community concerns about the nuclear program. if they do that, we've indicated that we can have a discussion about iran over time being integrated back into the international community. if they don't come to the table engage -- >> what does that mean? >> well, i don't want to
negotiate through a television interview, but there are a number of things iran would have to do to satisfy the international community about its peaceful intention with respect to its nuclear program. absent that, the pressure will continue. but the choice now is with the administration in tehran and the choice ultimately, of course, will be with the supreme leader, who will have to decide whether we're at the point where his public -- he can be responsive to his public in terms of change, in terms of change in policy which can allow us to move forward. >> we will be back in a moment, more with tom donilon on other hot spots of american foreign policy and some personal reflections. ♪ there's a new way to fight litter box odor. introducing tidy cats with glade tough odor solutions.
...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. more now of my exit interview with tom donilon. this is his last day in office. let me ask you about syria. the president has seemed to to have a disciplined attitude about not committing the united states and then a couple of weeks ago it seemed like that shifted. an all of a sudden there was a determination that because there had been a use of some chemical weapons at one point on the
battlefield, the united states was suddenly much more deeply engaged. is that the appropriate yardstick by which the united states should determine whether or not to commit itself? good we've had a consistent policy in syria. the president did say the use of chemical weapons would cause us to take changes and it did. in terms of the scale and scope of the assistance that we're providing to the opposition. stepping back on syria, it's a tragedy. i've been to syria many times. and for assad to wreck that country, its heritage and impose the cost it has on its people is appalling. and we have from the outset organized the international community to support the opposition. we have been the leader in the humanitarian assistance, now $850 million worth of humanitarian assistance.
we have said for a long time now that we would support the opposition and we are supporting the opposition and we're trying to work with various parties trying to get them to the table to pursue a political solution. we press the point that it is in everybody's interest to try to get a succession to get a political process going. >> but you have no luck with the russians yet. that photograph of putin and obama at the g-8 seemed to say it all. >> well, i was at the meeting with president putin and president obama. they agreed, as you know, during the course of that meeting on pursuing the geneva 1 agenda, which is a conference that would lead towards a transitional government. we have not been able to get that scheduled at this point and put together, but we continue to work with the russians on that. but we do share the goal of putting that together. president putin did sign on to a g-8 statement calling for an investigation of the use of chemical weapons by the united nations in syria.
but we have had a disagreement with the russians over the tactics here. we've had a disagreement with the russians over what is required to move toward a political settlement. i think our analysis has been right, frankly. our analysis from the outset has been that the longer this goes on, the more difficult this was going to become. the longer this goes on, the longer it would take on sectarian character. the longer that this goes on, you'd find al qaeda-related entities finding their ability to take root there. >> there have been books written already about the obama administration's foreign policy and some of them place you at the absolute center, give you enormous amount of influence and in fact one book says that the white house and you had too much influence and drowned out the voice of somebody like hillary clinton and richard holbrook who were taking very different perspectives on afghanistan, particularly. how do you respond to that? >> we have had from the outset of the administration a very strong group of foreign policy principles. and none of whom would be, quote unquote, drowned out. we have at the principals committee that i led here, you
would have the vice president of the united states, joe biden, secretary clinton, general petraeus, leon panetta, bob gates before him, richard holbrook when he was with us. it was a very strong group of principals. and indeed one of the things that i am quite happy with over the last four and a half years is that we have not had the historical norm. the historical norm is that you have a tremendous amount of public conflict among very high-profile and strong-willed national security principals. we haven't had that in this administration, very little of that. the reason i think is, is that president obama has insisted that we run a process here where it's effective, views are heard and the president gets them directly. so i just think that's wrong. i think we've run a process here that has been fair, where the evidence is overwhelming that the principals thought that it was fair because we haven't had this public bickering that we've
had in the past. you and i could go through some of the famous cases over the last 35 years. and you've done it not with shrinking violets but rather with some of the most prominent national security figures and political figures in the united states. indeed, you know, i would be at meetings on a number of occasions where there would be three people at the table who ran against each other for president. so i would -- >> biden, obama, clinton? >> yes. so i don't think valerie has got this right. >> you've been working at this white house since president obama was elected. what was your -- what was the last day that you had a full day of vacation? >> a full day off? christmas, 2008. >> so what are you going to do right after this? >> what am i going to do after i finish my work? well, i finish -- i guess this will air on sunday, so i finish on midnight tonight, and then
we'll hand over the reins to ambassador rice. and then i will head up to new england to the beach for a while. >> you've worked for president carter, you've worked for president clinton, you've worked for president obama. what do you think is the key -- you know, if somebody would want to understand how president obama approaches foreign policy, what would you say is the key difference or the characteristic of this president? >> yeah, i don't want to compare presidents. as you said, i've worked closely with three presidents over the last 36 years or so. one of the keys to being able to do that is not to engage in comparisons in a public forum. but i can say this about president obama. he is strategic, very determined in terms of understanding fully the problems that the country faces. he is a very efficient and effective decision-maker.
he insists on rigorous process, as i said. he insists on seeing all the options fully developed. he insists on hearing from his advisers. and has asked the same question over and over again, what's in the national interest? and very importantly, and this goes back to your question on syria, for example, asked not just what would seem to be a good idea today, but how does this play out two and three and four steps down the line. and i've seen this now, again, close up for four and a half years. >> tom donilon, thank you very much. and thank you for the work you've done for the country. >> thank you, fareed. it's great to be here. up next, what in the world, a look at the fastest growing continent in the world. it is not asia. we will be right back. i'm the next american success story. working for a company
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. still doesn't feel real. our time together was... so short. well, since you had progressive's total loss coverage, we were able to replace your totaled bike with a brand-new one. the tank, the exhaust... well, she looks just like roxy! you know, i'll bet she's in a better place now.
how to engage with the world's fastest-growing continent. africa was for many decades the dark continent or the hopeless continent, as the economists had put it. more recently it has become the great hope of the business world. the economists updated its take to "africa rising." the world bank recently said africa could be on the verge of a takeoff, the like the china's 30 years ago. africa's recent growth has been impressive and important, but let's step back and get some perspective before we break out the champagne. ♪ first, the case for optimism. growth. as population stagnates or declines in europe, japan and china, africa's population of one billion is expected to more than double by 2050. more people means more consumption, more production, more growth. african economies grew on average around 6% last year. that's three times the pace of america's growth and faster than many asian countries. a new world is opening up to africans as they get used to credit cards and mobile phones.
they are also becoming economically more free and more democratic. but there are hurdles ahead. the world economic forum's new africa competitiveness report shows that of the 20 least competitive economies in the world, 14 are african. what this means is that african economies are blighted by low productivity. african economies may be growing for now and from a very low base, but they are overdependent on commodities. more than half of the continent's total exports are minerals, a focus which makes it vulnerable to fluctuations in global demand. more than two-thirds of africa's labor force is employed in agriculture, much of it subsistence agriculture. on the other hand, manufacture, the hallmark of a developed economy, has essentially remained stagnant. its share of total gdp is the same as what it used to be in the 1970s. the africa economic outlook, published by the african development bank and others,
builds on some of these points. it turns out that if the world's rich countries experience a 1% drop in growth, that translates into a 10% drop for africa's export earnings. in most african countries, economic and political reforms have stalled, corruption remains staggeringly high and the private sector is much too tied to government favors. as attention centers on the great nelson mandela's life and legacy, south africa is languishing. annual growth fell to less than 1% in the latest quarter. youth unemployment hovers around 50%, a recipe for future crises. what to make of all these facts and reports? south africa's case is a warning for the rest of the continent. african countries have immense potential, but they need a continued commitment to bold reforms, transparency, free markets and trade. perhaps the most crucial thing to watch is how africa deals with its greatest resource.
not oil, not minerals, but people. africa's share of the world's population will rise from 1/7 to about 1/5 by the middle of the century. if africans get the right access to education, health care, good governance and jobs, africa will be a powerhouse. if not, the population growth is a curse, not a blessing. this week's visits by obama and bush are important, but what african countries need is not so much external attention, but internal reform. up next, a big milestone for gay marriage in america. i'm going to speak to the man who made the case for it more than two decades ago, and he's a conservative. we'll be right back. when we made our commitment to the gulf, bp had two big goals:
help the gulf recover, and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years -
[ male announcer ] with everyone on the go this summer, now's the perfect time to get home security for protection while you're away. and right now you can get adt security installed starting at just $49, a savings of $250. but hurry. offer ends soon. don't wait. call right now or visit adt.com. this is a fire that didn't destroy a home. this is a break-in that didn't devastate a family. this is the reason why. adt. you can't predict when bad things will happen, but you can help protect yourself with the fast alarm response of adt, with 24/7 monitoring against burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide starting at just over $1 a day. this is the computer that didn't get stolen, keeping priceless photos and financial records safe.
this is the reason why. take advantage of adt's summer savings. starting at $49 installed. hurry. offer ends july 8th. adt. always there. hello, everyone. a look at your top stories. a frightening episode over the hudson river. according to new york fire officials, a sight seeing helicopter with a pilot and four tourists made an emergency land management water. in serious injuries reported. stay with cnn for the latest. and thousands of anti-government
protesters are in cairo's tahrir square right now, they're calling on egyptian president more city to resign. just one year after he rose to power in a democratic election. protesters are angry about the economy, fuel shortages and rising crime. and president obama is in capetown, south affair characterization he visited robben island where nelson mandela was held prisoner for years. he urged students to follow in his foot steps. fareed zakaria gps continues right now. the august 28, 1989, issue of the new republic magazine had a controversial cover. it featured an artist's rendering of a wedding cake but with the figure of two men on top. inside was a ground-breaking essay by andrew sullivan, then seen as an ardent conservative laying out the case for same-sex marriage. it's a reminder of the ultimate
importance of intellectual work, which often lays the foundation for things that later happen in the so-called real world. given this week's historic supreme court rulings on the subject, i asked sullivan to come on and talk to me about his essay and where we are today. welcome, andrew. >> thanks, fareed. >> so tell me about when you wrote that essay, because i remember it. we knew each other then. it was controversial, and it was controversial in the gay community. >> oh, yes. >> right? >> gay marriage was -- i spent the first ten years battling the gay left. i was picketed, attacked. i was called the anti-christ for proposing this. >> and why did they not like it? explain. >> because the gay movement then was very much a product of the new left, of the late '60s and early '70s. they believed that their goal was to uproot existing institutions and to dissolve marriage.
and to go there and say, no, we have a right to marry, we should have a right to marry they thought was heterosexist, right wing, fascist, so we were for the first ten years just kicked continuously by the gays. until suddenly from the ground up, and i'm talking about the establishment, the ground up, the gay men who had been cut off from their husbands in hospital rooms in the aids epidemic, people who had suffered horrible indignities, people who had been with their spouses and thrown out of their house by relatives thereafter, denied access to the funeral, no rights, whatever, and lesbians started having babies. so this actually created a constituency on both death and life to secure our relationships, to take care of our children, to take care of our spouses. >> that's what my impression was, that you were fighting a kind of -- looking from the outside, there was an activist
community that was more left wing and that it was more important to be bohemian, but your argument seemed more in accord with what the majority of gays probably wanted, which is just a normal life. >> i was challenged by a lot of left wingists by saying we reject marriage. we don't want to have anything to do with this. my response was, with all due respect, you don't reject marriage because you cannot. because it's never been offered to you. i'm fighting for your right not to marry as well as to marry. but you're right -- >> you don't have to get married. >> you don't have to. straight people don't have to either. but look, we're part of families. gay people don't -- they're not born under something in san francisco and unleashed on the country to improve your dinner party conversations and interior design. that's not what happened. they're born and bred in texas and oklahoma and alabama,
they're in the military and they're part of this country's entire diversity. and they want to be a part of their own families. and they're more traditional than you realize. >> so then began the battle you're still battling which is with conservatives. >> yeah. i think the great disappointment, the great disappointment is that this was a really in some ways a conservative argument. this was a minority group seeking responsibility, commitment, pooling resources. if you're a couple and something happens to one of you, you have someone else to take care of you, not the government. there's a really powerful conservative case for this. and so many of the republican party just never grappled with it until it was too late. but kennedy, a reagan appointee, i think you see the last strains of that moderate conservatism which is, you know, we do have this new emergent population. how do we integrate them? how do we make them part?
i don't want us to have a separate but equal institution of civil unions, and that was the big threat. and then bush, when he actually endorsed a federal marriage amendment, suddenly the entire gay establishment were like, okay, we're with you. it was like -- >> if bush is against it, we were for it. >> yes, bush -- i would like to say that my arguments or whatever, evans brilliant strategy really persuaded the gay community. but no, i think george bush by endorsing the most unbelievably draconian, to actually write us out of equality in the constitution itself, unprecedented attack on an minority, galvanized everybody around this issue. >> do you worry that there will be a right-wing backlash of the kind that roe v. wade produced for the next decade or two? >> no. i think that backlash happened.
we're sort of in a backlash lash at this point. and because this decision was not as sweeping as roe versus wade. it still allows every state to make their own decisions. my worry is that there will be an overplaying of our hand, and that people will try and force this more quickly than we really should. what i'm proud of so far is that we have done this the right way. we have done this state by state. we've done it legislatively, we've done it through argument, through that kind of -- what the founders wanted us to do. make our case bit by bit, persuade more and more people and move that forward. i don't want anybody's religious liberty, i want that to be defined as maximally as possible. we do not threaten and should never threaten the conscientious beliefs of those who disagree with us but we should welcome their freedom because it's our freedom too. and so i'm very concerned actually that we may become
intolerant of people who believe homosexuality is still sinful. and we have to -- we have to live by -- >> you want to be tolerant of their intolerance? >> yes. because i think in the end that's the only way to solve it. i mean i'm a christian. i really believe in the end in this matter. you up the ante and start calling them bigots and trying to coerce them, you're as bad as they were to us. and we must never do that. >> andrew sullivan, pleasure to have you on, and congratulations. >> thanks, fareed. up next, the rhodes scholarship of the 21st century. my next guest says it will take students not to the u.k., but to china. he'll explain, steve schwarzman, the ceo of blackstone, up next.
a very successful british businessman named cecil rhodes set up a scholarship to bring students from the british colonies, the united states and germany to study at oxford. the idea was to promote international understanding. 110 years later, a very successful american businessman named stephen schwarzman set up
a scholarship to bring students from around the world to study in china. the idea is also to promote international understanding. schwarzman is the chairman and ceo of blackstone group, a firm that has grown from having $400,000 of assets to over $200 billion of assets today. steve, good to have you on. >> it's good to be here. >> i've got to ask you about this big initiative that you have made in china, a program which will bring students from all over the world, the best and the brightest, to china in the way that the rhodes scholarship brings people to oxford. >> that's correct. what we're trying to do is take 200 people from around the world, 45% americans, 20% chinese, and 35% from rest of world, top 20 economies
basically, and have them come to the university in beijing. the reason that we're doing this is because i'm concerned about what happens if china continues growing at double or triple the rate of the west. the west on balance isn't producing jobs. china is producing ten million jobs a year. with the burdens on governments and west, people are going to become more and more unhappy just generally. they're not so happy at the moment anyhow. if they see one country, which is now the second biggest economy in the world, china, growing rapidly, the tensions are going to go up because people seldom blame themselves for their own underperformance. it's always got to be somebody else that did it to them. as and china becomes a focus as the u.s.' largest creditor and
there becomes hostility between china and the rest of the world, if that occurs, not over a year or two but over decades, you could have major trade problems, major economic problems, and potentially military problems. >> how does this -- how does this solve that? >> by the way, before we get to the solution, those problems are already occurring between china and japan, between china and europe on certain types of products. the schwarzman scholars is designed to create leaders, actually people who are already highly accomplished, like the rhodes, and have them come to china, meet the leaders of the country, take trips around the country so they get a sense of it, be assigned a mentor from the real world so that they know how the real world and china works. and so when the issue of china comes up, they can be the people who explain what china believes,
what china's intention is on an individual thing so other people won't get angry or aggressive unnecessarily. >> so you've got this vast arr!. what's your take how the united states is doing? is this recovery real? >> i think the recovery is real. you have a number of real strong areas in the economy. housing for example, is we have auto, now doing 15 million car as year, up from 8 1/2 at the bottom of the financial crisis. so we're seeing pockets of strength. >> why do you think these very
strong results across the board in many sectors don't translate more into jobs? why is it that while corporate profits are doing well, you still have -- it still seems tough to get the unemployment numbers down? >> i think there's a lag. i think business is cautious. i think we will get that increase, particularly as construction starts coming back. it won't be radical, but if you're running a major business today of the new obama-care being implemented, you have tax reform, of virtually every conceivable type being discussed, it's very difficult to make longer term plans when you don't know what the rules are. >> you have been critical of president obama in the past, very critical in some cases, at least reported comments of you saying pretty strong stuff about
him. do you think that the things are still pretty bad in the sense that you still feel president obama's policies are hurting the economy? >> i think he's -- frankly, he's a very nice guy. get along well with him as a person. i have a different philosophy on certain issues. i think it's equitable when a country is in trouble, if you have a tax policy, everyone should bear some load with the people at the top bearing the most and the people at the middle bearing less and the people towards the bottom bearing very little, but to basically have a tax increase that only affects one-ten one-tenth -- excuse me, nine tenths of 1% of the population with income tax increases strikes me as an odd way to get the country together.
we can't solve our budget problems by fundamentally excludeing almost everyone in the country. those numbers don't add. >> steve schwarzman, pleasure to have you be on. >> my pleasure to be here. up next, have you ever thought parisians are not welcoming to tourists? if it's true or not, france has a plan to correct that impression. [ female announcer ] a classic macaroni & cheese from stouffer's
starts with freshly-made pasta, and 100% real cheddar cheese. but what makes stouffer's mac n' cheese best of all. that moment you enjoy it at home. stouffer's. made with care for you or your family. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. 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.
president obama's trip to africa brings me to my question of the week. south sudan was the last african state to gain independence in 2011. which was the second to last country? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. go to cnn doth k.com/faried forf the gps challenge and lots of inside analysis. you can also follow us on twitter and facebook. go to itunes.com/faree deckers if you ever miss a special. this week's book of the week is "sleepless in hollywood."
many of you might be pausing over. why are there no great movies made anymore and why are so many sequels and prequels and part threes and fours. this is a really entertaining book with an important message. now for the last look. the world's most visited city this year is not paris. paris would like to be number one since tremendous is a huge contributor to the french economy. know city of lights has taken on its problem with urgency. the parisian chamber of commerce started a campaign on the web and in printed pamphlets called do you speak tourist. it's targeted at taxi drivers, restaurant workers and restaurant and hotel workers. offer offers how to discuss polite conversation with for renners. hello, i'd like to make a reservation for four people? yes. of course. what time would you like to come in? >> it's chock full of advice of
what certain nationalities like to prefer. brits like to be called by their a first names. brazilians like wifi and japanese wait until they're back home to make criticisms. these are all national stereotypes. i wonder how most people would characterize the french? maybe being rude or standoffish, right. that's exactly why paris had to institute this get friendly program in the first place. by the way, you may wonder what will be the world's most visited city in 2013? according to my study of the mastercard, it's bangkok, the first asian city to ever take the crown. the answer to our gps challenge question is a, eritrea that extended freedom in 1917 and ranked dead last behind other
countries. in a recent story on global shipping, we overextended the wait times, the average time for a ship to wait in transit through the canal was 25.66 hours. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. >> hello, everyone. i'm fredericka whitfield. these stories topping the "newsroom," a downed sightseeing helicopter and rescue operation on the hudson river. the intense heat in the west is only getting worse and really dangerous. a report from one of the hottest places in this world next. president barack obama visited robben island today, the prison where nelson mandela was