tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN June 12, 2011 10:00am-11:00am EDT
congressman's comments. gabrielle giffords' office today released new photographs of the recovering congresswoman. the pictures were taken may 17th and published on her facebook page. giffords is scheduled to leave a houston rehab facility later this month. and those are today's top stories. thank you so much for watching "state of the union." we want to remind you once again to tune in tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern for cnn's republican primary debate live from new hampshire. and we hope you'll join us next week when our guest will be outgoing defense secretary robert gates. up next for our viewers here in the united states, "fareed zakaria gps." 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 have a great show for you today. first up, we'll take our first look here on "gps" at the 2012 presidential race. we'll analyze the gop field, what are the issues that will
dominate the election. then events in pakistan often seem like fiction. the wonderful journalist david ignatius has written a spy novel set in that country. how much of it is true? next up, a look deep inside the psyche of the emerging global power, china. with the man who perhaps knows it best, dr. henry kissinger. and finally, how does president obama go from heads and shoulders above chancellor merkel to just about even? we'll show you. now, here's my take. those of you who watched the show last week know that i talked about the need to tackle america's unemployment crisis. 24 million americans unemployed or underemployed. well, i'm going to talk about this again because it really is the crucial problem underlying all others. president obama has proposed a number of specific policies to tackle the jobs crisis, but they have gone nowhere because
republicans say that their top concern is the deficit and debt. well, those of you worried about the debt, i should say those of us because i would strongly include myself, let's please remember that if unemployment doesn't go down fast, the deficit is going to get much worse. if you're serious about deficit reduction, the single most important factor that will shrink it is to have more people working and paying taxes. i want to focus on one of obama's proposals because it actually would add very little to the deficit. it has some republican supporters. and would have an immediate effect on boosting employment and growth. and it's good for the country anyway. we need a national infrastructure bank to repair and rebuild america's crumbling infrastructure. the house majority leader, eric cantor has played down this proposal as just more stimulus. but if republicans set aside ideology, they would actually see this is an opportunity to push for two of their favorite
ideas, privatization and the elimination of earmarks. that's why republicans like kay bailey hutchinson and chuck hagel are strongly in favor of such a bank. the united states builds its infrastructure in a remarkably socialist manner. the government funds bills and operates almost all american infrastructure. now, in many countries, in europe, in asia, the private sector plays a much larger role in financing and operating roads, highways, airports as well as other public resources. and infrastructure bank would create a mechanism by which you could have private sector participation. yes, that would be some public money involved but mostly through issuing bonds. but with interest rates at historic lows, this is the time to use those low interest rates to borrow money and rebuild america's infrastructure. such projects have huge long-term payoffs and can genuinely be thought of as investments, not expenditures. a national infrastructure bank
would also address a legitimate complaint of the tea party. earmark spending. one of the reasons federal spending has been inefficient is that congress wants to spread the money around in ways that might make political sense but are economic nonsense. an infrastructure bank would make those decisions using cost benefit analysis. in a meritocratic decision. let's face it. america's infrastructure is in a shambles. just a decade ago, we ranked sixth in infrastructure in the world according to the world economic forum. today we rank 23rd and dropping. we will not be able to compete with the nations of the world if we cannot fix this problem. is it too much to ask that republicans and democrats find a way to come together on this? that moment of bipartisanship might actually be the biggest payoff of all. let's get started.
election day 2012 is amazingly more than 500 days away, but there is no denying the campaign has begun. here to talk about it, a great and greatly opinionated global public square panel, fulfilling the global part of our mission, british historian and conservative, andrew roberts, the author of "the storm of war," just out. chrystia freeland, eliot spitzer is the host of cnn's "in the arena." and new to gps, ann coulter is writer and author of the recently released book "demonic." welcome to you all. you'll explain the title later. eliot, let me ask you, is it possible for somebody to enter at this point or is the republican nominee likely to be
somebody who is already declared for president? >> well, if you mean technically declared, i include jon huntsman. if you include huntsman among romney, pawlenty and the lesser candidates who i don't think have a real shot at it, santorum, palin, gingrich, i think that is the field. i think that is probably the universe we'll look at. nobody else has either the name recognition. i guess herman cain maybe will make a dent, but nobody else has the capacity to launch a campaign at this point. >> except giuliani. >> perhaps although at the end of the day, i don't think he does. >> so who do you like among these people? >> someone who is not one of those that's named, chris christie. i think he could still jump in after labor day. in fact, a lot of -- part of the reason you don't want to wait so long is you lose money. big republican donors, people who want him to have influence on the process are already committing generally by this point. they aren't this year because they're hoping chris christie
will jump in. and a lot of republicans are waiting to see if he doesn't declare soon after labor day, i suspect early this fall, then that money will go to romney. i would predict he will be the nominee if chris christie doesn't jump in, and i don't think palin's running. i mean, i guess we'll see. >> do you think romney is sort of in it? to me it seems this way. romney would be the logical choice. the republicans tend to be a pretty hierarchical party. this is a party that nominated richard nixon five times. there's been a bush on for basically the 30 years. romney has waited his turn. but the tea party really doesn't like him because of his health care plan. >> that's true. nonetheless, i agree with ann. i think that chris christie would be a very tough challenger for romney, absent christie, i think it's hard not to see romney getting it. the thing is, romney would be a very credible candidate. i agree with you, there is a tea party issue. i think more fundamentally there's sort of a flip-flop
issue that in a way romney, as a governor, has been, i think, a better leader than romney as a candidate. and that is his difficulty, is how does he persuade people he is actually authentic when so far he's been running against his record of i think some significant accomplishments. >> i presume you hate his accomplishments. >> no. obviously -- and it isn't just the tea party. conservatives are never wild about the republican candidate with the exception of ronald reagan. i think they've had a problem with all of them. >> but to be fair -- >> romney care definitely concerned me. >> at the time it was seen as bob dole's health care plan. it was newt gingrich supported, enthusiastically supported the individual mandate. something has changed. people decided if obama likes it, it must be evil. >> no, no, do not cite newt gingrich as the voice of the republican party. let's take the first vote. and we'll find out how right that is. he is according to the media,
not according to us. >> the points are well taken. the most articulate, most reasoned defense of the individual mandate has come from mitt romney. over and over again, even his health care speech a few weeks ago, i said, wow, he's not running away from this intellectually. i'm not sure if this is smart politics. he is right, in his defense. it's a very conservative notion. and so i think his accomplishments, and chrystia is right, his accomplishments as governor were not insubstantial. they were very critical of him. in health care, he was smart, he compromised. i think the argument is what is the argument he's going to make? >> i'm sorry. i know you haven't spoken yet, but the people who like romney's health care plan, like you, are democrats. he needs to get republicans to vote for him. >> clearly. >> that's his problem. >> sorry. >> no, no, no. nobody's mentioned rick perry. he has says -- he's been making
noises now. we're talking about an election which is going to be strongly based on jobs. and 37% of all net new american jobs since the beginning of the recession have happened in texas. they were created in texas. and that's not his number. that's the federal reserve in texas number. i really think that it's impossible to just ignore that he might step in as well. >> the argument is that texas has been a low-tax, low-regulation, business-trendy state. >> it's got rid of -- it's got very strong tort reform and there's no state income tax. this is something that's very attractive to people. >> we'll talk about all this and more when we come back. >> no, no, no, ronald reagan was not part of his taking a keynesian approach. thank you. >> it would be nice if it were true. ♪ could that have also inspired its 556 horsepower supercharged engine?
♪ the all-new cadillac cts-v coupe. we don't just make luxury cars, we make cadillacs. and today, we're re-inventing aspirin for pain relief. with new extra-strength bayer advanced aspirin. it has microparticles so enters the bloodstream faster and rushes relief right to the site of your tough pain. in fact, it's clinically proven to relieve pain twice as fast. new bayer advanced aspirin. extra strength pain relief, twice as fast. [ male announcer ] try it at no cost. look out for your coupon in this sunday's papers.
[ man ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah. ♪ [ technician ] are you busy? management just sent over these new technical manuals. they need you to translate them into portuguese.
by tomorrow. [ male announcer ] ducati knows it's better for xerox to manage their global publications. so they can focus on building amazing bikes. with xerox, you're ready for real business. [ male announcer ] want to pump up your gas mileage? come to meineke for our free fuel-efficiency check and you'll say...my money. my choice. my meineke. and we are back with our star-studded panel, eliot spitzer, chrystia freeland, andrew roberts, and ann coulter. both roberts and coulter out with new books. your book is about leadership, it's about world war ii. when you look at all this, do you think that it's a moment of veritable crisis in a sense, the economies of the western world are not doing well?
are there people who stand out for you as great leaders? do you think david cameron in your home country is -- >> david cameron is a very impressive man, and he has the ability to be a great leader. really in order to be a truly great leader, you pretty much always need a war. it's a terrible thing to have to say, but it's very often true. >> we've got three of them. we can give him one. >> actually, we started one of them, and you're coming in. slightly late. well, president roosevelt, of course, had to end a war. so in a sense he was lucky in that regard. >> double lucky. >> no, with regard to the great leaders of the second world war, we do have roosevelt and churchill, of course. who stand head and shoulders above the rest. today when one looks around the world, i think it would be easier for the west if you didn't have this looming threat of china coming up to tread on everybody's toes. >> eliot, you write that you wish obama were more
rooseveltian. >> absolutely. >> you think that you need to see a much more unapologetic defense of government. >> because i think it worked. again, just so it's clear before ann starts jumping up and down, i actually believe keynes was right, that keynesian economic works and it's also true of the constitution, something the tea party may not agree with. and i think the president needs to defend not just in the context of the auto bailout where it's easier to point to gm and chrysler and say look what we accomplished, but the entire economy would have been so much worse, that the implosion of both confidence, a financial system, job creation would have been devastating had we not put in place that cushion of the stimulus package. now, you're saying it would have been worse but for, and that's not an appeal in a political argument. and i think the president now at this moment of intense weakness, lack of job creation needs to bring all of this oratorical and
intellectual skills to bear to say here's what the record shows us. david cameron, may be a great leader, the british economy is not faring well because of those cuts. there is a sense of reality -- >> if britain we're trying to deal with this deficit. >> maybe you're doing the wrong thing. >> but -- but he has been elected to try and see this through. and he's seeing it through. and if he does turn out, as i belief, to actually to get away with it, then the anti-keynesian view will be proven right. this next election is going to be a classic keynesian election. >> in the u.s.? >> in the u.s. >> we've run this experiment at different times in this country over and over and over again. and every time nothing is done. there is no keynesian spending. the economy recovers like that. and we have a wound. it did in the '20s and the '80s. >> the '80s i recall a massive increase in defense spending in the cold war. >> and massive cuts in taxes which brought more revenue in.
>> keynes was in favor of taxing -- he never made a particular distinction between government spending or taxing. his point was you need demand in the economy. you need to stimulate demand. >> no, no, no, ronald reagan if the cold war was not part of his taking a keynesian approach. thank you. >> tax cuts are a keynesian approach. >> it would be nice if it were true, but it's not. the reality is, if you look at the economics and you look at what the impact is of both cutting marginal rates, government spending, the incentives of job creation, keynes has been right at every term in terms of understanding -- if you actually sat down and either were a business person, making capital allocation decisions, hiring, you would understand that what you look at is your return. right now there's a demand crisis of enormous volume. that's why we need to create demand in this economy to generate things that we can buy. >> and obama's been following your policies. that's why we have a process. >> the executives are sitting on $2 trillion of capital. key to getting that capital back
into the economy to hire people is demand for the products being made. there is not but a whole lot of ambiguity about that. >> creating demand with stimulus money and oddly enough it hasn't worked. what businessmen are asking for is release. >> what mr. pawlenty is talking about, huge tax cuts and indeed cutting back the gdp, the amount spent of gdp from the 24% it is now to the 20% that mr. romney wants or the 18% is going to allow money to come back into the economy through tax cuts. >> tell me why. people were sitting on capital. we're sitting on capital right now. because capital gains rates are 15%. you're saying if you take that 15%, they're going to invest even when there's no demand for the product? >> right. there's a lot of money. there's a lot of money that's on the side now. >> have you ever made -- have you ever been in business? >> not myself. >> you don't understand these
capital allocation decisions are made. you really don't. >> i'm sorry, how many of president obama's actual -- of which he now only has one left, mr. geithner from his original team, how many of them did business themselves? very few. most of them were academics. so don't attack me. >> you've been governor. you've been in politics your whole life. if you're a businessman, that's the strangest conversation i've ever seen. >> no, because you're making statements that are so counterfactual. your statements about the economy are simply counterfactual. >> right. the economy is just booming right now. that keynesian economics obama gave us has been a glut. >> the disagreement between ann and eliot, i can actually do it. so ann's point about the need for the eye ideologues i think where eliot started off in
talking about barack obama. >> just for his party. >> yeah, just for party. and really i think the tragedy for democrats right now is that barack obama has not been making the strong keynesian democratic case he should be making which eliot has made right now. >> we've got to go, but i have to ask ann this, which is there is a strong case that he has made -- obama has made, which is about medicare. and on that issue, i want to know whether you think it will work. not i know that you wish that he didn't say it and that the democrats' entitlement reform more seriously, and i happen to agree with you there. but when you ask the american people, are you willing to deal with the budget deficit by cutting medicare 78% say no. i mean, yi don't think you can get 78% of americans to agree on the time of day. >> it's the utter irresponsibility of former democrats. it's hard to take treats away from people, and that's what we've done. and democrats set up a ponzi scheme with social security and medicare, and it's running out now. and yeah, it's very hard to take the treats away once you start giving them away, which is why
it was utterly irresponsible for democrats long dead and gone to set up these systems that could never last. >> that's what i'm asking. >> it would be very helpful if we could get democrats to acknowledge the systems about to go bankrupt rather than seeing commercials of paul ryan pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff. >> last word. >> last word, you are absolutely right. i think this is the single strongest point for the depths. what it shows is that americans don't see successful government programs as treats which they are childish for enjoying. they see successful government programs as what the government should be doing. >> a program that's about to go bankrupt is not successful. >> i have your -- also your republican nominee because i think everyone else here seems to think it would be romney. would you agree? >> i'm going for pawlenty. >> and i'm christie. i want to clarify that. >> i'm sorry, you're right. all right. we have all the bets on the table. we'll have a show to collect.
thank you very much. we will be right back. ttd# 1-800 ttd# 1-800-345-2550 ttd# 1-800-345-2550 ttd# 1-800-345-2550 and talk to chuck about ttd# 1-800-345-2550 rolling over that old 401k. so i take one a day men's 50+ advantage. as a manager, my team counts on me to stay focused. it's the only complete multivitamin with ginkgo to support memory and concentration. plus it supports heart health. [ bat cracks ] that's a hit. one a day men's.
china's growing power and confidence but of a china that realized it might have overplayed its hand in correcting itself. it all played out at a small conference in singapore's fancy shangri la hotel. first let's go back to 2010, last year. beijing had emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis. it had put on the greatest show on earth, the beijing olympics. countries from around the world were courting it like never before. and then china's confidence turned into overconfidence, even arrogance. in quick succession, beijing picked separate fights around the south china seas with vietnam, the philippines and japan. china angered south korea by not condemning aggression from the north from pyongyang which sunk a south korean ship. all these asian countries had been relatively sanguine about the rise of china. suddenly they began to realize that it presented not just
economic opportunities of big market for them but challenges, even threats. so they spoke out against what they saw as chinese bullying and aggression. and they became far more solicitous of america, far more friendly to washington. now, this could not have pleased china. this was not the peaceful rise strategy that beijing had long talked about. but chinese officials said little about all this publicly, so no one knew if they believed they had overplayed their hand. after all, they could have just have easily taken the view that the world was envious and they were ganging up on them and they would bide their time. every year for the last ten years the shangri la dialogue from 28 asia-pacific nations meet. for the first time ever, china sent its defense minister. he repeated liz told his audience that china was a
peace-loving country with a defense policy that is purely defensive in nature. so we constructed a word cloud around his speech. the words he used the most appear biggest on your screen. he focused on cooperation, peace and security. the speech was a clear aft affirmation of the peaceful rise strategy. but to hear it from the military, which is far more hawkish, was something quite new. china's neighbors were still nervous. at the same summit the defense secretaries from the philippines and vietnam both said they were worried about maritime challenges from other countries. of course, they meant china. and their words were bolstered by rare anti-china demonstrations in hanoi and ho chi minh city. now, u.s. defense secretary robert gates also attended the shangri la dialogue. the american speech was one of reassurance to china's neighbors. look at gates's word cloud.
it shows a focus on commitment, relationships and talk of a presence in the region. so china pushed too hard and then drew back. the united states signaled to other asian countries that it was not going anywhere. the great game of asian joe geopolitics has just gun. i have a feeling we'll all be watching these moves and countermoves for years to come. and we will be right back. it's been the case that most cia officers sought what was called official covers, embassy representatives, other official international organizations. that was acceptable when the target weyou were chasing was soviet diplomats, you'd be at cocktail parties, try to develop them. but the targets are so different now. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you.
i'm candy crowley, and here are today's top stories. some 200 military helicopters armed with machine guns stormed a town in northwest syria today, a local activist said. u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon condemned force against its own civilians. military units entered the town to cleanse the national hospital of armed gangs. a top al qaeda operative in east africa has been killed in a gunfight at a checkpoint in
somalia. mouhamed is believed to be behind the 1998 bombings of u.s. embassies in kenya and tanzania. the united states was offering a $5 million reward for his capture. those are your top stories. up next, more "fareed zakaria gps," and then "reliable sources" at the top of the hour. spy agencies are the stuff of fantasy and fiction. so it is fitting that one of our best journalists on the spooky world of foreign affairs has used his vast travels and knowledge to write a novel. "washington post" columnist david ignatius has followed up his book "body of lies," which was turned into a hollywood blockbuster, with a new offering, this one is called "blood money." it spans the cia's operations here in the murky world of pakistan's powerful interservices intelligence. the key really is figuring out where the facts end and where the fiction begins. difd
david ignatius joins me now. i loved this book, which i did the other book which was "the increment," which was about iran's nuclear program. you really choose these topics that jump off the front pages. and when one's reading it, because i know how much you know about the cia and how much time you spend talking to people, i have to believe lots of it is true. >> i don't want to play games with you, my friend, or the reader, i am painting on a canvas of fiction with the colors of life. i have spent lots of time with the isi. i've traveled with them to south waziristan. i've met with their director general, general pasha. as i said in "time" magazine the other week, i even have an e-mail correspondence with isi officers. so i do know the real-life subject. and i've tried, in "bloodmoney," to tell a story that gets at the crazy relationship between the isi and the cia, this absolutely fascinateding often mutually
destructive two scorpions in a bottle kind of relationship that they have. that said, i do have to say this is a novel. it wouldn't be fun to read if it wasn't reinvented, if it wasn't real life reinvented in the mind of the author. >> but let's start with the cia. you've got a cia operation. and you have these guys often on their own, often in businesses as fronts. you know, i always thought cia officers were at the u.s. embassy. while you didn't know who they were, you could make guesses about pem this is it true that there are lots of cia officers around who have covers in private business and trading companies and things like that all over the world in >> it's increasingly true. when you and i were getting started as journalists and for the past decades, it's been the case that most cia officers sought what was called official covers, embassy representatives, other official international organizations. that was acceptable when the
target you were chasing was soviet diplomats, you'd meet them at cocktail parties, spot them, try to develop them. but the targets are so different now. and so there's a feeling that you need genuinely clandestine platforms. so there's been a lot of experimentation in the areas that i'm imagining in my book, in the book i invent this goofy entertainment company based in studio city, california, which is called the hit parade which is a platform for cia officers to do completely secret operations overseas. are they doing that kind of thing? not to the ex-techtent that i w in my book, but i'm sure that they're experimenting with what they call nonofficial cover or n.o.c. they're really hard to manage and they're really expensive. so there's still a big cadre of naysayers who say don't do this. >> pakistan. you've painted a picture of the interservices intelligence
directory. that, from what i can tell, is very true to life. in this particular sense, they have lots of connections with all these militant groups. they've always had them. and at some level they don't even deny they have them. they say these are elements of pakistani society. and yet they are quite reluctant to do anything about them, to shut them off in any way. do you think that that part of the book that you described is true to life? >> yes. i think the tragedy of the iss, isi and arguably of pakistan as a whole is that it's caught in a web that it's spun with our help, it must be said, that it now can't escape from. it's a web first of connections with jihadi organizations. the isi is above all a paramilitary organization. it doesn't do all that much collection of intelligence. it's not a very good spy agency, but it's good at running covert
action. >> the general framework of the book is that the cia and the isi are cooperating. but the cia is running effectively against the isi. and the isi is at least allowing these jihadi groups to attack and infiltrate the cia. and that spider web seems very real. >> that is drawn from life. i mean, the truth is that these intelligence services operate against each other. that happens more in real life, not just with pakistan. we have a complicated intelligence relationship with france. we have a complicated intelligence relationship with other allies. but there's a way in which the cia and isi both absolutely need each other and absolutely don't trust each other. and it's been a particularly volatile combination because they're always marching in tandem, which you can imagine a situation where one guy is trying to trip the other, nudging him or up to some kind of horseplay. that's what it's like.
i used to think, you know, these two should get a marriage counselor and figure it out. i've kind of given up on that. the reality is, intelligence services lie. that's what their job is. these guys are going to keep lying to each other. they need political control to get them going in the same direction for the national interests of both countries. and if they can do that, i'd have some hope this story will turn out. >> somebody you know well, general petraeus, is going to move over from the military to head the cia. what would he bring to the agency? what is going on particularly on the covert operations side? because in a sense, that will be the most critical part of the mission. running covert operations in pakistan and afghanistan to a lesser extent. >> well, interestingly, the pakistanis are afraid of petraeus. they don't like him. they feel that he has a harsher edge than general mcchrystal did. so his appointment was seen as bad news in islamabad.
general petraeus has a stronger force of will than any military officer i think i have ever encountered. we saw that iraq where he really bent that story around his determination and president bush's. he has had less success, frankly, in afghanistan. one thing that petraeus is very good at, i've seen this over many years of traveling with him, is using often unlikely back channels. he's good at finding people who can get him access to people and places that are important to him as a commander. it's a skill that's quite unusual. and in truth, it's a skill that is not found widely in this administration. so i think the ability to be operational, to head out on quiet missions, to meet with heads of state, heads of other intelligence services, to get business done on that level, i think general petraeus will be quite good at. >> david ignatius, thank you so
much. a great book. >> thank you, fareed. >> we will be back. when you went to china 40 years ago, could you have imagined that this nation that you were helping bring in from peasant backwardness would be the principal competitor to the united states? >> would it be inconceivable? a lot of times, things are right underneath our feet, and all we need to do is change the way we're thinking about them. a couple decades ago, we didn't even realize just how much natural gas was trapped in rocks thousands of feet below us. technology has made it possible to safely unlock this cleanly burning natural gas. this deposits can provide us with fuel for a hundred years, providing energy security and economic growth all across this country. it just takes somebody having the idea, and that's where the discovery comes from.
her morning begins with arthritis pain. that's a coffee and two pills. the afternoon tour begins with more pain and more pills. the evening guests arrive. back to sore knees. back to more pills. the day is done but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. just 2 pills can keep arthritis pain away all day
with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lara who chose 2 aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. the two trains and a bus rider. the "i'll sleep when it's done" academic. for 80 years, we've been inspired by you. and we've been honored to walk with you to help you get where you want to be. ♪ because your moment is now. let nothing stand in your way. learn more at keller.edu.
america's relationship to china can be traced directly back to the work of one man. that man is henry kissinger. almost exactly 40 years ago, kissinger, then the national security adviser, made a secret trip to confer with the chinese. this paved the way for the normalization of relations between communist beijing and washington. so how did we get from there to here? that is the subject of dr. kissinger's new book, "on china." and he joins me now to talk about that nation and much more. so when you went to china 40 years ago, could you have
imagined that this nation that you were helping bring in from peasant backwardness would be the principal competitor to the united states economically, technologically, about to become the most powerful nation economically? >> would it be inconceivable? nobody had any such perception or expectation. >> now, since you opened the door, the relations between the united states and china had been strikingly stable. we've had lots of variation in almost every other part of the world. but if you look at president after president from both parties and the chinese have also had a pretty stable relationship which has been basically to try and get america's help in modernizing their economy, tacitly supporting a lot of american foreign policy, this are lots of people who believe that this is all changing now. that the chinese have become powerful. that they are now feeling the
confidence particularly in the wake of the financial crisis, and that you're going to see a new chapter in chinese foreign policy. what do you think? >> there are elements in china who particularly after the financial crisis feel that there has been a fundamental shift in the balance of power and that the international conduct of china and the results of its conduct should reflect this. but one shouldn't think that all of this is america's fault because the chinese -- we have been dominant in the last 50 years. they've been dominant in 1800 of the last 2,000 years. you know, i think america is entering a world in which we are neither dominant, nor can we withdraw. but we are still the most powerful country. so how to conduct ourselves in
such a way is a huge -- it's a huge test for us. and china, it's one with such a complex history. it's a big challenge. on the other hand, if one conceives of it as if it were a cold war, which is what domestic debates encourage with winners and losers all the time, it would lead to confrontations over an extended period of time that would be draining to both societies and draining to the countries that have to deal with both societies. >> you think president obama's approach to china is fundamentally correct? >> i think it's fundamentally correct, yes.
what we fundamentally need with the chinese is to come to an understanding of where we both think we're going. and i believe the best thing that nixon did, in the nixon administration, was not that we were super skillful on practical problems, but we were willing to spend many hours explaining how we thought in the middle and long-run terms, and so did the chinese. >> so there was a kind of meeting of strategic minds. >> it didn't help us on the day we had the conversation, but then when something came up, you could have some feeling that the other side, when it was reported to them, would have a framework within which to interpret it. this is still not adequately done. >> people have been trying to get you to criticize china more publicly on human rights for 40
years. do you feel that not criticizing china on human rights actually allows for more progress? or why are you reluctant? i know that you -- >> i'm not reluctant at all. and i insist on affirming my preference for democracy. and my rejection of autocratic and dictatorial institutions. at the same time, there are a number of people, very few, who have, over a period of decades, established the confidence of chinese leadership. and we think that we are in a better position to bring about the achievement of these objectives by using our influence in such a way that there is no demonstrated victor
or loser. i have said that when i engage myself in china as i do periodically on individual cases, i do not do it in a public confrontation but in a personal dialogue. but that is really the nature of the disagreement. it is not a disagreement that's to the importance or the objective. >> final question. there are a number of people who say that obama's policy, his world view, is somewhat realist, admirers are george bush sr. he's spoken about the nixon/kissinger diplomacy. so do you think obama is kissingerian, and do you view that as a compliment? >> my view of obama is that he would like to believe that you can sweep the world by the power
of ideas. and that the ideas alone will dominate the world and that you can ignore the equilibrium part of the equation and that you can do it with rhetoric. that's what he'd like to believe. but he's also a good mind. and so he looks at the world and sees what's actually happening. so when he -- when he speaks, he often sounds as if he were in the world of ideas alone. when he acts, he is very conscious of reality. i think he's basically very
close if you put his actions together to the objectives. that i affirm. >> i don't know whether he's going to view that as a compliment or not. >> no. he may view it as a private compliment, but he will not want to advertise it. >> henry kissinger, a pleasure to have you on. look, every day we're using more and more energy. the world needs more energy. where's it going to come from? ♪ that's why right here, in australia, chevron is building one of the biggest natural gas projects in the world. enough power for a city the size of singapore for 50 years. what's it going to do to the planet?
natural gas is the cleanest conventional fuel there is. we've got to be smart about this. it's a smart way to go. ♪ at 190 miles per hour, the wind will literally lift ordinary windshield wipers off the glass. so, did we build a slower car? or design wipers that could handle anything? what do you think? the cadillac cts-v, the world's fastest production sedan. we don't just make luxury cars, we make cadillacs
but when she got asthma, all i could do was worry ! specialists, lots of doctors, lots of advice... and my hands were full. i couldn't sort through it all. with unitedhealthcare, it's different. we have access to great specialists, and our pediatrician gets all the information. everyone works as a team. and i only need to talk to one person about her care. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.
sadly, no. oh. but i did pick up your dry cleaning and had your shoes shined. well, i made you a reservation at the sushi place around the corner. well, in that case, i better get back to these invoices... which i'll do right after making your favorite pancakes. you know what? i'm going to tidy up your side of the office. i can't hear you because i'm also making you a smoothie. [ male announcer ] marriott hotels & resorts knows it's better for xerox to automate their global invoice process so they can focus on serving their customers. with xerox, you're ready for real business.
our question this week from the "gps challenge" is saudi arabia's king abdullah donated 3 million blanks to yemen this week. fill in the blank. is it rounds of ammunition? bars of gold? barrels of oil? or bushels of wheat? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. make sure you go to cnn.com/gps for ten more questions. and while you're there, make sure you check out our website, the global public square where you'll find smart interviews and takes by some of our favorite
experts. also follow us on facebook and twitter. this week's "book of the week" has been called provocative and relentlessly intelligent. i won't tell you what i think about it, though, because it's my book. the 2.0 edition of "the post-american world" is just out in bookstores. i'm a little biased, obviously, but i think this would be the perfect father's day gift. now for a last look at very lofty matters, the heights of heads of state. you would be surprised at how much import is given to physical stature when it comes to international affairs. so take a look at these revealing photographs we found from chancellor angela merkel's state visit to the u.s. this week. as you see here, president obama is almost a full head taller than his german counterpart. so i was amazed to see this pick that showed them looking eye to eye. at least physically. how did it happen? trick photography?