tv Charlie Rose PBS August 18, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin tonight by taking note of a terror attack in barcelona, spain. here's what the "new york times" has said. a van crashed into pedestrians in a popular tourist area in the center of barcelona, spain, on thursday, killing at least 13 people in what the police were calling a terrorist attack, at least 50 were wounded, and wynn man taken into custody. here's a further report from the "cbs evening news." >> people running for their lives as the attacker driving a white van jumped a sidewalk and plowed into a crowd of tourists and locals. in his wake, bodies strewn across the pavement, like broken dolls. witnesses say he was weaving in and out, aiming for people as they desperately tried to get out of the way. he drove seven blocks before
abandoning the vehicle. a passerby frantically tried to give cpr to an injured man. an american tourist, who had just arrived at the popular site said the attacker was driving erratically. >> i heard this just group of people scream. then i looked to my left and saw a white van. it looked to be as if he was going left to right, hitting people at the little stands where people were shopping. >> this man from south carolina also witnessed the attack. >> best way i can describe it, all hell breaks loose. i saw a car bumper laying in the middle of the sidewalk, and people scattering in all different directions. i counted six or eight bodies within a block and a half. >> police arrived quickly, sealing off the area, and ushering people to safety as they went door to door searching for the gunman.
stores and subway stations were shut down. it's the latest in a string of attacks in europe, where vehicles are the weapon. last summer in nice, france, 86 people were killed when a man drove a truck through crowds gathered to celebrate bastille day. in december, a truck was driven into a crowded christmas market in berlin. and in the u.k., this spring, vehicles were used in attacks at west mince stir, london bridge, and more. >> rose: we continue with robert costa, the moderator of "washington week" on pbs. >> we're watching the unraveling the norm that always defined the american presidency. instead of being a moral authority in times of crisis he's turning to his base. this is alarming for people who follow history, follow the presidency, to be the president defined in real time and not abiding with the norms. >> we conclude with henry
kissinger. his latest editorial in the "wall street journal" is " >> how to resolve the north korean crisis." >> the better way is to send chinese emissary and say this is our notion of the evolution of the region if things continue as they are. some military clash by somebody is inevitable sooner or later. the way we can remove this danger, and above all remove the danger of nuclear weapons, is to come to the -- to an understanding. one, the kind of pressure that will be applied. secondly, the political structure that we will recommend to the world to support afterwards.
and then to put that forward in some manner in a formal channel. >> rose: robert costa and dr. henry kissinger when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: president trump continues to weather the fallout from his defense of white nationalist protesters in charlottesville, virginia, putting him at odds with top
military and business leaders, as well as fellow members of the republican party. yesterday the president disbanded two business advisory councils after a series of resignations from prominent executives. today he insisted via twitter that it was sad to see united states history ripped apart with the removal of beautiful statues and monuments. joining me from washington robert costa, "the washington post" national political reporter, also the moderate of "washington week" on pbs. bob, tell me where you think this presidency is in the context of the week that we have seen. >> it's another week of upheaval in washington, and the president's embrace of these confederate symbols, these statues of the past, is, in essence, a turn to his base, that remains this outsider, this anti-establishment figure, and comes with moral outrage from democrats, and even from some republicans, yet he sees it as part of a broader strategy, encouraged by his embattled strategy steveist steven bannonn
away from the political norms that have guided this country so long, to embrace politics, even racially-charged politics. >> rose: and this is a decision by him and steve bannon primarily? >> often we think of bannon as a guru president the suspend, portrayed on "saturday night live" and other places as a puppet master behind the scenes, but my sources in the white house tell me that this decision to embrace confederate statues on public grounds is a decision driven by the president himself, a president who sees his approval rating shrinkings, his latino agenda stalled, and at this -- his legislative agenda stalled, and turning to his base, racial tensions, and racial politics, that are inflaming our national conversation. >> rose: does he have some sense of the -- what he's engendering
when he does this? >> it comes days after the tragedy in charlottesville, and the barrage about the confederate statues, it shows a lack of recognition by the president of the consequences of handling the presidency in such this way, in such a fraught time for the country when race is at the fore. a are senator corker, a longtime ally of the president, said on thursday that in short the president has abandoned the moral authority of the presidency to take hold and command of the country at times like these. >> rose: railroawhere are the pe around him? let's talk about john kelly, the chief of staff. >> general kelly, what a difficult time it is for him. we spoke to over a dozen people close to the general, inside the white house. they say he's trying, charlie, to bring order to the white house, to have a new process of
how information gets to the president, making sure calls are routed through him before they get to president. yet as he manages the white house, charlie, he's struggling to actually manage the chief. he's reshaping the staff, but not reshaping the chief. he stood there earlier in the week as the president had this pinball game of a press conference from topic to topic, disgruntled, frustrated. >> rose: and secondly, what about gary cohen, his economic advisor in the white house? >> everybody says he was outraged, economic national director, leading the fight for the president, the policy-shaping on tax reform, infrastructure, a former president of goldman sachs, and
personally affronted by some of the president's comments. he's not yet resigned, but sees himself possibly as a new chairman of the federal reserve, should that slot open there, and he has a chance for that, and sees the chance to change policy. >> rose: and then the family, starting with ivanka, and son-in-law jared occurner. >> husband and wife, senior advisors to the president, have been on vacation until thursday up in vermont, and returned now to be with president trump. they're alarmed by the president's turn, wanting him to issue a new statement, to not what said over the weekend when it came to charlottesville. they're unhappy with the
president's turn. jared kushner, ivanka trump, gary cohn, it's a reminder that president trump does what he wants. >> rose: steve bannon, issues that they felt the president's rhetoric went too far, and his moral judgment was wrong, but also engaging in a fight with the national security advisor, h.r. mcmaster. some were suggesting that his time at the white house was in trouble. >> he is on thin ice to say the least, charlie. bannon joined the campaign in august of 2016, became his chairman, former head of breitbart news. ever since day one in january navigating the white house that never saw him as a natural fit. he's always clashed with jared kushner.
kushner sees the world as an internationalist, okay with international institutions, international alliances, wants to see the president move on the domestic front. bannon has been one of the few voices in the white house in the wake of charlottesville saying let the president go out there and fight the media. let him go and say there are both sides to the argument. >> rose: where is the republican party? bob corker saying what he said. you hear the speaker how saying how incensed he was about what happened in charlottesville, and the idea of whits and neonazis and others being given a voice and some say emboldened. does the party have any influence? >> the party is facing its own crossroads. do they desert trump or not? in september there's going to be an immense challenge. they face a debt ceiling, a budget.
they have to find way to perhaps get a border wall funded. that's one of the president's main priorities. tax reform, infrastructure. they have to think about how they tackle these issues. do they simply abandon the president and hope for the best down the line in 2020 or not, and they also have to reckon with the fact that the president, despite their own detestament of how the president has handled charlottesville, he still has this grip over their own voters. if they break from him, they could face their own state. >> rose: notebook is still there. steve bannon said in an interview that the idea of a war against north korea was insane. it would never happen. that was not an option, he said. here's the president talking about fury and fire and all of tat, trying to create some sense of recognition by north koreans that the president clearly believes they should not have, and is committed to them not having nuclear weapons. here's bannon saying war is not
an option. >> bannon is part of the noninterventionist wing of the white house, unlike mcmaster, with whom he's clashed on north korea. people around the president say, when it comes to afghanistan, send thousands of more troops to stabilize the country and the region. when it comes to north korea, don't rule any option out. bannon is against that kind of hawkish intervention. but what bannon said to the american prospect, charlie, is the truth you find throughout conversations, at least private conversations, that no one wants to have the blood of a million people in seoul on their administration. so as much as there is tough talk, no one's really moving in a military way toward confrontation militarily with north korea. just look at the pentagon. they have not begun to do the things you would expect to see if war was on the horizon, at least imminently. >> rose: people are beginning to ask this question, is donald trump fit to be president? whatever that word "fit" means, by behavior, all kinds of
psychological judgments about him, and worries about him in terms of what he might do if he felt cornered, if he felt he was losing support. do you hear that voice among the kinds of people that you talk to about where we are at this moment in our history? >> you do hear that inside the white house, the administration. general kelly, when he becomes chief of staff, him and secretary of state rex tillerson, jim mattis, could be forces that kept the president in line from having an eruption on the world stage. what we're watching is the unraveling of the norm that always defined the american presidency. instead of being this moral authority and voice in terms of crisis the president has turned
to his base. this is so alarming for people that follow history, the presidency, to see the president redefined in real time, not abiding by the norms. >> rose: and he takes pleasure in the notion he's doing that, because he campaigned to be a different kind of president, and he was no going to clean out the swamp. >> i've seen this on the campaign trail, when i've interviewed then candidate trump many times, and president trump, he's so outside of the right-left dynamic, the way we think of american politics, republicans versus democrats. he's an instinctive populist who loves to fight, loves controversy this is the way the presidency in this country is being governed by a instinctive 70-plus-year-old populist. >> rose: where is it going? is it going to get more intense as the president retorts the way
he has from charlottesville suggesting that he at least is not becoming more in the mode that general kelly and others had hoped he would be, more disciplined, more on message, more easily not distracted? >> the question when does it end, i'm here in "the washington post" newsroom, when i'm on capitol hill, the white house briefing room, the question comes up, when does this chaos end, when does president trump decide to calm down and move in a more moderate or normal direction, and the answer, it may be unsettling, is there will be no end as long as president trump is end of the united states. i've covered him for too long to have this expectation that anything could change, because he actually relishes the chaos. he sees disruption as power. that's not going to change, hasn't changed at all since he was inaugurated, he talked about american carnage. in august of 2017, he's
embracing the carnage on the american stage. people keep having this wish, in the press, both parties that it's somehow going to turn away u that the fire will be put out. it will not. >> rose: bob costa of the "washington post," thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. rose: we'll be right back with dr. henry kissinger, his analysis of north korea with ideas that he thinks the united states might consider. back in a moment. his latest editorial is called how to resolve the north korea crisis. i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> pleasure. rose: you're looking good, i assume feeling well. >> feeling well. rose: how would you resolve the north korean crisis?
>> the basic point of the article is that the major threat of our foreign policy has been on the one hand to threaten north korea with consequences, and on the other to ask china to help us. the threat is not fully effective, because for the north koreans they've spent decades of oppressing their people, depriving them, to build these weapons. so they're not going to yield to threats very easily. >> rose: threats of sanctions and the like? >> it's going to take tremendous physical threats to even imagine them yielding to it.
on the other hand, with china helping us, they are not there to help us. they're there to help themselves. so they -- but we are -- the point of the article is we are at a moment when the interest of america, the interest of china, coincide. we don't want the nuclear weapons in north korea because of many reasons, because the threat it might represent to us and to others. the chinese do not want nuclear weapons in korea, bececause if those weapons remain other countries in asia are sure to build nuclear weapons of their own. >> rose: like japan? >> like japan, south korea,
vietnam. other entities might be tempted. so the wle area will be nuclearized, and these countries are in great tension with each other. that would be an extremely dangerous situation of which china would be a greater target even than the united states. i think we're at a moment where it's conceivable that if we continue our pressures, and if china uses its influence and its pressure, that the north koreans might be substantially reduce their nuclear threat, but at the end the nuclearization has to be objective. >> rose: okay. but this idea has been there. a lot of people, even this president, tried to get to china. they came down to mar-a-lago. he talked to them about going light on his complaints about trade. if in fact, they would use their influence with china. was his approach wrong?
>> that we help them with trade if they help with china. looks like a commercial proposition, as if they're in business there for economic progress. the problem for china will be that if north korea gives up its nuclear weapons, it gyps up the only significant achievement, and it might therefore lead to either a collapse of the regime or great unrest, and it will lead to a period in all of korea of major adjustments. i believe the chinese need a discussion from us as to how we visualize the evolution of korea after the denuclearization has been achieved. so we have not had an adequate
discussion of the consequences of our objectives. and i believe that with that discussion a joint policy with china could make much greater progress. >> rose: but the fact is that general mattis, and also the secretary of state, have both said we do not want to change the regime, you know, we just want them not to use nuclear weapons. there is no threat from united states. >> no. we don't want to change the regime. >> rose: right. >> but if the regime collapses, or disintegrates, we will not mourn it, and the consequences of a disintegrating north korea right at the border of china, with the possibility of many refugees, is something that preoccupies china. >> rose: they're also preoccupied, you write and say,
by the idea of a reunification of the koreas, north and south, which would somehow evolve into one more nation in the area who man opposed to them if the south koreans dominate a unified korea. >> i think a unified korea is something that may be less dangerous than a divided korea, one of which has nuclear weapons and starts pressing for its objectives, and the possible unification of korea should be one of the subjects that will be discussed. and not only with china, but also with south korea and japan. >> rose: can you sit down with the chinese -- i'm asking -- as a diplomat and say, okay, tell me what you want, what your fears are, and let's figure out
how to meet both of those objectives, and i'll tell you what i want, what i need, what my fears are. >> i think the better way would be to send some private emissaries to chinese, and say here is our notion of the evolution of the region, if things continue as they are, that some military clash by somebody is inevitable on the present course, sooner or later. and the way we can remove this danger, and above all remove the danger of nuclear weapons, is to come to two understandings. one, the kind of pressure that be applied. secondly, the political structure that we will recommend to the world to support
afterwards. and then to put that forward in some manner in a formal channel. >> rose: what do you think the chinese would accept? what kind of proposal? doig this is speculatio.>> thisy part. i think the chinese would live with a united korea, that is remains part of the american alliance, but with limitations in north korea of high-performance weapons and deployment close to the chinese border, but a korea that's otherwise unified. >> rose: and you think it's best to do this behind the scenes with an emissary in private, to create the conversation? >> there has to be a formal negotiation, but there has to bs
helpful if there is enough of a -- of a philosophical kind of dialog so that people understand, what each side understands, how the other views the problem, and what it is likely to do. >> rose: but they've had lots of conversations over the -- from one administration to another. george w. bush, barack obama, bill clinton. >> there have been lots of conversations. i'm familiar with many of them. >> rose: i'm sure. >> but those conversations were usually why you should help in north korea. there has rarely been a formal conversation of the future of northeast asia, partly because for a long time north korea was
considered an integral part of the chinese and the communist world, until about one of the more significant events that happened that we in the nature of things couldn't notice, was that until about three, four years ago north korea was handled inside china, out of the communist party, not out of the foreign ministry. so it was considered an adjunct to chinese policy. i think it's only in the last few years that the chinese leadership has begun to understand that the north korean nuclear program is not just a minor irritant, or not just something that is likely to fail, but something that could be operational and growing strong enough to affect the
balance in asia. >> rose: and could be effective within a year, the recent estimates suggest. >> so i think the speed has surprised everybody. the conduct of the north korean government, assassinating the half-brother of the leader at a malaysian airport by spreading poison on his face, many similar things -- >> rose: in fact killing some of his father's advisors. >> yes. five of the six pallbearers at his father's funeral have disappeared. >> rose: five of the six pallbearers? >> have disappeared. one of them, the uncle, that helped put him in office was
publicly disgraced and was executed. so it's another regime, that when you entrust with possession of nuclear weapons -- the key point is many people say, well, why don't we just accept it? >> rose: yes, they do. >> because we've lived with the chinese and the russian nuclear weapons and -- >> rose: and pakistanis and others. >> yes, absolutely. but here's a country that's proliferated nuclear weapons already. they've made some of the nuclear materials available to syria several years ago, and reputed to have given some of their engines to iran. so this is a proliferating
regime. most observers would believe that if they survive this periot with nuclear weapons -- that then the spread of nuclear weapons into south korea and japan becomes highly probable. >> rose: as i understand from your article, too, south korea, japan, as well as china, especially china, should be brought together in this, there should be a conversation that takes place with anybody who has an interest in the region? >> yes. i believe an initial conversation with china is probably the best way to proceed, but then -- >> rose: bilateral conversation? >> informal or conceptional in which we tell each other as
honestly as we dare what our view is of the evolution, and why is this important for peace and security of mankind. it is the question of bringing down a -- a regime. it's a question of producing a world in which the use of nuclear weapons will become conventional -- or could become conventional, and the catastrophic impact of so many nations that need each other. therefore the ideal would be if north korea could be induced -- by induced i mean with significant pressures -- to give up its program. if not, a reduction of its
capacities. if you think the north koreans would have achieved this by brutally insisting in the face of the condemnation of the -- of the security council, and of the opposition of china and the united states, this will be shaken badly. >> rose: does a preemptive attack to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon capable of delivering to the united states have so much cost that it's unacceptable as an alternative? that's exactly what we said to the iranians, it's unacceptable for you to have nuclear weapons. that's what we're saying to the north koreans. >> yes. and i've been of the view that we did not get from the iranians
enough for the agreement that we did, but that agreement at least delayed the event of their nuclear capacity, and it was positive from that point of view. a simple agreement right after they have launched an intercontinental test would legitimize all their efforts, keep them in the same capacity, and not make any progress toward what really we know needs to be done, because if this nuclear spread conditions, if nuclear proliferation continues in asia, and if we cannot control it, even if the country that is really condemn by most of mankind, by most of the
established countries, then we have lost any control of other programs that exist or may spring up. >> rose: do you consider kindling a rational leader? >> you know, the first one, he was at a prep school in switzerland. there were all kinds of reports of how normally he behaved. korean regime has maintained itself by practicing a degree of terror that's essentially unprecedented, even among many of the dictatorships. every house has a radio which it cannot shut off, so that the regime talks permanently to the
subjects. they have a system of concentration camps and of human abuse that is extraordinary. they have kidnapped at least a hundred japanese because they needed teachers of the japanese language, and they have achieved a degree of brainwashing of their population so that some of the refugees from there find it very hard to adjust to the free countries to which they voluntarily escaped. >> rose: so but is that a reflection of a cruel mind or a court-martial mind or both -- cruel mind or a rational mind or both? >> i think the definition of necessity is so human experience that one would say it's
substantially irrational. >> rose: does a president who talks about fire and fury contribute to the possibility of threats like that? >> all of us who have studied traditional diplomacy and practiced some of it would have chosen different language, but, on the other hand, we would have said to give a very sharp warning to north korea that they're playing with fire when they threaten the united states directly, and when they say the only use -- the only use of the icbm that they contemplate is against the united states. then with they talk of dropping missiles around guam, i understand that a president wants to i issue a very sharp
warning that things could get out of control. and the dilemma of nuclear weapons is that to make such a threat credible you have to show that you are going to the edge of what a rational calculation would be. i would not have recommended that language, but i would have recommended an effort like this. >> rose: what's your assessment of china today in terms of xi japing on the eve of another chinese party congress coming up in october or november, in terms of his leadership and global vision? >> china has two huge
challenges. they're a country with thousands of years of history, and therefore there's a sense of continuity in china that is unique among the peoples of other countries of the world. but they now have to undergo a significant reform program for their own economic necessity. the reform program to some extent alters some of the major reforms that were made in the last generation, and therefore attack some of the institutions, especially the economic field, and in the economic practices. so that is a huge challenge. in this they would prefer not to
have to have an international crisis, and they know that a confrontation with the united states would zap so many resources that their economic, what they call dreams, could not be realized. on the other hand, in these thousands of years of history, they have thought of themselves as a country whose majestic conduct and scale of activity was symbolic for a major part of the world, and they considered themselves, to themselves, as a kind of central kingdom. they have to find an international place now in the world in which for first time in their history equaled by at least the united states. they are no longer alone, no
matter how great their effortk how you create an international system, the concept of an international system, in a society that historically has thought itself unique. the chinese did not have a foreign ministry until the end of the 19th century. the foreign policy, as we know it, was conducted by something called the ministry of rituals that classified each country by the degree of its dependency on china. so china at the same time has to reform its economic system and deal with the concept of international order in which they can play some of the historic role, but not the
central role exclusively that they had before. and they're face-to-face with another country, namely us, which also thinks of itself as exceptional, but we do it more on a missionary basis and they do it more on a performance basis. so to have a dialog over the years between the american president and the chinese president, it has a certain frustration, because the american president, no matter who he is, thinks the normal condition of the world is stability, and it is unstable there has to be a problem, and you fix that problem and stability returns. the chinese president thinks that the solution of any problem is an admissions ticket for another problem.
therefore the chinese president is thinking of a process and the american president in this period is thinking of a deal, but in general the american negotiated things of the solution of what brought him into the conference room. so even if it's good intentions, under the circumstances hard to -- >> rose: having known all of them, from mao to xi jinping, how does xi jinping compared to other leaders of china? in vision, reform, capacity to have his way? >> he lives in a different
period. the leaders you mentioned one phase. mao unified china. now here is a man who is trying to combine some of the elements of the others, and is moving toward a position which if he succeeds will be comparable in influence to mao. >> rose: if he moves to where he wants to go, he will be compared to mao in terms of his influence on society? >> yes, because he is trying
consciously to remake this society that he inherited after decades of turmoil, and to put it on a basis of what he calls the two dreams. first dream goes into effect very soon, in 2021, where china reaches the level of the poorer european countries. the second one is at the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the peoples republican where china by his vision be at least as strong, in 2049 as other nations in the world. >> rose: therefore why doesn't he want to do all he can to make sure north korea is not a
disruptive factor in the region? >> well, because i believe this is his intention, this is his goal. i believe that he would reason that way, but it is the nature of the revolution through which we live globally that leaders can find themselves in position where so many other pressures operate on them that they cannot do everything, and particularly at the same moment. he's now facing the 19th party congress, which is an event that occurs every five years. it represents some degree of legitimatization, and leadership
changes, and there will be certainly significant leadership changes. that will occur in the next two to three months. >> rose: they'll select a new premier? >> yes. rose: who's on the standing the committee. >> well, standing committee was so organized that five of the seven members have to retire because of age limitations. >> rose: yeah, but there's talk that -- >> they can change that, that one of them might be able to stay. but that would be such an unusual event, that it would signify a rising influence for that exception. but anyway, that what he seems to me to have to deal with. in terms of capacity, he's extremely thoughtful, but also
extremely strong. he was one of the victims, he and his father, of the cultural revolution. they had to live in a cave for many years. i've heard him say, and he's said it publicly, that the cultural revolution victims came through it hardened. so he's formidable. but i believe that he's trying to find a notion of a peaceful world that's compatible with chinese values and compatible with co-existence with the united states, but it will be a tough road. >> rose: yeah. at the same time, assuming leadership in terms of a global role, global economic institutions, in terms of -- >> well, he made the speech last
year, which was a sketch of world order, that on the economic side, was fairly -- excite compatible with the -- >> rose: when he said that, that was at a time when populism was red-hot, and the notion was who was going to step forward to defend globalization, globalism, and -- >> ironically, it was china that started it, the communist state, and is had many respects. >> rose: one thing that's never changed is their belief in supremacy of the communist party. >> absolutely. rose: having been part of the conversation in america for a long time, are you more worried about the country today than you've ever been? not only because of the domestic issues and our president, but the world that he lives in. >> i'm worried, because in over
the half century now that i have in some way participated i have never seen a situation in which the united states had such an opportunity to contribute to world order, but i've also not participated in a situation in which the country seemed so divided and so unable to find a common thread toward its possibility. >> rose: so on the one hand there's enormous opportunity for the united states to use its superior economy, its superior technology, its superior universities, its superior range of issues, and -- >> and to contribute -- what we really need in the world is today, the idea of peace and world order, which dominated the previous centuries. it's being undermined a secession of upheavals, and some
of them of a technological nature. so a leadership in the direction of such a goal would give the united states extraordinary opportunities, and is quite compatible, and in fact expressive of our history and our values. >> rose: based on what you know of this president, is he capable of that leadership? >> i used to say i'm hoping for augustinian moment, who st. augustine in his early life followed a pattern that was quite incompatible with later on when he a vision, and rose to sainthood. one does not expect the president to become --
>> when you realize the future of the world depends on you now, so much of what is day to day falls away, i think that's the unique aspect of the american presidency. this is why -- >> rose: is this president losing that opportunity by his behavior? >> things that happened that i didn't like, but i have not ever joined this impulse to destroy, because i've seen what happens when a presidency collapses. and so i hope -- i still hope that we will do the things that need to be done, and that i
think can be done, and toward some of which -- nothing that has been done in korea precludes in any way what i have indicated as a desirable outcome. >> rose: nothing has been done? >> no. i think it is possible that what i've described can be done within existing framework of policy. >> rose: are we at a moment in which a new world order will be built? in other words, is this because of changes that have happened in the last five years say? are we looking at a time, at a moment, in which clearly there's a demand for the creation of a new world order because of changes in the geopolitics of the world? >> people may not even yet know what they want in a clear enough way, but that is the leaders of
this country can bring it to them and to another countries. and by the process -- by that process produce -- produce it. i mean, there's nobody -- many centuries ago, the 17th century, europe killed 30% of its population with conventional weapons in a war that started over religion and ended after 30 years with establishing the principles of sovereignty and self-determination and so forth, that nobody imagined when it started. >> rose: and the end of the 30-year period?
>> our art is creating an intercept order, while saving ourselves through 30 years of suffering, that that one required. that's not just america alone that can do it, but we can play an essential role. >> rose: and we have enough respect, as well as power, to do it, because of our history, because of what we did after world war ii, because of the role that we have played since world war ii to do it, there's still that opportunity for america, an opportunity to repair our reputation, after backing out of the paris accord, going to the g20, hesitant to endorse article five, all of those things. >> yes, but there are also aspects that attempt to move in the direction that i've described, but they're not always chose in the rhetoric
that i have used. >> rose: are you in the end an optimist? >> i'm hopeful. rose: hopeful. >> i think we have a problem, but i think we can overcome it. >> rose: thank you for coming. a pleasure to have you here. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more on this program, earlier episodes, easiest us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
production was produced in high definition. ♪ ♪ ♪ every single bite needed to be -- >> twinkies are in there! >> wow! >> it's like a great, big hug in the cold city. >> that food is about as spicy as i can handle and my parents put chili powder in my baby food. >> i have french fried bits all over the table. just a lot of