tv Charlie Rose PBS June 24, 2011 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
>> rose: welcome to our program. from washingngton a conversation with the deputy secretary of state jim steinberg on his last day in office. >> i think our singular role is our unique ability to galvanize the action of others to take action to deal with the big challenges of our time. you see this across-the-board. you see this as say in getting action against iran, to deal with the problem of i iranian nuclear program or north korea. you see this in terms of our response to making sure that we have an engagement in the problem of the arab spring. you see this in terms of the nonproliferation agenda. you see this in terms of climate. we have a unique ability when we engage to bring others along to get them to take action together. they look to us. it's a natural inclination
of leadership that we have based on our own history and a recognition that when we leave we can get things done. >> jim steinberg for the hour next. >> fding for charlie rose was provided by the followg. : who beats the oddsa hero and comes out on top. buthis isn't just a hollywood storyline. it's happening every day, all ross america. every time a storefront opens. or the midnight oil is burned. or when someone chases a dream, not just a dollar. they are small business owners. sof you wanna root for a real hero, support small business. shop small.
additional funding provided by these funders captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in w york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: jim steinberg is here. he is the deputy secretary of state. he's the number two job at the state partment. this day is his last at that job. and his last interview. he's had a distinguished career and a series of jobs in different democratic administrations. he's leaving today to become dean of the maxwell school of citizenship and public affairs. i'm pleased to have him talk about american foreign policy as he has seen it and practiced it. and to lookack at a career especially the last several years of the obama administration where he was not only the deputy
secretary of state, but in the beginning was part of the national security transition team when the president came to power. for all these reasons i'm pleased to have jim steinberg on this program for the hour. >> welcome. thank you, charlie. good to beere. >> rose: why did you leave? >> you know, the most important reason is i have two small children. my wife app i have two small children and it's an important opportunity to spend more time with them. i told the president and secretary about two years when we started. also i was being at the university of texas before coming in to the administration and working with young people, preparing them for the next generation of leadership is as important as anything i can think of doing. so we're excited about that opportunity. >> rose: i want to quote from you to begin, something the president said the other night. he said tonight we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war, meaning afghanistan, is receding. these long wars will come to a responsible end. as they do, we must learn their lesson. already this decade ofar has caused pain to question the nature of america's engagement around the world
by generations before, we must embrace erica's singular control in the case of human events but we must be pragmatic as we are passionate, strategic as we are resolute. tell me what the president meant or where america stands in terms of its engagement with the world. >> i think the president's words really encapsulated a ilosophy and strategy that he and secretarylinton have been pursuing since the beginning. a recognition that in today's world the big challenges that we face,he things we need to do to assure our security and prosperity require the engagement of the united states and the world. we can't solve all the problems by ourselves but if we're not engaged or addressing these problems and working with others to try to find solutions, whether it's dealing with terrorism, extremism, challenges of the global economy, whether it's dealing with the problems of nonproliferation, the united states has the awe neek capacity to galvanize the action of others and take the steps we need to deal
with our own national interest. >> rose: is our role different because we have a different economic posture as secretary gates noted in which he said you didn't think he would want to be secretary of defense. and when the united states had less resources to play its role in the world. >> i thinkthe president h recoized that we need to be strong at home in order to be strong aboard abroad. we need a vibrant economy, innovation, the ability to train the next generation of people to give us a vital and competitive economy. so we can't be successful globally unless we're successful at home. unless we've got good ucation. like we've got a stroke economic foundation. so the two go hand-in-hand. because we also can'tbe effective economically at home without that global engage. without an open trading system. without the united states making sure that our workers and our businesses have the opportunity to compete. we're an interdependent world so we have to work both ends of the problem. the domestic side and international. >> rose: we have huge domestic proems that we need t deal with, econoc problems. does that affect today the
way we conduct our forence policy? >> again, i think what we know to solve our economic problems, we need to be able to have an open trading system that creates economic opportunity and jobs for americans. that means we need to be present, we need to be protecting our interests. we obviously have a long-term fiscal challenge that we need to deal with. we can put ourselves on a sound fitting and that will advance our interest over the long-term. but it doesn't mean that we need to somehow retreat or hold back. because if we do we're to the going to be able to advance our own interest at home. the two are too closely tied together. our future, our prosperity, our success depends on peace and security in the world to create those opportunities for americans. >> rose: let me take an example that happened. after the arab spring it was said that the saudis were up set about some things that were being done and not done having to do wit mubarak and otr issues, having to do with bahrain. so it is said that they sent a prince ba fda r to china
to talk to the chinese. is that a new reality? that there are other powers in the world that people n reach ou to as a counterbalance to the united states? >> there are other powers but it's not a counterbalance to the united states. indeed, largely, it's in our interest to see some of these powersmerg because they can be capable partners fous. what we are seeing and i think it has been a core part of the strategy that the president and secretary have pursued, is to build new relationships with these emerging powers, with india, with brazil, with china. and these countries, in many ways share our own interest in creating global economic opportunity, dealing with the problems of energy and the environment, dealing with radicalism. so their emergence can strengthen the capacity of the united states to pursue our interests, if we engage effectively with them, if we build long-term relationships. so it's not a trade-off. this is not a 19th century competition of power. >> rose: are we getting all we expected from china on north korea? on sudan, on iran? >> you know, we're never entirely satisfied with what
we get. but we are getting constructive engagement. let's take each of the ones you mentioned. on sudan there was a time in which china was not, frankly, a very constructive actor but they have come to realize their own interest in their economic interest, their interests in sudanese oil depends on a stabl resotion of the conflicts in sudan. both between north sudan and south sudan and darfur. so china is increasingly a moreositive actor, supporting the comprehensive peace agreement, engaging withhe pareses to try to bring themo the tableo incrsingly we're able to partner china on that. on iran china is part of the groups that's putting pressure on iran and worki with us to see whether diplomatic solution can be achieved. on north korea too, the chinese supported our efforts in the securit council to imposeew sanctions on north kor. and ha made very clear through the diplomacy that they expect north korea to avoid the provocations and to come back to the table. so there is a lot of positive cooperation there. we want more. we're engaging with the chinese. we have a unique broad based
engagement there beginning with eight meetings between president clinton and president hu but also our new strategic and economic dialogue, chaired by secretary clinton and secretary quitener-- geithner bring hundreds of officials from all of the agencies i both governments to explore the full range of issues of concern. including the security ones. >> rose: so what came out of the security and economic dialogue when the chinese came here recently? what concrete results within both con cruelty-- concrete results we saw on the economic sid continued progress on our concerns on issues like at we call dig nis-- indigenous innovations, the barriers we believe chinese were putting on american firms to participate there constructive engagement on how to rebalance the chinese economy as we push forward on that. inedibly important engagementn energy and environment issues which are important to both of us. china d the uted states are the two most important source of greenhouse gases. if we don't work together to deal with this, all the efforts of everybody else will be foraught.
we're working together to do clean energy technologies, tohink about how we work in the internatial community to develop a global strategy on energy and climate change. we worked on exchanges between our two countries to get more americanses to have a chance to go and study and understand china better. but from my perspective one of the most important things we did was we launched the new security dialogue. with china to deal with the most difficult and contentious issues wlrk it's maritime security, the uses of space, cyber and the like, whicare big challenges. and will pose great difficulties for both countries. but if we can open these dialogues, build stronger military to military cooperation we have a chance of avoiding some of the conflicts that might otherwise bedevil our relationship in the future. >> rose: this is what the president said. tonight we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is preceding. these ng wars had wi continue, come to a responsible end, as we do we must learn their less on, what less ons have we learned about iraq and afanistan? well, you know this is something that the president framed from the beginning,
from his campaign. which was to have a sponsible withdrawal from iraq that allowed us to reap the gains that were possible there. but meet his commitment to withdraw our troops. and on afghanistan to deal with the direct threato our security, which was the threat of al qda and its affiliated groups, but to do it in a way that recognized that our mission was limited and that ultimately we needed to turn thito the afans themselves. in both cases the preside has been able to execute on the promises a the strate thahe laid out. we will be withdrawing our forces from iraq. we've already substantially come down and we're meeting our commients for next year. and we have seen in the meantime, we've increased capacities of the iraqi forces to provide security for their own people. we're building a new partnership with iraq and seeing a democratic process emerge. that's the kind of model i think thpresident was talking b the lessons that we learned about understanding our interest, but also understanding how we have to be able to
cabinet our engagement, have an end point and see how we can work work with partners thereafter to a chief mutual interests. that is the glide path in afghanistan. because of the commitments we have blunted the commitment of the taliban, we're seeinging process-- progress on the civilian side and most importantly in the fight against al qaeda. >> rose: secretary clinton in her testimony said that she was opposed at the beginning to the withdrawal in the numbers that the president decide on. >> yeah, one of the things about being in the government in the interagency process. >> rose: this is clear. >> i think what's important is that we learn from each other in these discussions. i've had a chance now throh two administrations to sit around in a situation where we participate in policy debates efernlt comes in with the perspective. we have a lot of respect for each other and dynamic. they were different perspectives around the table. but what was clear and i think the reason secretary inton feels satisfied with the decision is that one, we're carrying o what the president said whi is that the surge would begin to be awn down i july of this
year. but we're doing iin a way that allows us to continue the efforts not only to blunt the momentum of the taliban but to set the stage for th political negoations that we want. which every detail the same, that each of us came in with the first thing but i know she and i both feel satisfied that what we were able to do is give the commanders the tools they need to keep this going and to support the political process. >> rose: is it hard to say that the secretary of state said you know, i did-- i had questions about this policy. she said it, can't anybody acknowledge that she said that and that she had reservations and she came to a different poin it's not to say there is a split between the secretary of state and the president. >> i agree. >> rose: but that she had differences. >> as i said, if you come to the table and feel, come in with your initial views, listen to others, and what i feel confident, and you heard this from admiral mullen, general petraeus and everybody else, is that we heard each other out. body ever comes into these ocess and think it's going to come out exactly the way you came in.
so yes of course there were a variety of perspectives that came into it. but what came out of it was the result that erv of the president's senior advisors could comfortably goo tell the congress and the american people that we feel that we can otect the american interests and achieve our on jeningtives through the decision that the president made. >> rose: did general petraeus present an option to the president that included exactly the number of withdrawing of troops that the president called for? >> i'm going to let general petraeus talk for himself. we have to have the opportunity to have these discussions among ourselves, charlie. there are different perspectives. it's a debate about ideas. you wouldn't want president to have a cabinet or group of advisors who had the same view on everything. >> rose: of course not but would you hope that they can discuss it only without worrying about the fact that, you know, -- it's an easy question. said that general petraeus presented three options. >> like i said, sometimes i know everybody wants us to lift the curtain. >> rose: we do, yes. we love transparency. >> but what i can tell su to
repeat what admiral mullen said,he said that tre were different degrees of risk. and there were different trade-offs that had to be adjucated ther as he said, every commander obviously wants to have more forces. it gives a margin of safety. they want more margins of safety then they can have. but the president has to think about a broad range consideration, not only the cost which is not tlifial. >> rose: right. >> about also the impact on others a you've heard, for example, from president karzai about how he sees this as a positive votof confidence in the afghan serity forces. in terms of shaping the perctions of the countries in the regn. that is what the president s to take into account and listen to the views of his advisors and ultimately make that decisn because that is why you eleed him. >> rose: are you confident the afghan security forces can do the job. >> i think we are on a positive trajectory. we have work to do. this process isn't over that is why we continue to need more time. what is important to remember, and i know you know this welleven after this withdrawal we will still have 68,000 troops in afghanistan. we're still going to be there through 2014. that was the commitment nationalo made in lisbon.
so we have more time. but we've seen real progress. i think one of the things we hear from the commander is the impressive degree of achievement of the afghan national. >> rose: yes, ey also take note of the fact that they are coming into the war season at the time that we will be withdrawing troops. and that their wish was they could have those troops there so that the united states and whatever negotiations take place, and the karzai government with the taliban, would be in a stronger position. >> they will be there. >> rose: that was a military-- assessment. >> to be honest, the difference is relatively small in terms of the period of time we discued. what t president did decide is that even the majority of the surge troops won't come outuntil the end of the summe so they aregoing to be there r a good part of 2012. and again. >> rose: of the fighting season. >> of the fighting season. and again i thi let's not forget the 68,000 that there still be there which is substantially moreroops that were present in afghanistan then when president obama took office.
so we're not going down to some very modest level we will still have an extraordinary commitment of troops there as well as the nato troops. so this is recovering the rge, it's what the president said in his west point speech in 2009. and we will still have substantial capacity with the increased capacity of the afghan national army so that we can begin to pivot and move to the areas need to move. and importantly, charlie, as you know, the president emphasized that we need to keep in mind the core goal here which is to prevent the reemergence of al qidz-- al qaeda that is part of the success we've had with the successful operation against bin laden, the broader counterterrorism operations that we've undertaken, all of these things are part of trying to decide what kind of capability you need to have in afghanistan. >> you and the president and the people are part of the national security team are convinced that they will have the resources, afghanistan and americans to prevent the taliban from gaining a sufficient power to offer al qaeda a safe refuge. >> that has been the
template and the test that we've applied to everything. >> rose: so you have to be convinced of the decisions you made >> that is current there are no guarantees but we have a strong conviction that this glide path will allow us, because in the end, the core is making sure that the afghans themselves can do it because under any test, we are going to marginally withdraw our forces by 2014. and our whole focus has been to make sure the afghan themselves will be able to sustain what we have built together over the past several years. >> rose: when you look at the lessons we have learned there, i mean tell me what you sitting in the job that you had, have learned about afghanistan, understood about afghanistan. >> i think what's important is to understand the unique character of afghanistan, the is a very diverse country with a lot of different groups and sectarian connections, lots of different ties to other actors outside the region. and if you have to think about afghanistan not only
in terms of an internal political dynamic, but also an external one. and the sluice to afghanistan is going to be one that is an afghan lead solution that leads to a political accommodation inside afghanistan, but that can be sustained and supported by the countrs around it who will not use afghanistan as a way to advance their own-- . >> rose: two of those countries, one is iran and pakistan let me talabout pistan. gives today your assessment of the relationship between pakistan and the united states. >> i think there probably no more complex bilateral relationship in the world than the relationship between the united states and pakistan. the relationship we hav today is very deeply affected by history, a complex history that has been unfortunately-- unfortunately characterized by a lot of mistrust on both sides. that creates an environment in having to deal with these very difficult contempory problems. and makes itll that much harder. there's no question that we have achieved a l together. that the pakistanies that we ve made significant
progress in the counterterrorism front. but there is mistrust about our intention and our side the pakistanies concerns that they aren't doing all they need to do. but we don't have a choice. we take the pakistan that we have. >> rose: do we have no leverage. >> we have leverage but this is still a country which has, it is its own politics, its own dynamic. we want to support democracy in pakistan so we have to recognize that there's public opinion in pakistan that needs to be dealt with. we made clear that we have expectations about pakistan. and our exhibit to work with them and provide assistance depends on their meeting the basic needs that we have. but we also have to recognize that it is a sovereign country. that we have to be able to try to find ways to take into account their concerns. after all, they paid a big price too for the conflic there. they have the casualties that they face, the terrorism that they face, they remind us of that all the time but it is a reality there so we have to work with them. we have to encourage them. we have ways we condition our aid and all of that. but the first best case is
to try to rebuild the trust that has been lost over a period of 30 years to try to see a long-term future through the strategic partnership, the framework that wre trying to develop and understand that this is t going to be a problem that is solved in a matter of days or weeks. >> rose: the reality is that problem if we knew where mr. sgla skbla-- zawahiri was and if he was in pack tan-- pakistan the sovereign teen-- sovereignty of pakistan wouldn't make a difference. >> we will do what we need to do to protect the american people. we demonstrated that with bin laden but the first bet is to do this together with pakistan. >> rose: butr. zawahiri steps into the category plaintiff bin laden rather than some other category, doesn't sne. >> i'm to the going to take individual cases but i will say if and when we need to do something, we will. but what we are working to try to convince the pakistanis, it's far better to do it together. we have had successes together. we have been able to do some things together. others have not been as successful. have to improve that. that's part of the dialogue that takes place on an intensive basis between us and the pakistani
government. >> rose: it brings us to afghanistan against t is said by many people in afghanistan as soon as they capture taliban, more taliban come over from pakistan. >> we need them to do more. there's no doubt about that. >> rose: why can't we get them to do more, what's the problem. >> t problem is that they have a long htory of engagement. and a long conviction on their part that by engaging with them that they can have leverage over them. we don't accept that, it is a point of disagreement and a point we press them on. we are not at 100% of what we would like, we will ner get there. >> rose: even though admiral muens d 15 trips. >> he had 15 trips. >> rose: to talk to general kai yanni. we could walk away from it too. bu that would not advance our-- . >> rose: if we walked away wa, would happen? >> what we risk losing the cooperation that we do get now which is important. and significant. and also recognition that we have a big stake in pakistan, not just in the
counterterrorism but after all this is a nuclear arm state this is the country that has enormous potential either for being a positive force in the region or one of instability. and we have a lot of flex partnerships like this. there is no more difficult, i think, than this one. but we are in it with our eyes open. and o voice is very clear and can date with them. and we continue to press where we need to press. and they understand our perspective. >> are we-- it is said in recent reports that we're getting a treasure trov of information from the computer and oth things that were found in the house of that-- that bin laden wa . and that it has-- there are some logs that have indicated the kinds of sources and the kinds of support he had in pakistan s that true? >> the most i can say at this point is what you have heard from other officials is tt we ha no concrete reason to believe that pakistani government was harboring or protectg bin laden. that's a judgement we continue to make. obviously we have to make sure we folw whatever
information we have. >> rose: i mean i understand but the case would be whether there are people who somehow yes they were part the isi but also part of groups that were, in fact, supporting him, and you now have names because of what the documents or the computer information you got from -- >> again, without commenting on specifics it's obviously something that we wod be concerned about. and we made very clear what our expectations are to the pakistanies. there is a complex relationship with people, former officls in pakistan who have had ties that we've been concerned about. but we where working very hard to make sure we have zero tolerance for that kind of behavior. >> the president has gone back to this stateme saying we must embrace america's singular role in the course of human events. what is america's singular role. >> i think our singular rol is our unique ability to galvanize the action of others to take action to deal with the big challenges of our time. you see this across-the-board. you see this as i say in getting action against iran
to deal with the problem of the iran yen nuclear program or north korea. you see this in terms of our response to making sure that we have engagement in the problem of the arab bring. you see this in terms of the nonproliferation agenda. you see this in terms of climate. we have a unique ability when we engage to bring others along to get them to take action together. they look to us. it's a natural inclination of leadership that we have based on our own history and a recognition that when we leave we can get things done. it's frankly a reflection of the american spirit. a belief that we can solve problems which is, i think, uniquely american. and it's also recognition that bus of our global influence we are still the dom nent global power that when we act otrs are more inclined to take action with twhem. >> is that singular role at risk if you don't dealith our economic -- >> absolutely. as i said before we have to make sure that we have the where with all at home but
long term ability which is not just our economic house in order, but making sure we invest in our science, technology, education and infrastructure that gives us e platform that is what made america great for the last century is because we've had this engine at home, human capital, of vibrant innovative open onomy that gives us the capacity to be engaged abroad. and we have to sustain that. >> re: i want to talk about the role of diplomacy which the state department is engaged in. what is the diplomatic job in afghanistan? some people say we need a regional conference. other people say you've got whatever is coming up in chicago next year that the president announced. rich holbrook was said to have reservations because he thought that the balance between diplomacy and the use of military was out of kilter. >> you know, one of the fine points about diplomacy is to know how to brin all the toolness together and define the right moment when moments are ripe for a political resolution. and i thinkwe felt very strongly the psident and secretary that when we came
into office in 2009 that the momentum was on the side of the taliban. they had no interest, so we had to create the conditions to make that political resolution take place. but precisely because of what we've done, the initial commitment of troops and the surge, we now think that the balance of forces are right in the way that there is a better chance of bringing the taliban to the table for them to break with al qaeda, to form and accept a government that protects the basic rights of afghans that respects the rights of other groups from other ethnic and tribal affiliations. and we are very much committed to that. as the secretary said in her testimony yesterday, the diplomatic surge that w anticipate ithe coming monthses is precisely to take advantage of the work that our military and civilians have done to try to convert that into a political solution. both internally with an afghanistan and bringing the external partner could that be conference, as she said yesterday, they had a long talk about the congress of vienna which was great for us historians.
but there is absolutely a need to bring not just the parties within afghanistan together but the neighbors in the broader community together to bring the resolution that we need for the long-term. >> can iran play a role. >> if iran is going to play a constructive role it would be an important positive force index because it can ceainlplay a destructive role. we need to make clear what the expectations are. >> the cversation with iran about playing a constructive re in afghanistan. >> i think there are conversations in terms of what any one who would like to participate in this. we're having direct dialogue with iran about this, no but are we makinclear wha we think would be the kind of context. we know that iran in the past has played a role in the conference and elsewhere. so we don't exclude the possibility. >> rose: and they had conflicts with the taliban. >> they did. and so the challenge will be for the iranians to demonstrate that they understand that it is in their interest to have a stable, nip and secure afghanistan, if they can
accept that basic premise they can be a positive part. >> rose: is it the view of the stated department today that sanctions are working against iran. >> there is no question that they are having an impact on iran, that they are having an impact on the iranian ecomy. that ty are having an impact on the council of the iranians. what they have not done and i will be candid about that, is they have not yet lead e inianss to accept the kind of understand being their nuclear program that wend the europeans and russia and china insist on which is a halt to their enrichment program and a return to compliance with the oblitions. but we're not done net and every day we take new actions, in the process even this week, we designate identi ran air for additional sctions, working with the eopeans to both make these visiting sanctions more effective. >> rose: and you have identified some israi firms th might have been -- >> there wasne israeli firm but there are firms elsewhere. and we are quite determined to keep this up. we do think it'simportant, we have to have both tracks going. a willingness to engage in diplomacy but a clear
indication that there will be costs for iran particularly for their nuclear program if they don't agree to come back to the table. >> rose: dow believe there's a diplomatic solution to the issue of iran's nuclear program? >> i think it's possible, yes. >> rose: what is the incentive for them? >> the incentive for them is that the question ultimately in all of these questions, are they going to be more secure and better off with a nuclear program than without. i think what ware convincing them with these economic sanctions that there is a path to a gitimate recognition o iran's security that doesn't require or is even advanced by their having this -- >> other countries made this decision. at the end of the cold war, the former states of the soviet union like awe crane and kazakhstan gave up nuclear weapons because they decided that their economic future was better off with a nouclear weapon state. south korea made that clear. so whave examples in history of countriesho have understood that they don't need it for the security. and it's not in their interest to pursue it. >> is that the decision that
qaz avi made. >> the decision was that he was not better off. >> did he make that decision because he feared the invasion of what happened in iraq for some otr reason. >> because of the sanctions. >> the sanctions more than what is looking at what happened in iraq in terms of his incentive. >> obviously this is the judgement call. i do think that the sanctions had an enormous impact, they were long indications from the libyans during the period of the sanctions that they saw their economic future severely hampered by the fact that they couldn't attract investment. they couldn't deal with the international community. ultimately it's hard to unpack all these things but i do think that the economic pressure was the important factor. >> did he say it one way or the other. >> i don't think we had a lot of conversations. >> but some people have. >> the reason i said that is don rumsfeld was on the program and was making that point very clearly that qaddafi didn't-- gave up his nuclear program because of the vasion of iraq. >> secretary rumsfeld
probably had a particular reason to want to make that argument. >> let me turn to the arab spring. tell me what your hopes are, and tell me what your fears are. >> i think in general our hopes are everything that we've always believed for our own nation and for others. is that thepportunity of thpeople of these countries to be able to chart their own destinies, to choose the kind of government that he they want to live under to choose how they want to pursue their lives, to have the opportunity to speak their minds, pursue their eams is something that americans feel a strg connection to, both as a matter of-- but also interest. causwe also believe in i think our history shows that our strongest and best partners are our democratic partners, where the people fe a connection to the relationship, whether it's with our european partners or japan or south korea. these are the most durable relationshipses that we have. and so we think that not only do we wish them well because we believe that everybody should have what we have for ourselves and our children, but also because in the long run these will be better partners for ourselves this is going to be a long --
>> we would like to see a democracy in syria. >>. >> absolutely. >> what are the chances. >> the long run the chances are positive because what the arab spring has shown us is this is not a-- civilization, somehow in these countries that people don't want it any less than we do. we are seeing this in every country. >> it's not about the united states. >> absolutely. >> it's about all the values. >> this is ae encouraging story. >> what is the fear tore to you? >>hese revolutions of this sort are always very difficult. and they can get, they requt get hijacked. they can get off track. >> do you see any evidence of any of these revolutions of being high jked. >> not yet but we have to be vigilant. >> where would you worry about it being hijacked. >> there is no question that iran would like to have an impact on these and try to, you know, bring --. >> what do they do to have an impac >> i think they are trying to bring this, their narrative to claim that what is going on there is a, you know, a parallel t what ok place in iran that there is going to be an islamic theocracy.
but i don't see any sign that that is getting any traction. we also know -- >> not only that, when people want to celebrate the arab bring he is wouldn't allow them tdo it. >> of course it just shows how hint hypocritical their efforts are. we obviously have to worry about extrists trying to hijack. >> but where, give me-- are you worried about this in egypt? >> what we are seeing is the forces, whether it is iran oral quitea would like to do that. but the good news story here is that they're not getting tractions. they're t getting traction in libia. they're not getting traction. >> there is a lessening of your concern about these revolutions, that the arab spring las produced being hijacked? >> i think that what we are seeing is the people themselveson't want it. and that's why i think we can feel confident. but that's why we have a stake in it and that's w we're working with the egyptians. >> rose: to do what. >> the kind of economic assistance we can provide, through debtelief, enterprise funds, the kinds of things at would create jobs and opportunity.
we knoin all of these revolutionsing some of this political and the desire for political self-determination and political-- but also economic, there are problems with poverty, inequality and corruption. and that is the place we can have an impact, not just the united straits but working th europe d others with the world bank with others to try to help get those economic engines started again, create the sense of opportunity for the people there that wil give them a stake in their future. >> the president and the secretary of state both talk about using the international community to bring pressure, especially in syria. is that working at all? >> there's no question it's working in the sense that clearly president saasd feels the need do something. we heard this in his speech, he's talking about elections, are we skeptical, yes. but what it shows is that he is und enormous pressure both internally and externally to respond. obviously if he does in a meaningful way and opens up a political spacthat reason great. t we're going to be keeping the pressure on
until we see -- >> and the pressure is what. >> enomic pressure. we've had the sanctions, the europeans just yesterday took new measures about this. political efforts, we took actions in the u.n. human rights council to address and have a special inveigation into the human rights situation there. creang politic, greater political isolation, the measures taken against the innercircle, all are having an impact, engagement with the opposition which we continue to do both in syria and outside. all of these thingsare keeping the pressure on. >> back to libya. what have we discover about the use of nato force in libya? >> what we discovered is that thenitial mission, which was the mission authorized by the u.n. security council which is thehought of the humanitarian catastrophe was successful. what we have seen with ben gaz syno longer the threat of isolation, miss ri the opposition has created space and end -- >> there are reports that qaddafi is looking it to move out of tripoli. >> i hope he's looking to get out of the country,
frankly. >> rose: how does the united states and nato untriesnd everyone else in the arab world engorge-- encourage him. what is the means of encouraging him to get out is this. >> i think the means to encourage him to get out is recognize he has no future there. and that the tide that is moving slowly is against him and what we are seeing is increased capacity on the part of the opposition. increased willingness of others to identify with it, increased support for the international community. his attempt to try to find a way out is not getting any traction. he even with respect to th the-- he's get morning and more isolated. his access to his own economic resources, energy, we're even seeing signs in tripoli of growing willingness to challenge the regime. >> why don't we recognize the rebel forces as the government of libya. >> we had said that the tnc is the legitimate representative. they don't hav ctrol over the ole country. there are reasons why we a
matter of international lato have formal diplomatic recognition. we look to the time in which they finally get control. and they can have a process in which their very broad based degree of support can be legit mated by a political process. we are supporting them economically. we are giving them-- we have requested the congress to give us authority to give them access to some of the assets of the libyan regime so as a practical matter we are dealing with them as the legitimate entity. >> is it the judgement of the united states government that the rebel forces cannot win with the additional boots on the ground from outside the country. >> no, and they don't want it. one of the things that they are clear to us, i think we hear consistently. we've had senior representatives of the dnc, our own representative chris stiffens on therounds benghazi. the one thing they have said in the beginning this is their fight this very valued the roles of nato to protect them from the onslaught by
qaddafi forces but they don't want american troops on the ground. and they know that that would adversely affect their ability in the long-term to achieve what they want to achieve. >> rose: how about yemen. >> yemen is again a complex situation. we have worked very hard with the countries in the gulf with the uae and saudi aria and othe to try to fashion a political way out for the president. and to create a ansition process that would bring in the opposition and create a political transition there. it is still a work in progress. we haven't achieved what we want to achieve but we also are deeply engaged with others in trying to move that forward there are a lot of discussions tang place. we think it's time for president saleh to accept the need for hem to turn over power and to let that process --. >> he has no intention of coming back, does he? >> i don't know what he thinks but we believe it would be in his terest. >> rose: he must be speaking through the saudis. >> again i think it's hard to tell what his own attentns are but for the sake of his own country we hope that will recognize
this is a good opportunity to let that process, let the vice president move forward on a process that allow ass that transition to take place. >> rose: many observers of what is happening it in the arab spring say egypt is the y. >> no doubt. it's no doubt because of the historic importance of egypt within the arab world. it's no doubtecause of egypt's size, because of the tradition, because it is a vibrant society that has made some progress in economic reform over recent years. and because of the strong conviction of the egyptian people to want to have a voice. we do think that egypt offers both a great opportunity and will have a power impact on some of these other revolutions if it can be successful. it's going to be a challenging process, there is a lot of unemployment. a lot of illiteracy that makes it more challenging. you go we have identify it ashe top priority and want to work with the egyptian people to support them as they seek to achieve their aspirations. >> rose: one person the arab spring has not come t so far is the palestinians. but there are increasing reports that it might well.
and that the palestinians might engage in a series at different locates of nonviolent protests. do you anticipate that? >> you know, we're rob veysly in close touch with not only the palestinian authority but a variety of voices in the palestinian area. i think what we all recognize, first of all, you say that the arab spring hasn't come but in many ways, the process that has taken place over the years, especially in the west bank, gives the palestinians. there is the palestinian authority. they have had elections, they do have an opportunity to participate. they are much freer than most other countries in the region >>ose: right. >> so there is a political process that takes place. there is a vibrant political dialogue. and president abbas will be the first to tell you there is a political dialogue. >> rose: and they have done a remarkable job. economic reform. building from the ground up. >> there is an arab spring taking place. >> rose: but that is taking place before tunesia ever happened >> absolutely it is a positive sign. >> rose: that is actually kbling a credible government.
and a civ society as well. and that's very important and it is a good example. >> rose: but speak to the issue of whether you expect these kinds of nonviolent prowess it is-- protest and what the impacmight be and what fears you might have. >> that is all the pore reason why we continue to believe that it's important for israel and the palestinians to engage in direct negotiations. there is oiously frustration on the palestinian side abouthe lack of progresut there is ao frustration on the israeli side. both sides will be better off if we move forward to achieve the two state solution that the president has identified. 're working very hard with the parties to do this. what we know is we understand the frustration, but unilateral actions whether it's taking it to the u.n., or on the ground in the west bank, are not going to bring about the result that both sides want to see. >> rose: tell me what you think would prevent the palestinians from going to the united nations general assembly and asking for a statehood vote. >> i think what will prevent them is a recognition that in the end, though it m feel good as a gesture, and an avenue for them to express their frustrations,
that it's not going to bring them closer to a state. and i think we're working both wh them, with the european partners and others to make clear there is a better way. that they won't really be able to achieve the state in reality unless they engage in negotiations. >> rose: what do you think the lilihood of that succeeding? >> you know, the ture of this business and the israeli-- you have to always take what opportunities you can. it's a big challenge. nobody puts odds on these things but we know that objectively both sides want it. the public in both sides, both in israel and among the paleinians would like to see a negotiation that ends in two states. we know at the only way it will be durable is if it comes to an agreement. it can't be imposed by the u.n. or anybody else. >> tom friedman had an interesting column, would you know more about this an i wod. basilly saying go back to the original resolution from the united nations. it was 871. the key language would say having to do with recognition as israel as a jewish state. does that have merit?
does that have possibilities as you see it? >> i think there is no question that in terms of giving-- . >> rose: i know you read the column. >> no, but it is less a question of the u.n. resolution and more a question of getting the two parties to meet each other's needs and basic requirements. i think there is no question we believe that the outcome, the president has said ts, should be for israel as a jewish state. there is no question that if the palestinians were able to recognize that, thathat would give the israeli-- . >> rose: so when i go back to that resolution as tom suggested. >> what's wronwith that resolution? >> it's not a question-- the u.s. is not the place to solve the problem. >> rose: really? >> the u.s. is not the place. >> rose: why not. >> becse it has to be solved between t two parties. >> rose: that's true but the u.n. can encourage a solution between the party. that's always the way it works s it not? the united nations served not to create a solution but to encourage people. >> when you think abo the
ends of conflict that have taken place whether it's northern ireland, whether you think it's dayton and bosnia, it didn't happen at the u.n.. it happened between negotiations and the parties. and the u.n., it didn't, and indeed what it does, charlie, too often it becomes an excuse for the parties not to engage with each other. they look to somebody else. >> but the palestinians say their argumentswe know better than i do is that if will give them equal status with the israelies to negotiate. >> they have equal status to negotiate. because -- >> they don't believe that otherwise they wouldn't want it. >> there are lots of reasons why they want it. >> what do you think the reasons are. >> i think theeasons why they want it is because in some ways it' easier to try to appeal to the 190 states of the u.n. than to make the tough decisions they have to make to create the piece. >> what tough decisions couldn't they make if they had statehood. >> i don'think it's easier for them to make those decisions with the u.n., indeed there is a fear that they will take that as a reason not to engage. and as a substitute for
engaging. >> is that your fear. yes t is a concern that this will be seen as the substitute for negotiating and trying to get others to try to pressure the israelis to rch a solution. we think that's counterproductive. we don'think it will make the israelis feel more secure if the palestinians rather than sitting down at the table and saying let's meet eac other's needs, deal with each other's problems say we're not going to deal with it. we will tryo get somebody else to solve this problem. they have to live with each other. they can't escape their geography. they are there, they will -- -- if there is a durable solution the un nor anybody else from the outside can't solve the problem. the united stat can py a role in helping to bring the parties together but ultimately, they have to give each other the confidence that the israelies will respect for a viceable palestinian state, and the palestinians will give the israelis securities that they ren titled to so that that palestinian state will not be a threat. >> rose: when many observers or at least some look at american foreign policy
under ot bama administration which have you been a prinpal player they look at the relationship with china, that has had an evolution over the two years, but they look at the israeli-palestinian issue as exhibit 1 of where you have failed. >> well, it's a work in progress like all o these things. i wouldn't call it a failure. >> rose: it failed because of the push on the settlement you failed because you look at where it is today and they say it's worse. >> i wouldn't say it is worse but i also would say we clearly have more work to do. that is what the president did in his most recent speech athe state department was to try to lay out another way forward this is a difficu challenge. both of the parties ha a lot of historynd it is, it's important not to lose sight that these are the players themselves who have to live with the consequences. it's easy to fit in washington, say here is t solution. >> rose: sometes there say pres to-- essure to have a u.s. plan. you obviously have resisted that, because. >> because the parties have to own it we've shared ideas
with them. they obviously know what we think of possible solutions to the problem but they have to take ownership of them and bring it together across the table between the two of them. that is the key. they're to the going to accept it because it is our plan. they will accept it because they think it can meet their needs and convince their partners. >> that is the way mad rid-- madrid started. >> they came together to do it. >> that's right. so when you look at obama foreign policy, you know, is there one that you can define in the way to saw thighs are the tants of obama forence policy. >> this somehow i put it with. i think if comes back to the early quote from the president is that we live in a world in which the big challenges of our time require cooperation by many countries. the united states is the most significant global act of war, not the only one. there are important new powers arising and important ackers who aren't even government, in civil society, buness.
we need to find ways to lose the leadership to mobilize the international commuty to solve the big problems of our time, energy, environment, terrorism, nonpliferation. and what we have done is through a principal's engage. we restod american cribility, respect for america. and we've been able to get countries to work for us on these big challenges. thats building the capaci tha allows tous deploy in all of these arenas the ability to achieve our objective. than takes systemic strategy of think approximating about how do we bui relationships in the relationships with our traditional allies like europe, japan, korea, australia with. these new emerge pog we ares where we made enormous progress. think about how far a relationship with india has progressed and brazil, including the reset with russia. and we're able now to bring countries together whether it's the global financial crisis, whether it's dealing with iran and north korea, in ways that frankly in the past people recoiled from us. they weren't as willing to be our partner.
that's a tremendous asset for the united states for the long-term, to be seen as a force that can partner with others to solve common problems. >> what is the biggest failure in your judgement over the last two years, three years. >> i think that there are clearly frustrations. i would say that you know for me personally, that the fact that which have not been able to fully resolve the problem of guantanamo is one that i think the presidt and we all had a stng conviction about. we have had doubts and concerns by the congress about this. but it's something that i think it's important that we continue to do because it's important to our respect in the wod. the conviction that we are a country of la that find ways to deal with this problem by law. and that's something that we need to continue to work on and continuing to try to engage congress and others to recognize that this is not what we want to be seen for. >> i remind you that you wrote a book about trantions. and one of the points you made in that book is that
don't discard all the policies of your predecessor government, correct. >> correct. >> and some look at what this has done and say it's surprising how and even how he has made a second assessment of some of the bush policies that he criticized during the campaign, cuan tan mo being one of them. >> he hasn't changed it in guantanamo. the president is deeply committed. >> guantanamo is open is it not. >> you have asked what the failures, we have not persuaded the congress to give us the tools we ne to make it happen. not for a lack of conviction byhe psident. >> rose: it's congress's problem that you have not closed guantanamo. >> i'm taking responsibility for this. we have not persuaded congress that it's in the interest of the country to allow us to do the things that we need to do. >> rose: give me another example of whe there migh have been a bush policy that you didn't discard. >> i think will are a number
of things the president-- . >> rose: that on coming to power it might not be as bad as anticipated. >> i think one of the earliest examples is whenwe had to deal with the transition in iraq. that the presint even thousand he had set out a specific timetable during the campaign, he came in and said i'm going to listen my commander. i will understand better what is going on on the ground. he kept hisommitment to meet the 20 deadline for withdrawing. but he also adjusted the way we did it because he heard from our commanders on the ground, general owed yarno and others that they needed a different path. i think it is the willingness of the president to listen and take that into account. >> what have you seen in terms of the evolution of the relationship and the conversation betwe this president and the military? >> i think what you have seen is the president who respects his commanders as i said. i talked about iraq, that he doesn't, he is not doing natick. he recognizes that they have unique experse but he also recognizes that he is commander in chief and he's
not a rubber stamp. he has to bring tether a lot of different conversations and that the military brings one perspective. i think one of the thins i'veearned in the many years in working with the military is they respect that. they are asked to come to the table with tir views but they don't expect the president just to sayou told me to do this. and the american people wouldn't wana president to do that. pie good friend-wrote ok about that. and this is not a le, right, republican, democratic things with that is true of the the state departnt, he doesn't agree th everything you recommend. >> of course. at's what presidents are for. >> what have you recommended to the president that he didn't do? >> that's a good question. i will have to give it some thought. >> what will you miss the most about not playing a principal role. you've been at the national security council. you have been here at the state department. you were forlly chief staff to the secretary of state, previous secretary of state. you've been at the centre of decision-making. i know are you going to go
off and teach. >> i will miss people because what alws strikes me every time i come back in to government service is the tremendous dedication to people without do this. this is not easyor most people. there is not a lot of glamor and glory and certainly not a lot of financial rewards but the commitment people have is extraordinary and the dedication this is a 24/7-- 24/7, in washington, around the world our military, our diplomats, our development workers, it's an extraordinary-- extraordinary grouof people with such commitment, vision and idealism, an belief in america that is so inspiring. and part of the reason i'm excited about teaching is we don't just need the people there now, we need the next generation. when i was teaching and what i look forward to ishe sense of public service, to make sure the next generation has the same commitment. they don'tll he to go into the foreign service or military but we need to make sure the next generatn of americans understand how important that is. you can serve the country in
lots of different ways but i'm going to the school of citizenship what a wonderful concept. and to give that to our young people, the undergraduates, the graduates, to let them share some of my experiences, the rewards of doing this for all the difficulties i think is the biggest thing we can give back. i will need the people, they have been great colleagues at the state department, the white house, the pentagon. it's tremendously smart energetic, talented vibe rant group of people. >> thank you for coming here on your last day. >> thanks for having me. >> deputy secretary of state