tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 20, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." here, theeff flake young senator from arizona. he has been an outspoken advocate for restoring ties between the two countries. but on saturday, he announced his opposition to the resident iran nuclearent's accord. what in the end made the difference to you/sen. flake: withrow -- with -- what
difference to you? it limits iran's ability to at least amass enough fissile material to make a bomb for 10 to 15 years.that's a good thing . the part the troubled me most is this probably should have been a treaty where it binds all parties. instead, it is an executive agreement that lasts the length of the presidency. when there are other issues, like problems with what iran has been doing in the region, some of the terrorist activity, i thought that the agreement 'sfairly restricts congress ability to respond to that type of behavior. is anose who say this easy call, i think that have not looked easily at it or all the at learned its -- alternatives.
this is a tough agreement. if we oppose this deal -- what do you mean on the opposite side of our allies? sen. flake: the p5 plus one negotiated this agreement. now the sanctions will go on assuming this agreement were to fall apart, i think they might go a different direction. that is not a good thing to break up this good coalition. had of the success we have in bringing iran to the table is that it has been iran versus the west rather than iran versus the u.s.. this kind of breaks that up. thing to go easy against your european allies. on the other hand, israel has some real concerns, legitimate concerns about this agreement. they are a very close ally of ours as well. charlie: in the end, the you
think that people in the fellow senators you know well from that thep of 100 are voting on merits of this agreement or on political pressure? sen. flake: i like to think that all of us look at the facts and the merits of the case. and i think by and large, that's true. we've had a number of briefings and hearings and meetings that have in widely attended by my colleagues. i can'tthe senate -- speak for the house -- but knowing what we have gone through in the senate, people are taking this very seriously, as they should. this is a big, important agreement and i thought it was important to dude dude -- to do due diligence on it. this will affect not just our relationship with iran, but the entire region. allowing or trying to prohibit a nation like iran from getting a
nuclear weapon is extremely important. it is something that we raced a good chunk of our form policy in the middle east on for quite a while. it will affect the region. we have got to establish a regional security framework in the wake of this accord now, assuming it goes through. those kinds of things are big and important. charlie: do you believe the president could have negotiated that are, and secretary kerry and the secretary of the u.s. team? that they could have negotiated better and perhaps included some of these elements that concern you about iranian conduct in the agreement? sen. flake: yes, i do. had this been a treaty, they obviously would have clarified some of these things that many of us have been raising for a number of months. i actually wrote to the president in february this year expressing concern that congress had not been involved,
particularly in what will happen with sanctions should this agreement go into effect. i do think we could have clarified. with a treaty, you can to what are called reservations, declarations, and where you clarify some of the confusing aspects of a treaty. we didn't have that opportunity here. the encouraged administration to support parallel legislation that would clarify some of these items. they just aren't clear. the administration will say that we do maintain or retain all the tools that we have to deter or punish iran for behavior in the region on the nonnuclear side. but if you read the agreement, that is just not the case. tohink those in things need be clarified. they aren't and i think they will present a big problem going forward. charlie: do you think the president wants this deal too much? sen. flake: well, i don't want to say that.
i know the administration wants an agreement. iwant an agreement area supported the negotiations all along and i wanted to support a good agreement. i wanted to be there. i don't think it is a good thing to have a big, important agreement like this past with a bare plurality of arneson votes -- a partisan votes. i would have liked to be there but i couldn't get over these hurdles. charlie: how do you think it is going to come out in the end? sen. flake: if i had to guess, i would think that the president may lose a few more democrats that have already declared. but in the end will have votes to sustain a veto. charlie: so he will be able to get this agreement that he wants so very much. sen. flake: i believe so. i believe the votes will be there. charlie: what is it you think he doesn't understand? sen. flake: i don't want to put it that way. certainly, these negotiations have been entered into in good
faith. i think we are trying to get an agreement that will both restrict iran's nuclear ambitions, but also you've got to deal with the behavior in the region. the president believes that we can separate those things. i'm not sure that we can. in fact, i think in the agreement, the fact that iran has agreed on the new side to something that it can get out of if we impose sanctions for other the two, it ties nuclear and nonnuclear aspect together in ways that i am not sure is fully appreciated by the administration. charlie: but the president will argue two things here and one, to includenstarter these things as part of an agreement. they simply weren't going to go there. and that the intent of the p5 plus one was only to use sanctions to get an agreement to
prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon. sen. flake: well, i would civilly disagree. i don't want to disparage the president or the administration i uploaded said, their efforts and their willingness to negotiate. i think we should have been doing this on before. we have a stronger hand than we show. i think we could have done some more commitments or at least not bound congress's hands with regard to responding to iran's behavior in the region. i think we could have clarified that and that would have provided more deterrence than is currently there with this agreement. charlie: and also the president would argue it is much better to have or be in competition and be engaged in a conflict with iran that doesn't have a nuclear weapon about these issues, whether it is support for hezbollah or the denunciation of
israel and all of that. to being gauged with an iran that does not have a nuclear weapon than one that does. sen. flake: there is certainly something to be said for that. but i don't think you can take that to the full extent. if iran believes that we are so worried that they will get out of their nuclear obligations, that we won't challenge them on some of the regional behavior, they simply have too much leverage in that regard. i think there is some of that in this agreement. i take the president's point in dealing with an iran without nuclear capability, that is certainly better. but if they can use that as leverage to increase that behavior in the region, then i'm not sure that argument holds. charlie: do you believe there are things the congress can do that, even though the agreement will go into effect, can make a difference? sen. flake: yes.
and i think congress will. that is part of what i was talking to the administration about as late as last friday. i think they congress is going to move ahead. to reauthorize the iran sanctions act which expires next year. simply so, if there is a need for snapback, we have sanctions to snap back to. that has been met with resistance by the administration. that we can deal with that when it comes up, that it would be too provocative to do that now. it makes me and others concerned that the administration would be unwilling to challenge iran's behavior in the region when it comes to it if we are that afraid to challenge their interpretation of the agreement now. and to allow congress to move ahead and reauthorize sanctions without challenging the resident's waiver authority -- -- the president's waiver
authority, nobody is challenging that good but if they violate even on the nuclear side, we want sanctions to snap back to. we think congress will move on some items like that. it might be uncomfortable for the administration and for the iranians who said they would consider that provocative behavior. but it should be done. charlie: many people who support the agreement say i don't think it is a perfectly deal by any means. i don't think i have met anybody who said this is a perfect deal. but they do believe that, in the end, this is a more important element for preventing iran from a nuclear weapon on the table or off the table. having said that, when you look at the dangers of iran getting a nuclear weapon living under the disagreement, is it to the
covert possibility that concerns you the most, of what they might do? sen. flake: no. like i said, i think the nuclear side -- it's not perfect, obviously. thatnspections regime deals with the unknown new sites, it's far from ideal. given our knowledge and what we know about the supply chain and the points at which we can intervene and look at what is going on, frankly on the nuclear side, although there are trade-offs -- like i said, it is not a perfect agreement there, but i was willing to go for that part of the argument. i think frankly that iran has little incentive to cheat big on the nuclear side. haveu look at it, they been a threshold nuclear state for a while and they simply haven't gone there because they have gauged, i think
appropriately, the reaction, whether it is a military response or increased sanctions. i wouldn't expect iran to try to break out. partly because the position they will ian in 10 or 15 years from now, they haven't lost much. in fact, they can conduct quite a bit of research in the meantime. and in some ways, industrialize their program. so i don't think it is in their interest and died don't think they believe it is either to break out. but i am concerned. that is why i ultimately could not support the agreement. the nonnuclear side and the license that it might give them to behave differently there. charlie: and what do you think might restrict their behavior beyond this nuclear deal? what are the elements you would like to see in american foreign-policy to restrict these activities, whether it is
support of hezbollah and using hezbollah as an agent in syria or whatever it might be? what are the tools in american foreign-policy that can change that behavior? sen. flake: obviously, a real that is known and understood and believed. i believe that is a problem right now. i am not sure after the syria issue and the redline there that are threats are believed as much as they should be. ambassador dennis ross wrote a couple of good pieces where he talked about a couple of items that he suggested we could do simply on the deterrence side to ensure iran that any move on the nuclear side to enrich iranian -- enrich uranium for peaceful purposes would be met with a strike, no questions asked.
what would help on the nuclear side. on the nonnuclear side, i think iran needs to understand that it is our understanding as congress -- and we will move ahead to impose sanctions, tough sanctions, even if they are the same type of sanctions are the same sanctions that we have impose on the nuclear side if they break out on the nonnuclear side and increase their support for terrorism in the region. they need to understand that. as i mentioned, that is part of my problem with this agreement. i think they believe that they have neutered our ability to impose sanctions on them, tough sanctions, like financial sanctions on their central bank, should they misbehave on the nonnuclear side. congress needed to make clear that we will come hard, even if it is the same sanctions. charlie: let me turn to cuba.
what do you say to marco rubio about the reestablishment of relationships with cuba? sen. flake: i think this represents the ultimate policy for today and tomorrow and not yesterday. i think this is long overdue. obviously, my concern over the years has been the travel ban more than anything else. as an american, i should be able to travel were awry want. there is a compelling national security reason otherwise. and to restrict americans' ability to travel is just wrong. many see this as a concession to the cuban regime. it is not a concession to allow your own citizens to travel. and it is not a concession to have diplomatic relations. that is an agreement between two countries to speak and work things out with diplomacy. so that is not a concession either. so this was a great move. i think it is good for cubans and certainly good for americans
as well. sen. flake: where do -- charlie: where do you stand on the embargo? sen. flake: i would lift the whole thing. we ought to tell the cuban regime that we are lifting elements of the travel ban, establishing diplomatic relations. unless you clean up on the human rights side, we will lift to the whole embargo. [laughter] i have never seen that as a concession either. [laughter] nothing will guarantee a better behavior on the cuban government side. but we are more likely to get it if we have the medic relations and, too, there is -- we have diplomatic relations, one. is trade.f there there isdo you think fear of lifting the embargo because there would be change in cuba? sen. flake: no doubt. has been used as a scapegoat for the failures of socialism or decades now.
so although they say they want , whenever welifted make moves in that direction, we usually see behavior on the cuban government side that makes us step back and it shouldn't. it should make us move forward more quickly. i applaud the obama administration for moving forward on this. it is the right thing to do. it is already making lives better on the cuban side i'm a particularly when the president lifted restrictions on cuban-american travel in 2009. from 100 visits a year to 400,000 visits a year. money has been invested with family members in cuba. family members in cuba have been able to lead better, richer lives. and the number of people in cuba working outside of the state environment with private
businesses has increased substantially. and that is a good thing. it spells relief for a lot of people. trouble for the government if they want to continue a socialist government going ahead. charlie: with respect to the future of the relationship, or you think, when the castro brothers leave the scene, that you will see democracy in cuba? sen. flake: i don't think it will be immediate. but i do think it will accelerate. on howot of that depends much we open it up and how much and allowe to push activity between cubans and americans to go forward and develop. but i do think it will accelerate. but it is not going to be immediate. charlie: may i just turned to immigration a moment? what is happening in your party with respect to immigration
because of recommendations and the presence of donald trump? sen. flake: we are a year out of serious clinical activity -- political activity. charlie: you can poll new hampshire and iowa. [laughter] sen. flake: we still have a well before they actually vote in those caucuses and primaries. i think by that time, hopefully, some of these statements and these policies, if you want to call them that, from mr. trump will be a faint memory. certainly, it is not a serious policy to talk about building a wall and forcing the mexican government to pay for it or , likeng fees and tariffs he has talked about doing. from insensitive to laughable frankly, some of these policies that have been
advocated by mr. trump. charlie: then why is he leading the polls? sen. flake: when you have 70 candidates, you can still have -- when you have 20%, you have a who haveof those polarity. but that will no longer be the case when the field and arrows and people start really thinking we don't need to just think about a primary but winning a general as well. and nobody can talk seriously about winning a national election when you use rhetoric like mr. trump is using. and i think the broader electorate on the republican side understands that. as we get into next year, it will be a more serious debate. charlie: could you support donald if you was the republican nominee? sen. flake: i will support the republican nominee and i don't think it will be mr. trump. charlie: it is a pleasure to have you on this program. sen. flake: thanks for having me on. charlie: stay with us. ♪
kong. nearly 7% of developing markets russianks are in markets. i am pleased to have justin leverenz at this table for the first time. welcome. justin: thank you very much. charlie: you and i met at a conference and had a chance to talk about the world as you see it. has the definition of emerging markets changed? should all the brick countries bric countries be considered emerging markets? fund is deliberately called a developing markets
fund, not of emerging markets fund. we are talking about 90% of the worlds population being a part of the world. institutionst is which aren't as stable or robust as the developed world, which is largely the united states, europe, japan. charlie: you are talking about -- justin: sociopolitical institutions, rule of law, different levels of political engagement, institutions that foment development. and it's a pretty generous bunch, in many dimensions. some are very well-developed, like eastern europe. there is a big difference between warsaw and bombay in terms of levels of influence -- affluence. there is a difference in the commodity orientation. in the 12 months, we have suffered enormously because of
the drop of oil prices or copper prices. resourcewe have importing countries, places like china, korea, taiwan. so it is a better -- a very heterogeneous bunch. i don't think the emerging markets is the right way of thinking about this world. but you asked also about the brics. a properly, i think they are also considered part of the emerging world. charlie: let me talk specifically about china and what is going on over there and what is with their economy. sen. flake: i just got back from -- justin: i just got back from china late saturday night. as you know, it is a passion of mine. you speak the language. you spent some time over there. justin: i spent a decade in china. i think this is one of the most in therstood your fees
world, now and in the future because of bad communicators. governments are not very good with you medication. but what is really happening -- very good with communication. but what is really happening with china, 20 years ago, it was a desperately poor emerging economy. ,ven at the turn-of-the-century it was a $1 trillion economy. a $20de later, it was trillion economy. i think what is happening is part of the misunderstanding about the economy is that china is going through enormous change. the last decade, 15 years have really been about twin-engine. the first has been integration to the world trading system. china, even when i lived there, was a very small part of the exports. and it becomes the biggest exporter in the world. that engine of growth in the
last three or four years for many reasons has collapsed. charlie: collapsed? justin: in terms of incremental growth. years, we haver had no growth in world exports. this has many non-china related issues. it is still a very big base, but the growth is moderate. charlie: the growth has collapsed. first of all, i don't know what the numbers are and people have convinced me that the numbers -- justin: very large. charlie: yeah. but there is some question about the numbers. first, we knew that for some of those years, was growing at 10%, 10%, andrea then -- then down to 8% and 7%. and now it is 4% or 5%. justin: the last decade has been about trade and real estate. it has been about the enormous,
unprecedented expansion of the property market in china. yet we are still looking at likecal indicators, things rail transportation, cement and steel production, indicators that were part of the big industrialization of china. and those are not going anymore. in fact, there's massive recession in those areas. charlie: is it they are not building? justin: global trade is not in a healthy state your global growth is not in a great state. and we had this massive transportation -- transformation. inwas not like in america 2007 or 2008. it was decades of underinvested housing stock because there was no property market in the 1990's. that is an conceivable for us. what happened was a big transition. the economy is growing in areas that are not those indicators,
service sector, domestic consumption. trillion economy is not going to go back to double-digit growth. but it will grow 6% compound for the next five years and 5% or 6% count found will -- compound will be the was largest growth engine for some time. did the demand from the other economies in the world, they were not necessarily consuming as much in terms of china, a therefore, next morning nation, germany, an expert in nation, and brazil, and exporting nation, found a diminishing market for their goods? foundt that demand, china its economy slowing down? justin: it's no longer reliant on the export market.
it is reliant on the domestic market. the reason the export market has been week is not a phenomenon related to china. it is that post great financial crisis. we have never really recovered. the developed world, is you spent time in europe or japan, it has never really recovered. charlie: and the united states? justin: the united states has recovered but not growing at the same levels we were going precrisis. and i don't suspect we will be growing as an economy at those levels. charlie: cap best 3%? justin: i think that's likely. it is difficult for the united states to escape the rest of the world. charlie: you have some unique experience here. -- china hadwisdom been an expert in country. she's in paying and the chinese leadership understood that they needed to move to a domestic economy, as you have suggested. most people did not think that would be easy and most people
did not think it would be immediate. justin: yes. charlie: you think what? istin: surprising the most there is a master plan that will never be executed well. however, we have a complex adaptive system, like all economies, and things are moving. the economy is transforming, and there is no visible -- invisible hand leading this transformation. china is an economy that is growing at very healthy levels for a large economy. and there are all kinds of investment opportunities related to that. charlie: what kind? justin: service industries, consumer industries. the most important thing for an investor is not the level of growth. it's about the uniqueness and differentiation of the business. it is about the ability to monopolize or really dominate a particular industry and extract strong returns. charlie: and has the chinese government changed in terms of -- two things -- one, its
willingness to have international companies come in and play is significant role -- play a significant role in their economy? , state owned enterprises nonstate owned enterprise? justin: nothing is perfect. that's why we have literature. charlie: that's true. china, if i look at there has been could disappointment in the last few years. this was an administration that came in with the view that they were going to restructure, that they were going to legalize the economy, that they were going to do many things to work a straight china's evolution to being a very prominent nation in the world. i have been incredibly disappointed with the lack of reform of the economy. we do have pockets, for example, lastimby -- the rinimbe
levels of the exchange rate -- charlie: the devaluation. justin: it was a depreciation. you look at the euro, the japanese yen, any currency in the world, we have been an incredibly strong dollar environment in the last 12 months for many reasons. part of it is the strength of the u.s. economy. part of it is the anticipation of rate increases. part of it is discussion in the rest of the world. be has been the strong as currency in the last eight years. charlie: even though the uris for dollar is the reserve currency in the world. justin: right. we had a 2% or 3% move, which
influences almost nothing in terms of the reality of the world. about theheadline was devaluation and there was no devaluation. charlie: is there a real estate bubble in china? : there are pockets of real estate bubble in china. which is clear from his they mismatch in supply and demand in second and third tier cities. a bubble ine shanghai and beijing. we have been in two years of relative property recession in china. inventories have been digested. the most recent indicators are we are back to record highs in terms of volumes and valleys of transactions. the property market is slowly percolating after two years of recession. charlie: you haven't spoken to the spark market -- the stock market. justin: i believe that the stock
market -- in fact, i want to write a public letter about this i was busy to slowly last year. level ofes a certain creativity and a certain level of releasing control. if you think about what the real issues are for china, the real issues are capital formation. they have the capital stock, which is more than appropriate for its level of development. but the productivity of that capital stock. it is about unleashing the enormous creative talent of highly educated and entrepreneurial society. it is about providing pensions because china is aging. it is about redistribute wealth because china's wealth, like much of the world, is extremely concentrated. the stock market is the solution to many of china's problems. ♪
china can become singapore to. that is sort of the model. charlie: alibaba. justin: yes. i spent all last week with the team at alibaba. charlie: what is going on with the company? justin: i think this is going to be the largest internet company the world has ever known. the stock has not done well since the ipo late last year. and i think like many things in china, there is a bit of a misunderstanding. alibaba at present is two massive market places. and its core is also the largest internet finance company in the world. paypal pales in comparison. what alibaba will be in the powerful not just two marketplaces and a finance company. it will be the largest analytics
firm world has ever seen because they are developing the cloud computing, like amazon. they've got data from the marketplaces, the data from all the financial transactions, the use payment processor in the world. and the developing capillaries in terms of investments in other companies, like the competitor to uber. it is going to be an incredibly powerful company with access to data unparalleled on the planet. charlie: you describe china as an entrepreneurial country. justin: yes. charlie: there is a lot of evidence of that. is it also an innovative and creative culture? misnomernother common about china is that it lacks creativity, entrepreneurial dynamics and simply borrows from the rest of the world. and i would say it's a big country.
china and united states are the two countries with extraordinary depth. you see that just in terms of the underlying corporate distribution. this is a country, a care -- this is a country, america, where you have huge corporate companies. china is a very deep economy. in terms of creativity, it's a big country. it still has 500 million peasants. it has some real issues. charlie: is this the tension between urban and rural or deeper than that? justin: there is so many tensions in china, but we have made enormous progress area and those tensions will continue to be alleviated through time, but there will always be tensions in society. andin terms of innovation, the last five or 10 years, the has been a big transformation of china. i think a level of confidence, capital markets that are supportive, and entrepreneurs
who have done a number of things. alibaba is a good demonstration of that. the film industry is a wonderful the mistress of that. the films are remarkably different even just last five years ago. it is an economy that now has a level of ballast, balance, and enormous confidence about the future. and you see that in terms of creativity, entrepreneurial activity, venture capital. charlie: in terms of the leadership of xi jinping, the narrative has been is consolidating power and authority, that he is committed ,o the anticorruption drive that he is committed to doing something about the pollution, and that he is committed to
certain ideas that have more to do with philosophy than either economics or foreign policy. justin: yes. so i think the way -- in my interpretation, in everything, when it relates to politics in china, it is reading heelys that none of us understand. but it is my view that the way xi jinping thinks about the world, like many chinese, that it's a travesty, a civilization of thousands of years of imperialistic uprisings, but one of the largest, most sophisticated economies in populations in the world. unfortunately, in the 19th century, colonialism, china was frail. it was raped. historic were huge, problems for 150 years in and
that china is developing and china is going to take its place. i think that is the motivation. in modern history, the way he things, mao zedong crated the party. that his successors were all about the growth of china's economy and that xi jinping will be about the development of governance in china. china has not been well governed. continues to believe that it will be governance by the party. justin: by a monopoly party. the rentable mandate is to preserve a single party state. charlie: the biggest fear they have is what they consider a threat to that. justin: correct. modi changing, is india in a positive way? justin: i was there when modi was elected. i was there when modi was coronated. there's almost a religious view
whiteodi is shown in robes and jesus christ like, the saver of india and will the problems that the congress party had failed to do. centralizeduch less country than china is. it is an unruly democracy. it is a democracy somewhat ahead of its time. and the underlying things need to happen in order to restart india's economic growth, from the indy rate of growth, are ary difficult to do from constitutional perspective. charlie: and they included for structure. justin: those things are not easy to do. and we haven't seen significant progress. rackley, it has been very disappointing. charlie: under modi?
justin: under modi. charlie: really? therefore, we should lower our expectations of what modi can do? justin: my expectations were never extremely elevated. i understood the restraints, the difficult these, the corruption, the analyses of the congress party rule. but i am also a pragmatist. i realize the world is difficult. many of these things take a lot of time. and as an investor, you have to be all about time charlie:. so let's move to russia. st. petersburg, a wonderful city. justin: one of the great european cities. -- lie: understandably so tell me what you think in your assessment of vladimir putin and his goals for russia before we consider ukraine and sanctions
and all of that. justin: i think most large important countries have a historic narrative. like the chinese heritage that was violated. in the russian context, i suspect probably what motivates putin beyond power and personal interest is related to this narrative of recent russian history, which is the demise of the empire, the soviet empire. and the fact that that was not dealt with very well. charlie: by the russians or by outside forces? by russians and outside forces, the sort of understanding that the west had made thomases and they didn't deliver on those promises. charlie: is that true? justin: is it true? charlie: is it true? what promises did the west macon not deliver?
justin: i think it is important -- what promises did the west make and did not deliver? justin: i think it is important to remember that countries are complex. we discovered that under cuba, under khrushchev. we came into a massive problem. charlie: you mean a new air exchange. justin: right. for russia, crew may and the ukraine is a little bit like cuba. unfathomable for most russians to have the idea that nato will show up on the border of russia. it is provocative. charlie: so my impression is that you and other global investors that i know feel strongly that these sanctions are a bad idea. my question is do you feel that way because you think it
threatens your economic interest in russia? justin: i feel as an american rather than an investor that it is not a great idea. there are two obvious of vocations to the sanctions. the first, if you look at putin 's popularity, almost his whole country is behind him. he has greater polls that he has had in his whole duration as the leader of russia during -- russia? charlie: why do you think that is? justin: most russians have a narrative that is a similar view. americans do as well. the shining light on the help. charlie: you have somebody like donald trump running on the theme of make america great again. justin: yes. and the second application of the sanctions has simply been, as americans, we have to worry about guiding the rise of china.
china is going to be a very important influential competitor in many different dimensions. we don't have to worry about the rise of russia. charlie: but we do have to be concerned about -- i am suggesting this as a question rather than a statement -- that russia may view its alternative as a closer relationship with china. that is not an easy thing to do. this is another location. i see this as an investor. i am an investor in a very entrepreneurial company. i have a long-term investment and it has a lucrative, interesting project that would the russia's first natural gas field.
that is very difficult to finance now because of sanctions imposed upon the company. the funding is coming from beijing. this is a lost opportunity. the french are still involved. charlie: for the western the united states? justin: for the west, subcontractors and the west. charlie: so by imposing sanctions, you could invest. justin: one, there is an investment loss. is adly, i don't think it good idea to put russia in china's hands area it is not necessarily wise. there has always been this triangular relationship with russia and china since the congress of days. of course, henry kissinger did a great job in polling china into the orbit. charlie: as a wedge against russia. justin: precisely. charlie: what is your emerging voices program? justin: i love the developing
world. this. and breathe my whole ecosystem is really the developing world. i invest in extra neri companies and for long periods of time. -- i invest in extra ordinary companies and for long periods of time. platform --ild a most of my friends are artists, painters, directors, novelists -- i want to provide a platform for the other 90% of the people in the world to be able to identify extraordinary voices and talent in the arts. we are elaborating with financial times. we have put up a significant amount of money, the largest award in this particular geography in three territories -- literature my film, visual arts. it rotates across three geographies. be african literature, latin arts, and asian film.
it's a prize. it was originally modeled off the book of prize. i want to make this a significant platform for the discovery of talent in the developing world. the best bookis you have read in the last year? justin: i am reading one by caesar he dolled up -- caesar hidalgo called "why information grows." very interesting one. charlie: i hope you will come back and enjoyed the conversation. justin: thank you. enter the summer. charlie: thank you for joining us. we will see you next time. ♪