tv Charlie Rose PBS July 30, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight tom donilon former national security advisor to president obama talks about ukraine and about what vladimir putin. >> this is very popular for him in polls. internationally exceedingly difficult for him. in addition to that you have a situation where the ukrainian insurgents are facing military defeat in eastern ukraine and that's what putin is reacting to i think. >> rose: we conclude with variance cause varekova, patrick bergin and marcus asner what's happening in africa. >> definitely it was a hunting
for trophy. but in china, the story behind owning an ivory, it's a symbol of wealth. this is mythology ingrained in their culture but yes education, yes, everything that could be but going against 2000 years of history. >> rose: crises in ukraine and the future of elephants in africa when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on
so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: president obama faces convergence of conflict around the globe. he wrote last week rarely has a president been with a crises all at once. in gaza the death toll continues to raise on immediate cease-fire. yump european leaders have
agreed to levee tougher sanctions against moscow. obama addressed the situation earlier today. >> in other words, today russia is once again isolating itself from the international community setting back decades of genuine progress. and it doesn't have to come to this. it didn't have to come to this. it does not have to be this way. this is a choice that russia and president putin in particular has made. there continues to be a better choice, the choice of deescalation, the choice of joining the world in a diplomatic solution to this situation. a choice in which russia recognizes that it can be a good neighbor and trading partner with ukraine even as ukraine is also developing ties with europe and other parts of the world. >> rose: meanwhile advances made by the islamic state of iraq and syria continue to threaten regional and global
security, explain the current crises on president obama's lack of leadership in some cases. joining me now is tom donilon. he served as the president's national security advisor from 2010 to 2013. he is now the council on foreign relations. he wrote an article for foreign policy arguing against the profits of american decline. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: i don't want to talk so much about the providence of american decline because we essentially we face crises and you know the players and how the president thinks about these things. first ukraine, the significance of these new sanctions and seemingly the united states and europe on the same page. >> i think they are significant. what they reflect of course is president putin doubling down with respect to his activities in eastern ukraine. >> rose: doubling down means. >> doubling down means increasing his support for the insurgents against the
government of ukraine. >> rose: in what way. >> in a myriad of ways. it's actually a lot. the operation that putin initially had under way, and it goes to his wanting to bring ukraine back in the spirit of russian influence. it goes to them trying to get leverage in the situation. he had been running essentially in eastern ukraine a covert operation of sorts, deniability. so you have agents and military folks in there. a lot of military support, arms, heavy weapons, intelligence support, special intelligence agents actually participate in eastern ukraine. >> rose: on the ground with separatists. >> i think they are intelligence agents on the ground with the separatists and we have a lot of evidence the so-called separatists come back to russia to get instructions and we have very clear evidence right now charlie, that the russian government has been supporting in all the ways they outlined, the insurgents against ukraine. indeed this insurgency this i
violence escalating not deschaight, this violence in ukraine is something that the putin government has supported. now you had the terrible shoot down of the malaysian aircraft with 300 people.ocome forward ie reconciliatory way to double down and increase the support of the ukraine separatists including material and other support. what's happened of course is that now to where we have evidence put out by the administration where the russians are actually operating directly against youth cranian army through artillery coming from inside russia. so you move from a covert operation to a much more overt separation, increased escalation anden correct military action. >> rose: across boards. >> awe borders from russia.
why is that. putin has got himself in a track here. domestically this is popular for him, 85-86% approved in polls. internationally exceedingly difficult for him. in addition to that you have a situation where the ukrainian insurgents are actually facing military defeat in eastern ukraine and that's what putin's reacting to i think. she's got this trap he set for himself, this big propaganda efforts to support the insurgents. can't be seen as backing down. >> rose: inside russia. >> inside russia. >> rose: if he backs down would be detriment. >> absolutely right. and inside ukraine you have the ukrainian government pushing hard in a movement against the insurgents and they're faced with military deat the time and that's what the russians are reacting to. >> rose: what were the options and what might they exercise. >> the option they've taken is
increase their support and escalate. >> rose: how far will they go. >> i don't know how far they'll go. that's the big question here. if it at some point could putin actually pull back and try to make a more determined evident to engage in a political negotiation, i don't know at this point. it hadn't been in the direction which he's going and which resulted of course is now you have the europeans and the united states acting together in terms of pressure via sanctions something by the way putin had been able to avoid. i'm only going so far in terms of support and then pulling back and keeping the united states separate. what happened is shoot down of the malaysian aircraft was the escalation and director action of the europeans and united states together. >> rose: is the sustainable by the europeans in terms of the netherlands and germany. >> yes. i think this effort has been led by germany which is the most important economy in europe.
merkel the most important leader in this circumstance because germany has the biggest economic relationship with russia. i do think it's the same. i think chancellor merkel has made it clear to her business community and population that putin has had a number of opportunities here to engage in a political settlement. president of ukraine offered a political settle process that russia rejected and after that, by the way, that's what was the precipitating society events for the current offensive by the ukrainian army. >> rose: what do you think would be a red line for the west? >> well, clearly a red line for the west would be an invasion. >> rose: participation of russian troops across the border. so therefore if that was a red line, what would be the response of the west? >> well, i think sanctions -- >> rose: much more or something else. >> much more intensive
sanctions. we're in a place right now with respect to sanctions i don't think most people thought we would have been a month ago and putin's conduct. >> rose: after the shooting of the plane. >> the shooting of the plane and the choice that putin made to escalate not de-escalate, to continue military action not engage in political set of the political process. >> rose: what do you think their involvement might have been in the shooting down of the plane. >> well the first point is i think all the evidence a mountain of evidence points to the fact that the plane was shot down from separatist territory by the separatists. 9 the only issue is the degree -- >> rose: what is the degree of the complicity. >> at this point we have to say at a minimum they provided the training for these insurgents with respect to this sophisticated ground to air missile system that shout down the plane. >> rose: provided the missile system as well as the training perhaps, perhaps intelligence officers operated themselves or something like that. >> that's the question. it's only a matter of degree.
what we know is they provided the system. the system was in ukraine territory when it shot down the malaysian airline. someone had to train these guys how to run the system. they were in all likelihood trained by the russians. i think that's the view of the west and then the only issue as he said charlie were they there, were they directly involved in the shoot down. and of course there's been a big effort to cover up which we've seen, the system would likely move back across the border into russia and we throw a lot of obviously horrible activity. >> rose: do you believe the putin we're seeing now is different from the putin you met as the advisor of the president and going to moscow and seeing putin on behalf of the president. >> yes a couple things. number one, the general attitude i don't think has changed, which is that russia was going to define its foreign policy
essentially in contra distinction to the foreign policy. the distinctive role they were going to pursue and the propaganda at home number one. number two, i think that all along the concept here of balance of power, spheres of influence, zero sum outcome is at the core of how they see the world and these all>n came together in ukraine. >> rose: did that give him the opportunity and have to flee to moscow. did that give putin the opportunitiers now exercising. >> i don't know if he saw it as an opportunity i think he probably saw it as a crises that fe had -->> otherwise lose fac. >> otherwise loose the spirit of influence which is over ukraine. and remember, putin had a vision here of establishing something he called the eurasian union which was going to be a
counterpart or counter weight to the union union. it was impossible without ukraine. indeed charlie there's a lot of people in russia those close to putin have never regarded ukraine as an independent nation. and you can look at the, if you look at the debates about ukraine being an independent state, russia has always exercised a lot of influence and it will continue to have influence in ukraine. >> rose: that's okay with them. >> i think it is if it's a normal base. >> rose: they've had influence in ukraine so there's a natural connection to part of ukraine with russia. that's in fact the american goal, is it not, that ukraine be free but that the fact that ukraine is between the west and russia and that therefore they are competing interests there and not necessarily a zero sum. >> but an independent nation, able to make choices, right. and to be able to have roots in
the quest and they sign the free trade agreement with the european union but to obviously continue to have roots in russia. there are historical ties between ukraine and russia and there are important economic ties between ukraine and russia which will continue. but what can't continue obviously here is this effort by putin, and i'll say putin as opposed to russia and i'll tell you why in second by putin to destabilize ukraine in a constant way and i think the proposition of pursuing this charlie that a destabilized ukraine that's failing that has all kinds of territorial issues is far superior than a stable secure ukraine that's oriented to the west. and that's essentially what he's trying to avoid here. >> rose: general dempsey, martin dempsey says at a security forum you've got a russian government that's made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another soften nation to achieve its
objective. they clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in european europe but in the main. they clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in eastern europe but europe in the main and towards the united states. that's the chairman to the joint chiefs. >> i think that's right. for almost two decades, russia pursued and we pursued in the west a path towards political and secure integration. we had dialogues of nato, formal structures of nato and indeed putin was the advisor who pursued this as post soviet russian policy which is integration into the west in terms of security and political issues. putin rejects that. i think that general dempsey's correct. putin i think has rejected this political security integration, doesn't seem interested in it. >> rose: a conscious decision
to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objective. clearly on a path to assert themselves differently. >> yes. i think that both those statements are absolutely true. and really can't be denied. i mean, the russian federation has asserted it sell militarily inside another sovereign country. ukraine has seen crimea go-russi said earlier with a russian covert military operation. and crimea left. >> rose: and he got away with it. >> well, it's not accepted but they did undertake the operation in ukraine to separate crimea and in eastern ukraine as i said earlier, they're trying to run essentially an operation to destabilize the country and keep it from moving to the west. covert means though are complicated. and they are dangerous. and what happened here to putin
is that when you use proxy forces, you lose some control and you can have things happen like happened with the malaysian airline. >> rose: that's exactly what the president said he cited that as the reason he looked to provide more support for rebels in theory because something like this could go wrong. >> it's a dangerous game. it's a very dangerous game and it's something that has to be done quite carefully and putin did this in a wreckless face. >> rose: in an interesting way tom and you were there and this is looking at one of the decisions that the president made even though the chemical weapons are out of syria people look at that and say that's the point where he this lost some faith in the administration. >> well, moving russia to syria. >> rose: before i leave to russian i want to make the following point. pressure amounts on russia in wake of $50 billion ruling by the russian, the kremlin came under against pressure under the
tribunal ordered to pay to former holders as the eu and u.s. prepared to wrap up sanctions over moscow's role in the ukraine crises. >> that's another example here where the west and really international community and russia moving further apart. this will be seen inside russia as another''example of western institutions acting unfairly against russia. heading authorize a very cold period not a cold war in the sense we had for half century but a cold period and it's a dangerous period frankly and one we're going to spend some time working through the concepts and work through how we deal with russia going forward. >> rose: one of the reasons it's dangerous to have at that time kind of cold period is there are many places where it would be very positive if russia and the united states were working together. >> absolutely, charlie. i mean -- >> rose: syria is one, iran is another. >> i have direct conversations with president putin into this. the conseptember a that we as a
administration pursued coming in is that instructive or productive relationships among great powers would provide a good platform from which to address global issues and pursue our interest as well. that's true and that's why we pursued our, reengagement and regenerating alliance with europe and our interaction with the chinese and the reset with russia. a number of thing got done frankly with russia during that period, including a new arms control treaty including their support for our efforts in afghanistan, including their support for our efforts versus iran. putin is the game changer here. eats taking this country in a very different direction and he could be president for a long time. frankly maybe another 10 years. and this is a real challenge to the west. >> rose: what could turn, what accident could happen to turn it from a cold war to a hot war? >> well, any number of things. there's a lot of incentive for
that not to happen obviously and that's not where we are today. but he could make a decision to invade ukraine and you could have then, we've had now forth first time -- >> rose: what happened if he invaded ukraine. >> as i said, it would bedz a pretty ferocious reaction by the united states. >> rose: noirs would be met with force. >> i didn't say we would -- nobody's talking about that but in terms of isolation and in terms of additional sanctions which by the way russia is exceedingly vulnerable to and next stage of sanctions called secttorial sansions but the bigger picture globally is what you're talking about. >> rose: in what way. >> in terms of dynamics in world you were describing a cold
period between the west and the united states on one side and russia on the other side would have a lot of effect with our ability to deal with issues around the world. >> rose: are they trying to take advantage of our relationship with russia becoming colder trying to make a normal relationship with russia. >> the chinese will pursue their interest. >> rose: what their interest is to get closer to russia. >> well their biggest market is the united states and the most important relationship for china is clearly the united states. the market relationship for example with china and russia tails in comparison to the market relationship between china and the united states. they have a relationship with russia and you see them acting in concert. >> rose: and the security council. >> yes. you saw during the middle of the ukraine yawn crises putin go to russia and sign a natural gas deal trying to show that he has other options. but the chinese will pursue.
russia obviously will think about this carefully. russia will look for other options when they see europe becoming more independent in terms of itsqy energy more diversified they will continue to turn to the chinese for markets for their energy resources. and to try to continue to pursue a deepened strategic relationship. it's important for us to continue our deep engagement with the chinese. >> rose: let me just stay with the idea of russia. there's syria and iran. tell me what you think is happening in syria today. >> syria you had 48 hour period probably the bloodiest period, maybe 7 to 800 people killed. >> rose: give or take 200that have been killed in a matter of a week that's been killed in gaza. >> that's right. you have a continuing
exceedingly violent civil war in syria where isis the most radical group has made gains. both as against the other oppositionist groups. >> rose: in syria. >> in syria and has made gains and turned hard against the assad government as well. this is what i worry about with respect to isis and i'll call it the syria-iraq theatre right now because i think it's important to think about it that way because the border really has been obliterated between iraq and syria which is a lot a lot of the maliki government, i don't think that could have happened without exceedingly high degree of alienation by sunnis and western rack. >> rose: tolerating isis because the maliki government gave them no option to participate in the government. >> that's exactly how they see it. i think tolerating is a very
good word and ultimately isis will have great difficulty because of who they are and no one wants to live in a territory run by isis. what i worry about the most, and it was underscored this past week by comments that matt olson made whomg is the director of or national counter intelligence operation, excuse me counter terrorism operation. matt was very thoughtful insightful fellow said at a conference in aspen something that's very important is this. the numbers of foreign fighters now in that theatre, syria and iraq or isis is centered, the numbers are around 12,000 right now. these are much bigger numbers that are coming into iraq at the height of the iraq war. there may be as many as a thousand europeans and maybe as many as a hundred americans. qualified a hundred americans there could be more. why should that concern us? these foreign fighters by definition are not from the
syria and iraq they're from around the world. coming from europe, united states, north africa and around the world. this is a very serious security concern for the united states if someone whose gone to this theatre, has fought jihad, gained radicalized ideologically, has gained fighting skills and become riley radical comes back to europe. as you know in europe among 26 countries in the region why you don't have any border controls they can move all 26 european countries in most of those countries i think 20 out of 28 has decent waivers with respect to the united states. this is a very big intelligence problem. >> rose: what do we do. >> a couple things. i think we have to look to put pressure on them where they are now and that we're trying to get the iraqi government together to put pressure on isis and in iraq, to support the moderates
in moderate groups, opposition groups in syria. to work very closely with the europeans frankly on monitoring these people who are coming in and out of this theater. a very serious problem becausegr of the large numbers. >> rose: let me talk a moment about iraq and maliki. maliki as you said was tolerant, was intolerant with the sunnis and the sunnis became tolerant of isis. since traveling in the middle east that's changing, in fact clearly the saudi arabia is sending messages to those sunnis in iraq, you know, that this is not the way to go to somehow being deciding with isis and i get a sense also that the sunni forces that have been supporting some of the rebels who are more islamists that they're begin is to rethink that and look for other people to support against the thought because they have not lost site of wanting to overthrow. >> yes. two or three things.
number one, it's not just that maliki was not tolerant of sunnis, maliki's government migrated to autocratic sectarian. he diminished the armed forces by politicizing it. he used brutal means against peaceful sunnis and he pushed the sunnis out of the government essentially to the point where we were sussing, to the point where these sunni groups who had defeated al-qaeda and iraq which is the predecessor group of isis defeated them militarily with the help of the united states and others, right, welcome them back in in order to take down maliki. i don't think you'll see them break frankly in their efforts inzd ua western iraq if maliki - >> rose: maliki is looking for somebody else. >> his own party actually made a statement saying people shouldn't cling to office that's the first point is that maliki has really been the source of this but i don't think you'll see a lot of coming together in a multisectarian government in iraq. i don't think you'll see the
pressure, the sunni pressure come off him militarily through isis until he goes away. >>úz rose: before i turn -- >> in saudi, it's important. there really is a couple coalitions building here now and you see very interesting with respect to isis they have their own internal problems but saudi arabia, turkey, any number of countries, right, iran, are all anti-isis. >> rose: so what, they stop isis or they simply keep them from advancing forward actually stop them rather than make serious advances and inroads into what they have already done by controlling the borders between syria and iran. >> at some point the saudis have a lot of influence with the sunnis and iraq getting to the next stage is turning against
isis. >> rose: most people say no is a good idea but is it possible it will lead united states and iran into some better kind of relationship and interesting. >> first thing's first would be my response to that. the first thing has to happen. and it should be really full focus right now type focus to get this nuclear deal. >> rose: do you think it can be done. >> it can be done. >> rose: is it going to be done. >> i think it's impossible to tell right now because it's going to be up to the supreme leader and the iranian government comes down. we had the most important negotiations and interactions between the united states and iran since 1979 and these negotiations took place over a six month period over the nuclear deal. the basis on which those negotiations took place was a foundation which froze the nuclear program. which was good. now they've extended these negotiations for four months
because the two sides by the way in the onei(:qstates the europee russians and the chinese. and the iranians could not close, why couldn't they close.s enrichment capability will be left in iran at the end of the deal. and the iranians have a much much too big set of goals here when in fact they can only be very small. >> rose: they have a problem with how long the restrictions would last. >> yes. those are the two sticking points. what's the size of any enrichment facility and the israelis would not have any enrichment capability left and how long will restrictions stay in iran and we're very far apart. it will require iran to come quite a ways for a deal to be made. >> rose: let me turn to israeli hamas. john kerry was first in cairo and then in paris.
he's basically trying to get a cease-fire first and then he wants a negotiation about some of the questions that's been raised on the part of this quote siege that hamas would like to make a part of the negotiations. what's your way out of this? >> well, the israelis obviously has a very difficult security situation, very tough in that the history here obviously is that you had a israeli candidates who were kidnapped and killed. you had a revenge killing against the palestinians and hamas who was facing really the central crises of its own, it had really been diminished, it has lost its iranian sponsorship. >> rose: egyptian. >> egyptian sponsorship. because of that -- >> rose: syrians were a angry. >> that's exactly right. so they were really quite alone and the economy was sufferingymx
oxqpuáq the egyptians shutdown - >> rose: so then they first go to unity and try to create unity. >> that's failed for a lot of different reasons. so they were faced with a security situation where hamas who for these reasons of kind of relevance trying to show they can get achievement and get back on the map undertake a series of rocket attacks against real. >> rose: they kill a lot of their own people. >> and of course now we have had although the israelis certainly knew this was under way they now have seen a much more extensive tunnel operation which would allow the hamas to conduct operations deep in israel. and it's a whole other threat that has to be dealt with and i think the israelis and they should be are determined to deal with this threat and part of the operation. >> rose: one of the arguments is we're happy to talk about a
cease-fire but a cease-fire is not going to stop the effort to close down the tunnels. >> yes, i think that's right. i think let's a legitimate security concern that the israelis have for sure. hamas of course, there's some context here because sometimes when we talk about this, we talk about this as if israel and hamas were two government entities involved with some dispute right here, involved in a border dispute of some sort and that's not the case. it's important to add some context here, hamas is a terror organization, hamas has violently took over gaza in 2007 and through the palestinian authority out, ran them out. they have consistently and constantly attacked through terrorism and other kinds of attacks. they have rejected cease-fire after cease-fire including a rejection a couple weeks ago that the israelis agreed to.
and their core tactic, the corev tactic is to attack israel and gender a response and to put in place their military infrastructure in places where the context of the military response by israel civilians are going to get killed. and then they blame israelis for the killing of civilians all for these political reasons. you met with the head of hamas recently. the level of callousness and recklessness and cynicism it's kind of an attribute these kind of extreme organizations and that's what israel having to deal with here. >> rose: what do you think israel should do. >> a couple things. one, they have to secure, they have to deal with their security issues. >> rose: that's a huge wide open thing dealing with security issues one may be to destroy all of the capacity of hamas used to make and to fire miss.
>> i think what they're focused on is degrading hamas' capability with respect to rockets and dealing with the tunnel problem. from the articulated goal of the israeli government not to destroy the hamas regem in gaza although some people in the israel government are arguing for that. instead of military goals which i think are capable by the israeli government then we should move to a cease-fire and then i think i hope in the context of the egyptian professionals sit down and work through a demilitarization role and in conjunction with them the gaza strip. what i would do is i would have these fouror five goals. address security issue, reach a situation of calm, based on the egyptian professional, work with the egyptians to come up with a set of proposals going forward
here, involve the palestinian authority and the egyptians proposed i think it's a good idea to have them controlling the border passages. and for us to work with this group, egypt and jordan and saudi arabia and emirates and the palestinian authority to move forward enhancing and supporting the palestinian authority here is a really important piece of it charlie if we're going to have any sort -- >> rose: the palestinian authority had an opportunity to try to come with the israelis through the offices of the secretary of state kerry. >> yes. >> rose: palestinian authority had that opportunity. >> yes. >> rose: it had nothing&to do with hamas. >> yes. and it would have been obviously -- we see how important they were. >> rose: it failed. >> it) did fail. but the, in the current, you're asking me what i would do and those would be my goals.
>> rose: you would simply deal with the palestinian authority. >> i would deal with the palestinian authority expeen -- and enhance the support and i would deal directly with the egyptians obviously. you got a lot of these countries who want to participate in this, the qataris and the turks. the egyptians can actually do something about this. the egyptions actually have some control over what comes in and what comes out of gaza. the egyptians can actually do something about the economic situation in gaza and they can do something about the security situation in gaza. one of the rules in these deals is you should deal with the people, right, who can actually do something about these situations. the egyptians i think here actually can make a positive contribution and can do something about it. i also by the way would look as an opportunity for the united states to build a better relation with these. >> rose: going back to mubarak, a negative view of
hamas. >> they view hamas has an adjunct of the brotherhood and currently el-sissi and the new president is with the -- >> rose: and they are weighing the muslim brotherhood in their eyes. >> i think more than their eyes they are an adjunct to the muslim brotherhood. they're certainly viewed that way by the egyptian government. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> can i say one more thing about iran. which is, the united states does need to be prepared to take action in the event that iran moves toward getting a nuclear weapon if negotiations break down. i will point out one thing charlie is that the united states has 35,000 military forces in the persian gulf and president obama worked for a society years working on issues wñ2! but we worked for a society years and i was deep -- for a society years and i was deeply involved to do what needs to be
done. now everybody homes that isn't -- >> rose: those forces are in place. >> those forces are in lace and the united states has the ability and resources to do what it says it's going to do in the region. >> rose: and it could probably communicate the intent to the iranians. >> that's part of it. >> rose: thank you. >> good to see you. >> rose: tom donilon former national security advisor for president obama. back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: elephant ivory's been a desired commodity for decades. in recent years demand has sky radiculopathyated. in 2013, more than 20,000 elephants were brutally killed for their tusks. last year president obama issued an executive order to try to stop illegal trade and wildlife artifacts in the u.s. including the black market ivory that fuels elephant poaching. the african wildlife foundation has been a leader to preserve the elephant population. patrick bergin is the coe and veronica character is the
ambassador to the foundation and marcus asner is an attorney and serves on the president's advisory counsel on wildlife trafficking. i'm pleased to have all of them here. welcome. this is an important conversation. tell me about the mag -- mag ay sense of the el futsz. >> they represent africa, they are the great landscape we all imagine in our mind, the rolling grass lands and then theirbehavs treat their young, the way they live in a complex society. i just think for so many of us elephants are really what of can you is all about. >> rose: yet they're not alone in terms of wildlife in of can you that's in deep trouble. >> that's correct. i mean the thing about africa's wildlife is it'snw so magnificet and so diverse. they're the great cats, the lions and leopard and ape. >> rose: all under attack. >> it's plummet and very
alarming. four of the five great apes in the world are in africa. there are or rang tans not in africa and there are gorilla and chimpanzees. they are being logged and also great ape been being captured are for the 3ed trade and are under threat. africa's in a very interesting time where it's if you going economic modernization. what we hope is that it does not lose its wildlife in the course of that change. >> rose: what's happening to the elephants? >> what's happening to the elephants is that during the 80's, as you probably know there was a huge poaching crises. they were had from 1.2 million to 600,000. trade and ivory was banned and we threw on the brakes and poaching stopped. for 10-15 years everything was quiet and what happened is poaching started again. >> rose: demand's gone up.
>> demand's gone up and there are now trade routes between africa and asia. their daily flight through thailand through hong kong. honk con has 33 million tons of seesed ivory, sing more, malaysia, other countries. ivory command west africa through ports in togo and nigeria. african elephants are once again very much are threat. the forced elephant is estimated to be 60%, more than 60% losses in the last five years. >> rose: are we near a tipping point new. >> i mean, i think the scenario from cameroon, the entire population in cameroon of elephants just disappeared. and one month is it, it8n was sh a brutal -- >> this is a an example of the terrorist groups the state department and president obama and secretary clinton believe are involved in the so-called horse gangs went into northern
cameroon in one case and wiped out a population 450 elephants. a complete decimation. they see the elephant as sort of cash to be harvested. >> it is. the prices have in 2010 you would get $750 for kilo of ivory and now it's $2,500 or something like that. so there's a lot of cash. >> rose: is the biggest demand coming from china. >> i think it is coming from china. >> started out as an emerging middle class. >> exactly emerging middle class and that's where the demand is it's seen as a status item. i think the united states has import and demand center and also really sets a lot of the framework for the rest of the world. the world follows the united states. for better or for worse but i think for here hopefully it's for better because the united states is a leader in this area. we've taken a lot of steps both legally and on the enforcement side that the rest of the world
thinks we follow in which hopefully -- >> rose: what are those steps.ñthing we've done is realy focused on enforcement, really no other country does wildlife enforcement like the united states does wildlife enforcement. our laws are really at the forefront, i think they can be strengthened in some ways but for example the united states is really at the forefront and is very ground breaking and the rest of the world very much wants to follow it or at least people who are focused on these sort of things. >> rose: what is ttreaty. >> i think patrick is probably deeper into that than i am -- >> convention of international trade and international species, it is the global international treaty of trade between nations on species, plants, animals and marine life and so forth. it's very important and very central to this discussion. i'm always reminding people
remember this is about legal trade. criminal gangs aren't bothered by international treaties. they are thugs, they're criminals, we have to understand that. but they were in bangkok a little more than a year ago and this is where for example species can be put on various appendices and the elephants were for a long time in appendix one which meant no trade basically. and the concern is that where sales have been allowed by cytase on a one off basis that those fail allow for the laundering of ivory and other products because there's confusion in the market places legal off or illegal ivory. >> rose: does your country want to destroy all the ivory so there's no market and no trade and therefore no demand. >> there's a lot of symbolism in doing so and i was very happy for patrick to attend the ivory convention but i don't think
that's feasible. this is a government-obsessed product. and there's such a value in it, tanzania has so far refused -- worth $50 million. it's a very difficult decision to be made and it's doubling up the economy. it's much different to crush ivory here in this country and sort of start the fashion of it for someone like china or france or other countries that possess ivory. but for countries the value is huge there. it's apó wildlife trade per yeai think it generates around $19 billion per year. >> rose: $19 billion a year. >> there's a range of figures we see. if you look at wildlife strictly speaking sort of anywhere only speaking the estimates are $27 billion a year. if you look the largey
environmental crime including fisheries and logging sort of add a zero to those numbers. 70 billion to 230 billion. >> rose: what are you going to do to stop. >> let me add to what veronica said. she's quite right it is a perflexing decision but i am in favor countries destroying their ivory stock piles. i think that a method was unfortunately sent to the marketplace that there's a future here. there's a future in ivory and people are investing in it. we want to send now the complete opposite message there's no future in ivory you're in this business get out of this business and so the few things marcus said the united states has done first destroy its stock piles and other countries have done so including several african countries to promote a domestic ban on sales within the country. >> rose: this is going to drive up the scarcity and drive up the demand and drive up the price. >> i don't think it will. an analogy i use a lot it's about the car market. some people say if you had a legal market you could regulate.
again these are thugs, they want to steal something that doesn't long to them. there are lots of way to buy a legal car. that doesn't stop some people from going to steal a car. >> rose: illegal gangs are driving the market. >> yes absolutely. that's the big difference in the poaching crises we have now compared to 20 years ago involving scrimmals. >> these a distinction to be made between sort of your authentic antiques consider very old stuff your brand mother may have had and that's a very complicated issue we've been wrestling a lot with the advisory council how to deal with that and there's a real authentic important part made out of ivory that's very old. the society÷o has changed with respect to modern ivory and we're in a real crises point. and you asked a moment ago about what we can do about it and to me i was a federal prosecutor for a long time and to me it boils down very much to risk and reward. and the bad guys don't kill elephants because they hate
elephants, they kill elephants because they equate to money and the key is you want to increase the risk and dampen the demand, increase the risk by enhancing the penalties making it more likely they get caught and helping law enforcement by furthering the interests of victim countries by making sure the victim countries get restitution for the crime. >> rose: is there some room for public education here
>> rose: where were you before this? >> i grew up in illinois joined the peace corps and went to africa and fell in love with africa. i've been there more than 25 years so i spent sometime in the u.s. and sometimes working out of nairobi. >> rose: does that sound like something that happened to you. >> kind of. >> rose: you fell in love with africa. >> i go there every two or three months. >> rose: and you? >> i was a prosecutor here in manhattan for nine years and then joined about five years ago. >> rose: because of that firm in washington or new york. >> i'm in new york, yes. >> rose: and then the
president's committee. >> yes, i joined the president's advisory council last summer because of work i had done as a prosecutor and then since then. >> rose: it seems to be so obvious. you look at this kind of issue and think about the risk of losing the population and all the others that we talk about and it is such a crime to do it. >> just owning ivory is dumb. it's just a dumb thing. the chinese would not get it. >> rose: if you could get the chinese on board -- >> if you think about it, we're' just exactly one year now. >> rose: give up your ivory and buy a ferrari. >> or buy art, by chinese porcelain. we're one year out from president obama's executive order. during that time i think marcus is right the u.s. has shown a lot of leadership, united nations have, the british government and the royal princess hosted that meeting. now the center of gravity needs to move east. we need leadership on this issue
from china itself and from the chinese. >> i think you can change chinese culture. i understand it's difference but china has heavy bribery yes in the what is year you see what happened in china they've made inroads into that. >> rose: they took a news anchor off tv. >> for corruption. >> exactly. they've really focused on it recently and i think you can change cultures. it's hard. >> it's in the youth and the young, in the youth, in the chinese youth. i think those kids need to go in a safari in africa and come back and say dad you are silly. >> i'm traveling to asia more and the guy leading the think tank because of the shark finish because of the bear gall bladder
issue, because of the tiger issue, the next generation in china is becoming literate, on environmental issues and endangered species issue so there's some context now for this discussion. >> rose: the most important idea i've heard here beyond the fact of the danger to these magnificent creatures is somehow being able to galvanize some influence on china. >> i was for the recent world economic forum africa meeting and the chinese premier was there and he game an interesting speech about his vision linking all of africa and avsystem linkt then he mentioned wildlife trade by name and he ventured environmental protection is one of four themes on which there should be china africa lab race. i think african leaders need to stand up and say to china this is a priority for us. we want you to help us solve this problem. you don't want to lose the panda we don't want to lose our elephants. >> rose: thank you great to see you. >> thanks very much. >> thank you,.
the pipeline. those sensors send data via satellite every five seconds. we have a back-up satellite and we have back-up land line. so we have to make sure those signals are always going back to the control center. if there is a pressure drop, the sensors pick that up and automatically shut down the pipeline. >> reporter: jones says there's nothing special about the oil either. >> the oil we move is a natural product. the oil that comes out of the sands has to match the specification of this natural product. the same oil that the industry has been moving for decades,