tv Firing Line With Margaret Hoover PBS September 13, 2019 11:30pm-12:00am PDT
barrrs and has een brereaking called the most powerful woman in the world, this week on "firing line." >> my parents codn't take me to have a hamburger at the woolworth's lunch counter, but they had me absolutely connced i could be president of the united states if i wanted to be. >> when condoleezza rice greup in the segregated south, she was taught that she could be anything she wanteas long as she did everything twice as well. ♪ her first dream, to be a concert but she would make i the world stage. [ cheers and applause ] >> we cannot be reluctant to lead, and you cannot lead from behind. a trusted adviser to the first present bush and then his so she was at the white house during 9/11 and when thete united swent to war with afghanistan and iraq. >> colin powell leavesig shoes to fill at the state department, but condi rice is the right person tfill them. >> she went on to become the first african-american woman to- be secretaryf state, meeting
with russia's vladimir putin and libya's muammar gaddafi. a decade after leaving washington, what does condoleezza rice say now? >> "firing line with margat hoover" is made possible by... additional funding is provided by... corporate funding is provided by... >>elcome to "firing line," secretary condoleezza ri. >> thank you very much. great to be with you. >> it's a real honor. you had served in two white house national security councils for both bush administrations. >> that's right, yes. at the hoover institution atow stanford university, where you had also served as provost. and the hoover institution is an organization that i'm also now, you have written a new book. it is co-written with philip zelikow, and it is called "to build a better world: choices to end the cold war and create a glommonwealth." why is now the moment to write about the end of the cold war? >> we wanted to do a couple of
things in this book. first ofll, it will have been 30 years next yearince the unification of germany. and the way that the cold war ended is a reminder of two very forward.t principles, going the first is, diplomacy matters. the send point -- and given some of the news of this lastwe or so, sometimes you have to stay the course in order to achieve what you want. the united states waited 45 years, from 1945 and the end of world war ii, unl 1990, when germany could be unified completely and totly on western terms, within nato. we had to wait. and when i look at all of the calls now for "we have to geto out, we haveave," i think to myself, "sometimes it takese time, and ability that america can bring, if we areti t." >> also, what you're referring to, i think, there is, the news this week that president trump had plans to sit down with the
taliban in a peace negotiationd. at camp da >> right. >> which he then called off after the taliban took creditid for a subomb that killed tha an american soldier in kabul. >> right. >> there's sever questions that come from this news. one, what is your view about bringing thealiban to camp david? just for starters. >> right. >> the heralded place where anpeace negotiations and, y, war planning happened. in the wake of/11, you were in camp david, helping to plan the how did it strike you that the taliban would be invited to camp david? >> well, it wouldn't hen my chosen venue. let me put it that way. i don't think the's anything wrong, frankly, with doing the negotiations at camp david because, afterll, we had yasser arafat at camp david at the time that the plo was really a terrist organization. >> after significant concessions >> that's right.d... and the timing would have been kind of bad. the week of 9/11 is not the me to have the taliban at camp david. but the decision to end the negotiations, the president s
right about that because there were some really bad signs abo where these negotiations were going. >> what were the bad signs? yo well, first of all, whe have the taliban unwilling to even acknowledge the legitimately democratically has been our partn morent that than a decade and a half, that's a bad si. >> mm-hmm. >> when they say that they were some kind of puppet government, that's a bad sign. when they reallyeren't able to give any assurances that they were going to keep their territory safe of terrorism, that's a bad sign. and so, it seems to mehat the taliban was beginning to believe we wanted an agreement more thae they did. >> right. and all of the talk, not just in this administration but going back to the obama administration, that we have to get out, we have to end the war, i think had given the taliban ac false sense ofit >> then i'd like to get your sense of why an 18-years war in afghanistan is so politically toxic on both sides. and i'd like to show you a clip,
from the campaign trail, of both esident ump and the democratic candidates urging exactly what y're not advising -- get out now. let's take a look. >> great nations do nowant to fight endless wars. >> to continue to keepops and more troops forever and evep and ever in tht of the world is not -- it is not working. >> i want to bring our troops home from afghanistan. it should've happened long ago. >> will you withdraw all u.s. u servicemembers by the end of your first year in office?>> e will withdraw. >> all right, secretary rice, we have troops in germany a japan 74 years after the end of that war. we he had troops inwe south korea for 66 years, since why, in your view, is it so politically untenable that we still have troops in afghanistan 18 years after we were attacd on 9/11? >> well, that's a very goodha otestion, because we would have gotten a unified germany on our own terms without th
american presence at a time when euro.h stalin was astride and we waited 45 years to unify germany, and our forces arel stere. you mentioned korea. we're still keeping peace on the korean peninsulaand that has prevented war. and if we are premature in our exit from afghanistan, are we going to forget the lessons ofss the week that we're in now, that 9/11 came out of afghanistan? and i worry that, for instance, we hear from intelligence that the islamic -- that isis is sort of regrouping around this area. so, i understand. i understand that people are red. i understand that people say, "when is this gonna end?" but the president should ask, and i think can be done, "what is a minimum presence that we can keethat largely would be a train-and-equip presence, ngat would largely be advi the afghans on how to deal with the taliban, that would largely be a counterterrorism and intelligence presence so that
teonorism doesn't arise agai that soil?" i heard the word "endless war." in effect, you're talking about a different kind of mission for the american forces than the one that we had in october of 2001. >> it has changed over the course of 18 years. >> it's changed over the course of 18 years. these are now stabilization operations to help the afghan army and government maketa afghana safe place. >> so, it brings me to the question of nation-building, right? 'cause this is not something that conservatives had been president trump ha quite clear that he's against nation-building. he doesn't want to be nation-b and you wrote in foreign affairs in 2008 that you had previously been against it, but it's cle that "now we will be involved in nation-building for years to come," is what you said inhat essay. >> i believe that we have to think about it as not just building their nation but securing ours. wh you have ungoverned territory, when you have places the terrorists can train and equip, and arms dealers can run
wild, that is going to be bad for our security. and so, when we talk aboutin nation-bui i don't want to fight them on our territory the way at we did on september 11th, when, from afghanistan, they came here and to down the twin towers an blew a hole in the pentan. i don't want to do that again.w, do think that the american people have kind of two d pulses going on simultaneously, ey're a little bit conflicting. we're tired of the burdens of leadership. we're tired of always having to solve everybody else's problems. but we don't want to see, as ,esident trump himself sa syrian children choking on nerve gas. ewe don't want to see peo beheaded on television by isis. omwe don't want to see carto in afghanistan. we aren't going to want to see women executed again in soccer stadiums by thtaliban or kept from going to school when they're rls. we're not gonna want tsee that again. and so, in a sense, that is the price of america's continued
engagement. is no longer the same war.sense, he you write in the book that you believe thatorld may be drifting towards another great systemic crisis. >> right. >> what systemic crisis do you fear? >> well, the crisis many quarters, a rejection of the very international order thaton george h.w. bush and helmut kohl ftand others helped create the cold war. and remember that this was the extension of ideas from 1945 that we ought to have fr markets, an open international economy that was not bozero-sum-gain, where eve could grow. we believed in free peoples. and now you see what we've called the four horsemen of the apocalypse -- populism, i'll call inativism, not nationalism, because i think, in the american context, nationalism is not a bad thing. >> it's an important diinction. >> but nativism means "we against them."
we're seeing the return of protectionism. we're seeing the return of isolationism. we don't want to be ed in "their" problems. this didn't serve us well thear last timnd. it won't serve us well again. maaret, one of the things that really worries me is that america is not a confident country again these we were confident in 1945 -- we were confident in 1991 -- that we could sustain an order of free markets and free peoples. and i do think that part of th loss of that confidence is that we worry about the fact that the benefits of globalizion have not been equally shared in our society. but it doesn't mean th we turn away from the order that has served us so well. it means that we fix the cracks that are there. >> so, part of the cracks are populism, as you identify. you write in your book that the rise of far-right populistce ryrties in plike hun and poland really began in 1989. >> yes. >> and i wonder if you see a direct flow line between the
emergence of these right-wing, populist movements in europe and the populism that has erged inst n europe and the united states. >> i do. and i think that part of the flow is that, those who wanted to sustain the global order didn't see the cracks coming ini . so let's just talk about the united states. our processes of governing are met to be slow. that's how the founding fathers created them. that's why they created three anches of government and two houses of congress, and separation of powers and federalism with states that have rights. and so, when you try to make policy by instant cial-media gratification -->> y tweet? >> by tweet. if i could have a rule, it would be that nobody in government can tweet -- not just the president but also in the congress.it becausakes time to build consensus. it takes time to listen to youra coes. just think, maaret, if the first thing that came into your mind was what you said, which is
media encourages you to be. it wouldn't be -- there would be no time to actually hear the other side, and i think that what -- and i am a sial-media user. i love it. but i think that what it's done is, it has shortened timeframe in which we try to make policy. and with institutionthat, by their nature, move slowly, that's a problem. he>> well, i mean, this is critique of populism that you write, is that populism actualle ines the sustainability of our institutions.m >> well, popul not, in and of itself, anti-democratic. >> but it is anti-initutional. >> it's anti-institutional. it seeks to go around the stitutions, directly to the people. and i marvel every day at the wisdom of the founding fathers and the american constitution. i just marvel at it every day.th becaus understood the need between the desirehetermediation people and the policies th that's w they created
representative government. and when you constantlgo around those institutions, you do that at your own peril. >> so, one of the institutionsam thatout of the international world order and the post-cold war order and the pre-cold war order was nato. >> yes. that the nato alliance now finds itself ill-adapted for the ryproblems of the 21st cen you also say that... sw, some might read that that you're suggesting that nato is obsolete. >> i'm suggesting, are suggesting, philip and i, that maybe renovation is -- if you have a wonderful historic building, you don't want to tear it down. >> so, how would you renovate nato? >> i think one thing that's be great for nato is thusion of the east europeans, because they've given it new energy. y they actuamember what it means not to be free, and so
they've given new meaning to the mission. i know that nato is trying hard to build cybersecurity capacity. i think nato has tried to reform onssues of terrorism. >> mm-hmm. >> and i think some of the impacts there have beequite good since 9/11. t looking at these new missions and saying, "how are we gonna take on these new missions?" that's what nato has got to spend more time doing. and by the way, president trumpy is right -- 're going to do the old missions, 'cause the you're going to doewoire, and missions, everybody's gonna have to pay their fair share. >> you'ra student of soviet russia, and you also, in your times national security adviser to president bush, witnessed a real transformion in the stature and the posture that vladir putin took on as he reasserted himself. there's concern about whether nato will be strong enough to sustain a test to nato by vladimir putin or russia. do you worry about that? >> well, my concern is not about a direct challenge.
we've always depended on a force presence to remindhe soviet or russian president, "don't go there, because you might kill an american, and that will causen american president to attack." that's why we had a tripwire for all of those years. so, on a direct challenge,'m not as worried. what i'm worried about is that you would fi the russians using these hybrid attacks, where it's a little bit cyber, it's a little clear who the people are, the kinds of things that they've done in ukraine.rr and i more about something along those lines. >>t brings me to another question. and, as you knowthis program was first hosted by helliam f. buckley jr., an hosted it from 1966 to 1999. d in 1987, there was a republican presidential primary s,in which all the candida republican candidates, came topu talk to bill buckley, and your former boss, george h.w. bus was on that stage talking about the inf treaty. >> yes. >> the intermedie range nuclear forces treaty.
withdrew from the inf treaty. has the inf treaty ceased to serve the purposes of this new global order? >> i think t inf treaty served brilliantly for 25 years.es and ent george h.w. bush was right -- we got rid of a clasof nuclear weapons. but it is a different world than it was in 1987. to get out of that treaty for ag long time, margaret. the russian defence minister called and said, "you know, we ought to get outf that inf treaty, because thonly --" this is probably around 2003 or '04. "because the only countries that it is constraining are the united states and russia. doesn't constrain china,t doesn't constrain india." and i said, "you know, we got to get out of this inf treaty." ca so, we didn't e of allied concerns, principally, so they just started undermining it and cheating. i think the time had probably come, and the russians forced our hand, and i completely support what the president did in getting out of the treaty. [ cheers and applaus]
>> you write in your book thatea 1989 was ther thate transformed continent. and one of the tngs you say about your first presidential boss, george h.w. bush, whom you called the "father of german reunification," is that his response in that moment impressed you,hat it wouldn't have occurred to him to be a triumphal. >> right. >> what did you learn from him in thamoment? >> i learned from him sometimes it's better to beke loabout a great event. when those of us who told him he needed to go to berlinorfo kennedy antruman and for reagan, and he said, "what would dance on the wall?" he knew it was a german mome. he was able to step ba, not take cret at that moment. en 45 years of american resolve that had allowed that unification to take place, but he didn't need to say that at that moment. i learned so much from george h.w. bush about grace. i learned so much from him about
diplomatic ski. ani learned a lot about building relationships. and so, he was a mastehose things and one of the reasons that we were able to seehe building of that better world at >> i mean, i can't help but notice how you describe president george h.w and contrast it with some of the rhetoric we see on the international stage now. let's take a look at just a sampling. >> i'm getting a lot of credit for what we' doing foreign. but everybody gives me credit for decimating isis. we just took over 100% liphate. that means the area of land. we did that in a much shorter period of time than it was suppos to be. i gave the prime minister my ideas on how to negotiate it. and i think you would've been successful. she didn't listen to that. and nobody has been tougher with >> yeah.han donald trump. >> what do you make of the contrast? >> well, it's a different time. you know, my grandmother used to saat probably as yours did,
"i" is a word they use fairly rarely. tif you can, it's better k about what "they" did or what "we" did. >> about four months into the trump administration, you said you saw a president who is beginning to feel the weight of the office and that you can't sit behind the roosevelt desk and not member the universal declaration of human rights, you can't look at washington or lincoln and not feel the weight of history, and let's just see how it evolves, referring to the trump administration. how do you feel it's evolved? >> the commitment to human rightsnd to democracy to the principle that nobody should live in tyranny. it not as evident, as stro as i would like to see it. we see flashes oit, for instance, in venezuela, where the administration has stood by the opposition and said that maduro is an illegitimate president of venezuela, and they're absolutely right. there's an impul in the american presidey that i think
is irresistible to try and do i just hope that it comes out more and more, because withoutot it, there is nr country in the world that has been willing toepeak for the voiceless l the united states of america. and they care. people care that somebody is willing to speak for them, whether they're iranian dissidents or the people in the streets of hong kong. it w a little unnerving, actually, to see them with american flags, because you know there's not much we can do. >> should we have spoken more? >> i always believe that you're best off, even if you can't do something, to stand for theo right things, and i'll give you an example. >> by saying them?sa by sending a m? >> to send a message. has to be a meage that's caful. you can't say, "we wilrate you," 'cause we can't. but i will give you an example,g n from the period at we studied in "to build a better world." the soviet union forcibly corporated the baltic states into the soviet union after thet war, world war ii.
we couldn't do anything aboutin it. but for decades, we refused to recognize the forceful t incorporation baltic states in the soviet union. as a matter of ft, margaret, anybody who sat at the nsc desk had a stamp, and whenever you mentioned latvia, lithuania, or estonia, you stamped it -- "the united states of america does not recognize the forcible corporation of the baltic states into the soviet union." and you know what? 45 years later, when the baltic states were free, they re among our best allies -- estonia, latvia, and sthuania -- because they remembered that od for the right things. and so, yes, you have to do it carefully, you can'tthe impression to the people of hong kong at we are gonna come to the rescue. we can't but need to stand for the right things. >> and that words matter. >> words matter.. words matt and sometimes, words can matter ev. to the chinese governme watching and that they need to find a way forward that doesn't
include trying to crush that protest, that's an important message for everybody who wants to say to china, "if you want tm be ar of the international community, don't do that." >> you were not always a republican. which s fun for me to beo reminded of. now there are three challengers to president trump in his primary. >> i'm here to tell you now that i am goiget in. >> you're going to run for president against donald trump in the republican race. >> i am, i am. >> the most recent person to announce that he would challenge president trump isre esentative mark sanford, who is not a "never-trumper" and simply wants to elevate certain issues in the republican primary discussion. an has said it's with humility he'd also like to have a conversation about the tone and tenor of o politics. do you think that would be welcomed? >> it is certain time to have a conversation about the tone and tenor of our politics. i don't know if doing it for a primary is the right way to doim it. american politics is cng
to me, frankly. i'm better at international politics.wi but say this. we're tearing ourselves apart each other nam't stop calling we're tearing ourselves apart because we can't stop weaponizing our idtities against one another. we're tearing ouelves apart because we're ceasing to remember that we actually have a uniting narrative, which is that it doesn't matter where you came from, it matters where you're going. you can come from normal circumstances, you can do great things. now, predent trump -- let's give him credit -- he really recognized that there were people for whom that promise was no longer really alive. and they were willing to vote for somebody whose first job in gornment was gonna be president of the united states. that should tell us something. and so, m all for traditional republican principles, but ipu also understand that we've got work to do to make sure that those principles are reflected in better lives for those
americans who feel that ey've been left out. and so, while we're talking about the reagan revolution, which actually we won, we need to think about what the modern version of that revolution is going to look like. and th time aroundad better include some understanding of how we're gonna educate our people better, how we're gonna get a match between our jobs and our skills, how we're gonna bring people from the most desperate circumstances of opioid addiction, how we're gonna deal with the violence in our country that we're seeing with mass shootings. we've got to have answers to those issues, too. itan't just be about the grand principles. we've got to move on to the modernization of thoseci pres in ways that's gonna work for people. >> for your leadership and foroi giving to those ideas and continuing to be -- to carry that torch, we thank you. thank you for coming to "firing line," condoleezza rice. >> thank you. pleasure.
♪ hello, everyone and welcome to "amanpour & co." here's what's coming up. >> what they want is access to health care, and we just need to be clear what medicare for alle isou all ab >> nobody has yet said how much it's going to cost! >> the review aren after all top democratic candidates appear on the same stage for the first ti. i'll speak with top democrat and republican strategist, and then to chang an institution that you love, the only way to change it is to be in itng and chait. >> the self-described bck, radical, lesbian minisr irene monroe on talking across thewi st of political divides. ld -- [ speaking foreiguage ] >> isis down b