tv Charlie Rose PBS November 7, 2013 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight we begin with politics, john dickerson looks at the election results. >> most of what happens in washington, even when they try their basic task, which is to pass a budget they can't do that, they shut down the government and it causes the, costs the economy $24 billion so they can't even do the basic job so people have looked for somebody who can do something. and when you listen to what christi said he didn't mention one specific policy item, he mentioned hurricane sandy which is a special case, but he didn't mention about the item, he just said i get things done. and that message, you know, they didn't want to clutter it, that's the message they are trying to get across zero so the thirsty country will hear something they can take away from him. >> rose: we return from u.s. politics to pakastani politics and husain haqqani. >> but i think that during the visit with president obama, mr. sharif attempted to try to create a sort of a new basis for partnership, and the americans
obliged, approved $1.3 billion, et cetera, but is the old pattern and in that old pattern things will not move smoothly, the americans think that just by giving aid they will get pakistan to change. that won't happen. and the pakastanis think they can continue to tap the american treasury without changing, and i don't see that happening either. so what we will see is fits and starts on certain things pakastani leaders will be cooperative and others they won't. >> rose: we conclude this evening with pavel khodorkovsky, the son of the former russian billionaire now in prison. >> my father sees himself as a person who went back to russia out of principle. he knew perfectly well that he would be arrested. he sees himself as a person who went to jail because of his convictions. whether in the long-term it is going to be perceived as one of the dissident, dissident stories is going to be up to seat. >> rose: u.s. politics, pakastani politics and russian politics when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following.
>> captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we stand here tonight showing that it is possible to put doing your job first, to put working together first, to fight for what you believe in yet still stand by your principles and get something done for the people who elected you. >> rose: so we had elections this week in america, who better to interpret what it all means that john dickerson, he has some thoughts on politics. he is the chief political correspondent for slate magazine and political director of cbs news. welcome. >> thanks, charlie. >> rose: let me begin with new jersey. what is the message in that resounding victory for chris christie and what he said in his victory statement. >> right, well the message is
chris christie is running for president if we listen to what he said in the victory statement, what he said the old expression on that bridge, what trenton makes, the world takes well he basically says what trenton takes washington makes, look what we have done in trenton where a republican governor can do, get things done in a state full of democratics and then be reelected .. and use his ratification as a ratification of his whole pitch to republicans he is saying look there is the model for what we should do nationally as a presidential candidate we should have somebody who is effective and bring both sides together but also making a pitch in the general election to voters saying this is what i can do here and i can take it to washington. >> rose: i can bridge the parties?. that's right. i can brink the parties and bridge the parties and get things done we look at the polls where four out of five people don't think politicians are getting anything done. >> even when they try their basic task, passing a budget they can't do that and it costs the government $24 billion by shutting down the government so they can't do the basic job so people have looked for somebody who can do something and when you listen to what christi said he didn't mention one specific policy mention, he mentioned hurricane sandy which is a special case but he didn't mention about the item, he just said i get things done and that message, you know, they didn't want to clutter it, that's the message they are trying to get across so that thirsty country will hear something that they can take away from it. >> rose: nor did he suggest it
was a victory for moderates. >> he clearly said i am a conservative. >> that's right. now -- >> rose: i have to get through the republican pry may. >> a week ago he wouldn't have said that, a week ago he was happy to be smeared with the moderate label, now he is a conservative, but what is he really? well, you know, he is pro-life, he is against same sex marriage, he did cut taxes, he did fight the unions, so he has a list of things he can say this makes me a conservative, now what conservatives will -- they have two critiques one is specifics, he took the medicaid money as a part of the president's healthcare plan but also he has friends in the establishment, certainly in the moneyed establishment and the press likes him all of which makes those diehard conservatives suspicious of him and if you look at the republican party and its history since the 40s they always have been two types the establishment candidate and anti-establishment candidate he is the blipt's man now we have to figure out who plays the second role. >> rose: and the conservatives are not happy about virginia either. >> they are not because what happened in virginia according to the story they are telling themselves is accuse nellie he wasn't a great candidate there was the government shutdown that got in his way a little bit .. which is an interesting story on the one hand you have a conservative candidate and various conservatives who helped the shutdown come to pass so they got crossways with each other but the main complaint about conservatives is that the national republican committees
didn't put the money in at the last minute as the polls were tightening and if they had, perhaps he could have pulled it off in the end, what the mcauliffe democratic pollsters and staffers say look we knew it was going to tighten because of the shape of virginia, but it was going to tighten only so much, and so that money, even if republicans had sent it wouldn't have really changed the shape of the race. we will never know. >> rose: but what he did do cucinelli he campaigned on obama care on the last week and that seemed to have worked for him and might portend unless the administration can build a better case it will be an issue in 2014. is is the great debate coming out of this race because the mcauliffe campaign says we saw nothing in our polling that said obamacare caused any enthusiasm, increase among republicans, they had seen the race tightening a week before and they say this is all natural factors, now republicans say no the minute we turned this into a referendum on obamacare the numbers started slinking, all that is necessary yes, sir is for republicans to believe that and they will .. and run on 2014, the question is you put quite rightly is a year from now is the public going to be engaged in a conversation about obamacare in the same way they are right now? it is a white hot issue, bad for the president, because of healthcare
web site doesn't work and a lot of the program doesn't work. where will we be in a year? will it have worked itself out and people signed up and looking good -- and you got enrolled and have a financial base for it a and all of this these things. >> democrats want to defend their team, wait a minute our president is getting attacked on his healthcare plan we don't like that so in fact support among democrats has gone up and so in the virginia race one of the things that may have happened is democrats thought, no, this is going to be a referendum on obamacare, we want to defend it so we are going to get out there and vote. >> rose: the president's very low approval ratings, dipping a little bit lower which is about where george w. bush was near the end. >> that's right. and he also -- so the gallup daily track a lot of people quibble about gallup's method but dropped to 39 which is that important, below 40 number but also in the wall street journal, latest wall street journal poll the personal approval ratings were upside down for a long time people, their feelings about his job in office have been going down, but they always thought he was a pretty good guy n is a change. when in the wall street journal poll now more people don't like him than do like him and that is
a problem. because that personal likability had kind of been holding him up as much as he had been held up and once that changes that creates a whole new dynamic but how do you get out of it and there are not a lot of options to play in terms of doing things to kind of get himself... >> rose: ... into immigration reform and the things he wants to make a point in. the interesting thing about him to me, i have always been fascinated by him because of the candidate he was is when people look at his problems they tend to ask the question, is there something about him? is he too detached? is he not willing to play the political game? is there a theory to explain barack obama as he approaches the sixth year of his presidential term? >> well, it depends on which catch you are in. there are those who say, he is clearly a political talent in
the campaign environment, but those talents don't transfer into governing, the question is, and for him, you know, there are certain parts of governing he just doesn't like, he doesn't like the schmoozing and what his defenders say he can schmooze all local long he has a republican party that is impervious to schmoozing. >> rose: john boehner played golf with him several days a week and if he couldn't control the tea party he had no deal to make. >> that's exactly right. and in a sense that argument is ratified by the recent shutdown because you had the party themselves saying to their tea party caucus this is madness, you are killing our best issue, the attacks on obamacare by creating a diversionary action over here that the country doesn't like. so if the republicans couldn't
even control their own base how is the president ever going to deal with them? and so there is some support for that. having said that you talked to the chiefs of staff of previous administration, you talk to even some people who have been in this obama administration, and they do, they do cite a gap between his intel elect the and that sort of the force that can just kind of get things done that makes its own weather that happens in leadership where they thought there was no exit and then the person find one and it is kind of a mushy quality of leadership that is hard to put your finger on but often sounds like people are making it up but when you do interviews and talk to people about his leadership style there is that missing piece and people still haven't come up with a way to exactly define it but that is there. >> rose: and you also have from the former secretary of state, hillary clinton, the beginnings of some things that she talked about as she goes around the country, one being common ground. >> yes, common frowned. well it will be interesting to see and chris christie obviously ran on common ground. >> rose: that's right. >> the reason it is so interesting to define what the challenges are for barack obama
is what does that tell us about the person who is going to replace him? what talent, what skills are needed by the next person to fix the problems that the president maybe didn't solve. you know, you can argue with this president that healthcare he sort of rammed it through with his stimulus panel and, package and maybe this notion of a people who can bring people in a room and reason together it just isn't possible in politics. >> rose: certain kinds of people do who do not have an instinct for compromise. >> there is no longer an overlap between conservatives and liberals in the two parties. they are just this far apart. given that is the situation, a person who promises to reason together or as the president did when he ran to kind of listen to both side and come to a common understanding, that just doesn't -- it is unrealistic so what do we think about with hillary clinton and you hear her husband talking about this too and one of the most interesting things is when bill clinton wrote a review on lbj it was like a letter to obama saying, listen, read this book, take the lessons of working together. now a lot of the president's
defenders would say again that was a different world back then. >> rose: different congress. >> but hillary clinton is going to run on a similar message that chris christie is going to run on which i can get it done by knowing how to bring people together and the implicit criticism there is that this president didn't,. >> rose: and that they -- hillary clinton can argue and governor christie can argument, we have had a different kind of experience in terms of management and in terms of execution. >> yeah. that's right. now the question then will be, chris christie will say, okay i have done things as a governor and executed x, y and z ways where does hillary clinton get the execution piece? you can talk about her time as secretary of state, but then that gets complicated because, you know, chris, chris christie can talk about taxes and thing that affect people in their daily lives, hillary clinton has done a lot of extraordinary things but they are a little mushier in the foreign policy context and be interesting if they face-off against each other how they will debate that out and how she will talk about her executive talents in an area that is a little more detached from people. >> rose: hillary clinton said i could be the first woman to be president and governor christie, what will you be? >> john dickerson, thank you, pleasure to have you.
john dickerson from slate and from cbs news. back in a moment. >> rose: husain haqqani is here, the former pakastani ambassador to the united states, tensions are high today between pakistan and urban, is after a drone attack killed a taliban leader, the strike came on the eve of peace talks between the pakastani government and the pakastani taliban, pakistan's interior my minister says the attack murdered the hope and progress for peace in the region. on monday, a ruling pakastani party voted to block nato supply lines november 20th if u.s. drones persist, pakistan prime minister sharif met with president obama in washington last month to talk about operation between the two
an advisor to sharif and with a new book, "magnificent delusions", i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> pleasure being here, charlie. >> rose: there is so much to talk about. let's begin by talking about this drone attack in yemen. how significant was this killing? >> well, massoud was the leader of the pakastani taliban, his group was put on america's high value target list at pakistan's explicit request. >> rose: right. >> he was responsible for killings of hundreds of pakastanis if not thousands, attacks on pakistan's intelligence, attacks on pakistan's army, and also he was partly responsible for the attack on the cia camp across the border in khost, if you remember, where seven cia officials died so in context of the war against terrorism i think the united states was right in taking him out. and there is no evidence that there was an agreement between
pakistan and massoud on talks. he had said yes, we want to have talks but always made it conditional, so as i see it, the reaction by some people in pakistan essentially reflects what i call the pakastani psychosis, people want terrorism to go away, but they don't want to fight it, and the leaders are too weak to take responsibility for fighting the bad guys, and instead trying to shift plame on the united states all the time. >> rose: so are you prepared to say that you think the pakastani government, no matter how much they protest are happy to see the u.s. use drones if, in fact, they wipe out people they think might threaten the state? >> absolutely, i think that pakistan's policy on the drones has always been at two different levels, on the one hand they say
we don't like the drone strikes but the pakastani ministry announced the casualties on drones was only 67, that is the official count. that totally belies the numbers that you read in the press and that are bandied about critics of the drones, that is not to say that america's drone policy is correct, all i am saying is that pakistan's attitude towards drones is definitely political. they want extremists and terrorists to be eliminated but because pakistan makes a distinction between good taliban and bad taliban, taliban that are aligned with its regional objectives and those who are opposed to them, they often make a distinction also in terms of their reaction, the guise fighting the military is good the guys cooperating with pakistan's military objectives in afghanistan, their elimination is bad. >> rose: do you believe that there will be significant negotiations between taliban and the government of pakistan and also the afghan taliban and the government? >> charlie, if you recall, some months ago, i actually wrote an op ed in "the new york times" in which i said don't talk to the taliban and here is my reasoning
for it. look, negotiations take place when people have some common ground. the taliban want and eighth century world and whoever is talking to them is definitely from a different century. they have historically always used negotiations to buy time. they believe that time is on their side. there is a maxim of the taliban, americas have the watches we have the time. americans have the watches and we have the time. >> we have the time. i am not against negotiations, per se but what are the borne educations going to be about? they are going to be about re-installing the taliban into power and giving them a shake in afghanistan and give them a shake in power in pakistan, i don't think the negotiations will go anywhere. the taliban if they step the constitutions of afghanistan and pakistan respectively and want to moderate their stance and become political actors rather than militants and terrorists, then there is some room for negotiations, i don't think we are there yet.
>> rose: you assess the sharif government for me. >> well, look, sharif is a conservative in the pakastani political context, he was a prodigy of general hawk so he has some legacy of that era. he is a pakastani nationalist, that being said he sometimes carry two totally contradictory ideas in his heads, he want peace with india but doesn't want to pull the chain on terrorists in kashmir he want close relation with united states but doesn't want to. >> and he wants the economy to flourish without necessarily changing the outlook in pakistan about islamism and extremism there is an interesting episode when he was last in power and i was by then in opposition to him. i worked with him very early in his career, not later so when he
was prime minister from 1997 onward there was one particular day in which in the morning he had addressed the chamber of commerce and he told them that he wanted the future of pakistan to be more than that of south korea, meaning economically prosperous, in the evening he addressed the religious scholars clerics, they low januaries, i take inspiration from the taliban who were ruling in afghanistan and i remember pointing out -- that there is definitely a huge contradiction between faking inspiration from the taliban who don't even want television sets to be in anybody's home, and at the same em time wanting an economy like that of south korea, which is probably one of the world's largest exporters of television sets,. >> rose: right. >> so this contradiction is mr. sharif's greatest weakness. >> when you look at pakistan today, ma sure raffles is, new sharif is. >> he has been released. >> rose: i read that that's what i was coming to, he is
released is he going to go back to london or stay -- .. >> if i were advising the general which i have never tried to do we are not friends because i don't agree with military rule, i don't think somebody should take overpower in a military coup and the title of my book is "magnificent delusions", general sharif always has delusions of grandeur and just because he took part in a military coup he also must be very popular, and that is why he returned to pakistan. by returning, of course, there are risks because there are all of these criminal charges against him. now i think the best thing for him to do would be to get out of pakistan, because he is definitely not safe there. on the other hand, i don't see a political future for him because all politics is local and mr. musharraf doesn't have a power base at this time. >> rose: who resigned. >> caniannie. >> rose: why did he resign. >> he didn't resign, he just --
>> he just announced he would step down when he retires meaning he would not seek an extension in his stint at army chief he has been army chief for six years, pakistan's rules usually allow '03 year stint as army chief, so he has been there for too long, the pakistan army want to move on, there are the general whose want -- and he wants to do, i think he also wants to get on with his life. in any case, pakistan's problems are less about individuals, it is not about sharif and not about kiani, the country has a dysfunction and that dysfunction comes from not having accepted the fact that pakistan does not need a religion based -- i mean, pakistan can move on investing in the security and prosperity of its people. instead of doing that, since 1947 all pakistan has sought is military assistance from the united states to build up its military capability, acquire nuclear weapons, ostensibly to
have parity with india now people like me would argue that pakistan needs to have a debate about what is our national interests? do we need to put the 62 percent of -- between the age of five and 15 who don't go to school into schools or do we need to make more nuclear weapons? most americans -- >> rose: your argument would be we need to put the girls in school. >> absolutely, and many people in america and around the world with agree with my argument, unfortunately within pakistan the argument is far more con scro luted, you know, it is just like the drone argument. instead of talking about itch drones are a violation of pakastani sovereignty then pakistan should not request specific drone strikes instead there is a intent to confuse public opinion because the military doesn't want to relinquish the privileges it has and allocate more funds for other things at the expense of taking it away from the
military, the leaders do not want to sort of cross paths with the clerics who hold an power so the discourse has been highjacked instead of looking for a pleuralistic state with many religions with equal partnerships in pakistan at this life, pakastanis are prisoners of a contrived historic narrative. >> rose: define where you think the visit after sharif's visit to washington, where is it now? >> i think the visit with president obama, he tried to create sort of a new basis for partnership, and the americans obliged, approved $1.3 billion, in suspense, et cetera but is the old pattern, and in that old pattern things will not move smoothly. the americans think that just by giving aid they will get pakistan to change. that won't happen. and the pakistanis think that they can continue to tap the american treasury without
changing, and i don't see that happening either. so what we will see is fits and starts on certain things pakastani leaders will be cooperative and on others they won't. >> rose: when you look at u.s. secretary of chuck hagel he said the following, u.s. must make a far better effort to see how the world sees us and we must listen more, we must listen more. when you hear the secretary of defense say that in the obama administration, suppose we listen to the government and the people of pakistan, what would they be saying about us? >> well, charlie, the narrative about the united states in pakistan is very contrived, in my book i show that the first time american demonstration was not after the first drone strike, it was in may 1948, the people of pakistan have never been told about america's
support for pakistan they would not know that america has -- >> rose: well, i understand that because the united states, unless they didn't want to tell because they thought it was politically disadvantages you, i mean, you had a whole series of strong leaders who had a good relationship with the united states, i mean a bhutto, musharraf. >> zhia but none could convince the people of pakistan, public opinion is very anti-american. >> rose: you can't convince them it is good to have a good relationship with the united states because the united states is -- >> well the military leaders have actually tried to come to u.s. and say our people are against you so, therefore, you need to support us so that we are the only people who can hold the line in our country. >> rose: right. >> for you. >> rose: that's their message to washington. >> that's their message to washington and therefore they actually miss inform the
pakastani public about the pakastani relationship so going back to what chuck hagel said i think he is right that you need to listen more to other countries but you don't need to listen only to governments. you need to listen and communicate with different branches of, different segments of opinion. within all countries. hook, the reason why america people's views of america is because they don't recognize their own aspirations and own historic point of view. in america, charlie, i said this many times, in america, when you say that history usually means is irrelevant, for other people history is very important so you have all of these officials that go and enter act with officials in other countries, including pakistan and just trying to cut a deal without understanding what is it that the other side wants. >> rose: this question always comes up, how safe are the nuclear weapons.
>> i think the nuclear weapons are by and large safe in the hands of the pakistan military but the question is, is pakistan safe from extremists is like iran the hard-liners ever take over the country then the nuclear weapons -- are in are their control. it sounds it is not like somebody is going to steal the weapons and take them away. >> rose: but more likely steal the government. >> they will steal the government. >> rose: and how strong is -- are those forces as we speak? >> well,. >> rose: to steal the government? >> let me say that they are not as strong as some people think they are, but they are not as weak as others believe. meaning they certainly have mohr influence in pakastani
discourse, just to give you one little episode, the vice chancellor of pakistan's largest university, who is a physics ph.d. he recently wrote a book saying 9/11 was a hoax. >> rose: yes. >> and he also said that the uk and the cues are controlled by a kabal of bankers that puts microchips in their head. now something like that. >> rose: who said this? >> this is head of the university, in pan jab, now if that is a mainstream discourse then the country has bigger problems than many people are willing to concede. >> in terms of the people who launched a raid, not those that were captured and shot, the people who launched the raid in india at the hotel, are they
walking free in pakistan? >> well, some of them are in detention. >> rose: there are other saying -- >> and the guy. >> rose: including the leader. >> yes, the guy who is the leader. >> rose: did you do anything with him although you know he did it? >> he has been taken to court and and the court has said flew is it corruption or -- >> i think it is a judicial decision based on political -- on the political view that somehow the jihad diswill act against india are not necessarily bad. look from 86 you tell kids in school india is an existential enemy of pakistan and to hate jews and hindus when you do that, when you do that there are consequences of that that's why you freed to need to open the society a lot more than just negotiate with some leaders in their country. >> rose: tell me what happens to you, tell me what happened to you. >> well,. >> rose: i mean -- >> the last time i was with you, i was ambassador of pakistan to the united states. and i think i did a decent job of bringing close relations between our two countries, my
whole approach to the relationship was that pakistan and the u.s. have both made mistakes, they both pursued their own delusions and we need to overcome the past and find a new basis. the act stan at this intelligence service and the pakistan at this military certainly did not want a person who wanted to be a bridge between pakistan and the united states as ambassador, they wanted somebody who would just come here and repeat the talking points, everything is good with pakistan, america is the one that injured pakistan, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, i didn't do that. so eventually somebody, possibly at their behest or on his own accused me of sending a message to general jim jones who by the way on your own program said he didn't receive it from me, he received it from this businessman, it was his language, and they made it into a big deal, they never charged me legally. >> rose: but they were accusing you of having the u.s. military use their influence with the pakastani military. >> to avoid a coup. >> rose: exactly. >> yes. and very frankly, if i had done that, that would not be treason because the coup and keeping the constitution on track is not a wrong thing, but i just didn't do it. so they never tried me. they just simply created a mirage of a judicial, sort of process in the form of a petition made to the supreme
court, told me not to leave the country, i felt very unsafe for about two and a half months, holed up in the presidency and the prime minister's house, and eventually i was allowed to leave and i left and i came to the united states because i don't feel like meeting martyrdom at an early date. >> rose: are you save here then? >> i think so. i hope i am safe. to the extent that anybody is safe anywhere. but the fact remains that being accused of treason in a country where there is a wave of hypernationalism where there is jihadi extremism and where people are killed because of their disagreement with the established view of the extremist and the taliban, you remember the governor of panjab was killed by his own guard, bhutto was assassinated and in a situation like that, i don't think somebody like me who doesn't have the same influence or the same resources .. for personal protection is a lot less. >> is pakistan a state on the verge of failure? >> >> so-called failed state which
>> people say that a lot, and as a pakastani, i don't want to -- i don't want to believe it, but, look, state is defined by certain benchmarks, certain metrics, and pat stack does come there, and so as a pakastani i would like pakistan to reform and change rather than fail. the problem is, we just have a very stubborn elite that does not want to change. we do not want to face inwards and realize that we have a lot of problems at home. we do not want to work with those problems. economically we are doing much worse than most other countries. in 1947, when pakistan and india separated, what india had 18 percent literacy, today pakistan has 16 percent literacy, two percent. >> now it is pakistan's hovers at 65 percent, it is a 20 percent difference. >> do you believe the united states should give military aid to the pakistan. >> i think the united states
should not give military aid to pakistan if it is simply going to fuel an arms race between india and pakistan. i think the united states should help pakistan, turns the corner in terms of understanding its position in the world instead of feeding delusions in pakistan. >> rose: do you believe that the isi is protecting in north waziristan the haqqani family. >> i don't think they are actually, they actually have to protect them, because the haqqani network has its own influence and power, i think what they are doing is they are not doing anything to take them out or to weaken -- >> rose: do you think they could if they wanted to, the pakastani military? >> absolutely and they should, they should for the sake of pakistan because look even if pakistan wants influence in pakistan, in afghanistan, they have be friend -- >> rose: so general wanted to take out the haqqani network on the border of afghanistan, he could have? >> he certainly could have. >> and why didn't he do it? >> well, i think that they always have thought that some of
these groups, afghan groups would be useful for pakistan to influence, expand influence in pakistan. >> rose: because they believed the indians were trying to expand their influence. >> again, everything is about competing with india, the truth is, pakistan would be better off by having good relations with afghanistan and india, and focusing on building a viable economy, educating its own people, worry about internal security and prosperity. stop trying to define your nationhood just by competing with india, or trying to influence afghanistan. >> rose: what is going to happen to afghanistan after the what do you think? >> well, afghanistan will certainly need assistance in making sure there is not a civil war in afghanistan, the taliban don't come back. i think that the americans have to be very careful to make sure that they leave behind a stable government in afghanistan. >> rose: do you know where they think the leader of the taliban
is? >> they think that, and they need to act on it. >> rose: would you doubt that is where he is. >> no, i don't doubt it at all. >> rose: that is exactly dab. >> i don't doubt it all at all. >> rose: in pakistan. >> afghanistan is a landlocked country. i am a pakastani and i represent pakistan at the highest levels at the same time it worries me many of the afghan extremists and taliban have been found in pakistan. >> rose: why is that? >> and it worries me even osama bin laden was found. >> rose: and why is that? >> because pakistan has never made the clear choice. it needs to make a decision that all terrorists are bad, we need to make a decision that islamist extremism is bad for our country and our leaders have not made the decision, especially the military one. >> rose: with respect to osama bin laden i mean the military got all upset and one u.s. official after another, i don't believe or have evidence the top leader in pakistan knew he was there. >> i have no reason to know why pakistan military should have protected osama bin laden and i don't think they did.
i think what happened was that the people that they have been protecting for years, people like assid, people like mullah omar of the taliban, haqqani network they have become sufficiently powerful and strong and have influence within the power structure to hide a man like osama bin laden and that is a worry. >> in plain sight. >> absolutely. and the fact is if anybody saw him, they didn't report it. it is because, look, look at public opinion in pakistan. >> rose: a doctor who tried to help by using that vaccination deal is in prison now. >> absolutely. and that, again, reflects what i call the psychosis, that instead of saying you know what? he didn't do -- i mean, having a fake vaccination drive is a crime. >> rose: in order to go to the house and see what is there. >> that is wrong but at the same time he doesn't need to be punished as a rate for or a spy because look he wasn't spying on pakistan.
he was not spying on a person who has been declared an enemy of pakistan and the united states. it is this dichotomy nature of pakistan's attitude toward the world and towards islamic extremism that has put pakistan in jeopardy and that needs to be resolved. >> there is a man in pakistan who is sort of the father of your nuclear program. he never allowed the united states to interview him. >> absolutely, and they should have. here is the point. if he had pakistan acquire nuclear weapons many countries protect scientists who have
helped them acquire nuclear techtology but then if he sold it to third countries. >> rose: like china. >> he wasn't serving pakistan and sold it to north korea and to libya and to iran. >> rose: right. >> and i can't ga difficult sort of was the, gadhafi was the who, was the one who snismd on him and told the americans he is the one who sold me this because he couldn't put it together. but my point is, that this is what bothered me, there is a dysfunction in my country, and i want my country to reform, and that reform will come only when people confront people like chan and assid and say you are not our her roads, our hero who is a young girl who just stood up at age 11 and said to the taliban. >> rose: i want my school. >> i want my school who are you to stop me from studying? and that is where we will change, when people say, "bue" bhutto who is our hero who covered her head out of respect for pakastani religion but said religion should not be the basis of our politics. and that is necessary. look.
individuals can be biased, communities can be religious, but a state trying to be religious will either be biased, nor will it provide for a stable environment. >> rose: what do you think of assessment of the leadership in the region leadership and the national security decisions by president obama? >> i think president karzai does not have a very positive view of the obama administration i think the indians have concerns as the that obama is more focused on changing things within the united states than he is about international issues. >> rose: well, you have a government shutting down you have to. >> yes. and i think that in pakistan, some people think maybe this was an opportunity for us to go back to old ways of, you know, the kind of relationship we have had in the past in which we offer a little bit of cooperation in exchange for aid without changing anything fundamentally. >> rose: the book is called
"magnificent delusions". pakistan, the united states and an epic history of misunderstanding, husain haqqani, thank you. >> pleasure being here, charlie. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. >> you -- >> ten years have passed since mikhail khodorkovsky the head of the defungts energy a giant was imprisoned for fraud and tax >> ten years have passed since mikhail khodorkovsky the head of the defungts energy a giant was imprisoned for fraud and tax evasion he was convicted for the second time in 2010 on new charges of embezzlement and money laundering, there is concern his arrest and prosecution were politically motivated, "the new york times" recently called him the leading symbol of putin's callous indifference to the rule of law. joining me now is his son at he has emerged as his father's spokesperson and funded nonprofit called institute of modern russia which seeks to promote civil society in the country. i am pleased to have him here at
this table. welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> rose: so many people who don't understand this case, and let's tell it as succinctly as possible, your father was famous as a leading businessman in russia, had billions of dollars, a huge company, had been one of the most successful old --s, why is he in prison in siberia? >> .. my father has been arrested and has. >> ten years ago. >> ten years ago and had remained in prison for all of this time. >> is it siberia? >> he has been at a prison colony and imprisoned in siberia. now he is actually held in a penal colony in corelia very close to the finish border.
>> right. there is. >> there is only one reason, the overarching reason is that he the has opposed the political system. my father has decided after being a very successful businessman that it was time to actually do something for the country and primarily for the country's civil society. >> rose: now, was he warned that if you continue you will be arrested, your company will be taken from you and -- or will be driven into bankruptcy? and you will be siberia? did he make that specific warning to him which would highlight his courage? because he continued to go forward? >> he actually received not one but two warnings before his own arrest, because one of the companies employees was arrested first and then his -- my father's business partner and actually very close friend was arrested next. in july of 2003. >> rose: right. >> so in was a direct warning
for my father to stay out of the country. >> rose: so he knew if he continued or if even if he came back to the country he would be in trouble. >> yes. because the last time actually we saw each other was in the united states back in september of 2003. object a month before da. >> rose: how often do you speak him on the phone. >> he gets an opportunity to call etch, call every weekend on a saturday he gets 15 minutes but our family is spread out so he splits the time. last time i spoke to him was two weeks ago. >> rose: and what is he telling you? >> rose: today. >> well he is not telling me much he is actually asking more about our news. >> rose: you tell him. >> i tell him about our day to day life. he wants to hear mostly about
that. we, of course, speak or i try to find out what the conditions are like, what he is thinking about and what he wants to do. >> rose: does he hold the key to getting out of prison? >> no. and unfortunately he knows that has been the case for a while. the only person that holds the key to his release is russia's president. >> rose: okay. so let's assume that is true, obviously it is true but the question is, by the expression he hold it is key meaning could he say something, do something that would cause putin to order his release? >> no. i don't think that is -- >> rose: too late for that? >> too late for that. you know, no deal has been offered to my father to say something or do something to get out of prison. the closest that has come is
when there were speculations about presidential pardon. >> rose: right. >> putin responded by saying that my father needs to first admit guilt. >> rose: so if he admit guilt he might have gotten a pardon. >> but that was not an option for my father. he has gone back to fight the battle in court and to protect himself and the company. >> rose: does he see himself as a kind of sack i don't have. >> other people do. >> rose: does he. >> sakharoff. >> he sees himself as a person who went back to russia out of principle. he knew perfect he well that he would be arrested. he sees himself as a person who went to jail because of his convictions. whether in the long-term it is going to be perceived as one of the dissident stories, that is going to be up to society. >> there was a famous meeting in 2003 when putin met with some of the oligarch his father was there and kept pushing the
charge of i guess corruption. >> that's true at that. >> rose: how significant was that? >> this was one of the major triggers. there were many people in the government that really wanted to nationalize oil and gas i have, this was an overarching the economic goal but the decision to start against ugas and imprison my father was in part triggered dwi the fact that my father brother up the issue of corruption in the public forum. was there ever an informal agreement between vladimir putin and the old guilty or not guilty. >> oligarch. >> was there ever an informal agreement that putin said you can keep your money but stay out of politics. >> this deal was certainly offered. this deal remained in place for a while. mr. putin explicitly said that there is going to be no revision of the privatization history if the businessmen stay out of politics but after a while my father felt that it would be impossible to continue complying with this decision because there was no political, powerful
political opposition in the country so that's why he started financing the opposition parties, but to be fair, he financed all of the opposition parties. >> rose: he financed all of them? >> he financed all of the opposition parties, and he actually provided funding for the presidential party as well. so when this deal was quote unquote broken it was because of my father's belief that the country needed a political system that balanced the powers. >> rose: take a look at this. this is friday night with mikhail prakav. >> just i am creating a really big budget. >> but if i tell you about the plight which you know well of khodorkovsky, does that scare you? >> no, because we have a lot of
changes in russia. like he was sent to prison ten years ago, and now we have a lot of new people, new ideas, very strong middle class in the big cities, so now you have a base. people that are willing to be in europe, to walk in the open democratic countries, so now we have a political base. ten years ago, we don't have. >> rose: what do you think of that? >> i think mr. prahof is very accurate in his assertion of society. it is true ten years ago we didn't have or at least we didn't have the number of people that we have today, and that
represents the so-called middle class, people who had exposure to democracy. >> rose: how do you explain the fact that vladimir putin is very popular in russia. >> he represents what the russian people have continuously been looking for, not in the past decade but probably in the past couple of centuries. >> rose: strong leadership. >> strong leadership, patriarch who has a vision and is carrying it out no matter what cost. the problem is, in russia today, this vision is mis-aligned with what the country truly needs and while a lot of people still support putin personally, the approval ratings of his party and of his government are actually plummeting. the number of people that are promoting democracy, this emerging middle class that mr. prharov mentioned in his interview was only recently empowered, economically empowered, and they certainly want these reforms. what is important to know is
that the people that are supporting putin now are realizing that even though they like the man, they don't like the system anymore. >> rose: so tell me about you. you are, you were 18 when your father went to prison. >> i got a call from my mom saying that it happened, i certainly knew that it could. i -- however, was still shocked. i was actually rushing to complete college. >> rose: right, right. >> in three years, guy i got a lot zero credits. >> rose: you plan planned to work for user father. >> , no not at all, actually. we had this discussion before i left for the u.s., actually before i was even choosing the college to go to. he said that there is going to be no inheritance based succession in ukus. >> well, he was very much in favor of the western style of corporate governance. >> rose: right. >> and he told me flat out that there was a list of top managers
at ukus, if anything were to happen to him would succeed him but he told in me if i wanted to, i could acquire good education, prove myself a worthy profession. >> rose: and then make a difference? what does he think is going to happen to him? >> my father after the second trial, after the verdict was handed down at the end of 2010, basically decided that he is no longer going to think about his release. >> rose: ah. so he... >> he decided that -- the second trial was an even bigger charade compared to the first one. i mean, everything was -- there was not even a semblance of due process. so my father understood that if in jail forever they can.
they very well might do so. >> rose: has there been any strong movement by any government to get him out? has the united states done anything to try to say please release mr. khodorkovsky? because we believe it violates, you know, human rights and everything else? >> the united states has certainly made a number of statements. >> rose: yes. >> but. >> rose: but are they trying to use their influence, mr. putin, although there is some question of how much influence they have when you look at the edward snowden case. >> no, unfortunately theriúrpz not been enough done by the united states government to get my father out of prison. i mean there have been multiple
opportunities over the past ten years to demand my father's release. >> rose: i have had people say to me, he will die in prison or else he will be killed in prison. one or the other. >> that is primarily one of the main reasons -- why i do this, i speak about my father and why i tell his story. and some sense of talking to professionals can make a real difference for you because of the velocity of change is remarkable. they could just say no. just as well they could say yes.
through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. dr. joel fuhrman is a board-certified physician whose groundbreaking work has been acclaimed as a medical breakthrough for weight loss, disease reversal and prevention. the american diet today has 62% of calories from processed foods.