tv Charlie Rose WHUT July 8, 2009 9:00am-10:00am EDT
>> charlie: well cop to the broadcast tonight president obama in russia and what his speeches in cairo and prague say about his policy. >> a series of themes have emerged and the not-so-subtle message is you didn't like the predecessor and i'm not like him. i'm friendlier and more willing to listen and have multilateral instincts and that plays well in some places and not so well in others. >> they reached out to north korea and have been slapped back in particularly by the north koreans and it's surprising to some people in the administration though it shouldn't have been if you look at north korea that's what they do again and again and the we're
going to reach out to you and include you they haven't quite gotten the response. >> charlie: we look at former secretary of state henry kissinger and the events of one year, 1973. >> during the yom kippur war i'm amazed how quickly he realized what he going on new mexico in a way quicker than the pentagon and cia. his belief early on in the wa os coming out on top. >> charlie: and henry kissinger and obama coming up. .
>> captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: we begin with our continued coverage of president obama's visit to russia. the president met russian prime minister vladamir putin and it was the first meeting between the two leaders and then addressed the graduating class in an economic school in moscow and it articulated his broad foreign policy vision.
in earlier this spring in prague he attempted to close the divisions between the west and continues to reset relations between russia and the united states and urged both nations to shed archaic world views. >> there's a 20th century view that united states and russia are destined to be antagonized and a strong russia and america can only assert themselves to one another and there's a 19th century view we're destined to vie for of influence and forces must forge competing blocks to compete. these assumptions in one. in 2009 a great power doesn't demonize others. >> charlie: and he said america
and rush have common interestings. >> that's hard to change habits that have been in grained in our government and tour okay ar burr decades. we share a basis and it's not for me to define russia's national interest and i can tell you about america's and we share a common ground. >> charlie: joining me is michael mantelbaum and marth raddatz. i'm pleased to have both on the broadcast. what does reset mean, michael? >> russian-american relations have been bad for going on 15 years now. the downward spiral started in the 1990s when the united states decided to expand the cold war alliance nato eastward and made
it clear russia would never be allowed to join and this created ill-will in russia that has carried over into the 21st century and in the 21st century mr. putin came to office as a liberal reformer and has taken a dictorial form so russian policy has become more repressive and russia carried out a more anti-american policy and the obama administration i think hopes to stop the downward spiral and though it's to the going possible any time soon to have the kind of cordial relationship with russia we hoped for it's possible to do better than we've done by concrete agreements such as arms control that's what a believe the investigation is trying to do. >> and i think it's a lot about tone. people have criticized president
obama for continuing to use the term, reboot, reset. what does that mean but there is a change in tone and i think it's a really important first step. >> charlie: how much iran part of this conversations? >> irans hovers in the background of everything and the president did mention iran. it mentioned the dangers of nuclear proliferation in his speech at the new economic school in moscow today. i thought it was a very good speech incidentally where he went over the heads of the russian leaders and talked to the society and especially young russians and note all the areas where the united states and russia have common agreement and the rising generation and common interest is the hope for an eventual improvement with relations but in the meantime we have a problem with the nuclear agreement and should be a
problem for russia as well, iran is closer to them to the united states to have nuclear weapons and far for a variety of reasons shay have not joined us in i am posing sanctions and my guess is in private he made a pitch for a greater cooperative effort with russia to stop the weapons program. whether we got satisfaction don't know. >> that's my bet too, they had to talk about iran at one point in these conversations i heard chicag chairman of the chief of staff the window is closing in iran and could have a nuclear weapon in one to two years or someone else striking iran. >> charlie: meaning? >> israel, probably.
that's what he means in terms of a window if that happens soon it's not looking to see when they have a nuclear weapon and when the israelis also decide they're so threatened they have to do something about it. i thought general mullen sounded more concerned than he has in a long time and saying all the options are on the table including military options and has said that in the past but for a while. >> charlie: what do you make of what the vice president said when he was in iraq? >> in terms of iran? >> charlie: in terms of iran and israel. >> well i think the vice president, sometimes the vice president isn't exactly on the same page that's administration in general. but ge generally he sees it's a threat as well and the united states isn't going to stop something like that, israel has
its own safety. >> you think if he said if israel goes ahead he will not try to stop them. >> i think they're concerned about whether israel goes ahead and that's a point that admiral mullen made today if someone else tries to strike it has a huge effect in the region and we would have to pay for that as well in terms of relationships with those coutries. >> charlie: let me move back to russia since the president is there. the issue of georgia and the ukraine in terms of russia's intentions and what is important to russia, michael? >> this is a very tricky issue. as i mentioned, we have expanded our alliance system up to russia's borders. ukraine and georgia are both on russia's borders and both want to join nato. georgia very much wants to join, ukraine is divided and we've taken the decision that no
country that wishes to join should be kept out and that doesn't seem to have applied to russia in the past but that's a different matter. the russians have made clear they take very seriously the prospect of these two coutries nato and they would not be silent and respond in some fashion if georgia and ukraine join nato. we're in a box. we're in a fix. on one hand it becomes dangerous to go ahead with member. and france and germany in particular will veto membership for ukraine and georgia but we can't say categorically they can join because it would under cut everything we said since we started nato so we're in a box and about what the obama administration will hope to do is tell them nothing will happen
immediately and the russians should not hold back their cooperation in arms control and iran but without statesing what the russians want. we're in a tough situation and the administration will try to finesse. >> charlie: with human rights and democracy and those issues on the table in moscow in the conversation with medvedev or putin? >> i'm not sure, charlie, to tell you the truth i don't think they've put human rights on top of any agenda in any meetings in my travels with clinton to china it was definitely not on top of the agenda. they're trying to common ground and the first between president
obama and the russians. i imagine it wasn't on the top of the agenda. it might have been mentioned but i didn't hear it. >> charlie: what is the emerging obama foreign policy with a speech about nuclear nonproliferation and speech in cairo about the western world and speech in moscow about former adversaries finding common ground. do we see emerging and if we so, what are the elements of an obama foreign policy as expressed in these thoughtful speech has it acknowledge american issues and american respect and common needs. michael. >> i think you have stated what we have seen and heard so far. a series of themes and tones and the not so subtle message is you didn't like my predecessor and i'm not like him.
i'll willing to listen and have multilateral instincts and that plays well in some places and not well in others. >> charlie: factor that in with the addition and pakistan and the region you know well. >>al the points you both hit on but when i look at a place like pakistan and afghanistan and there's a regional approach, i'm not sure i've seen what that means yet. in afghanistan we have troops going on and the operation going on and the pakistanis said they've lined troops along the border. i don't know how many troops or what good that has done but i ba. approach is and how it's done. >> i want to add one thing on afghanistan that's the policy has surprised me.
i'm surprised at how the president has embraced the war in afghanistan by upping the ante there and senting 17,000 additional troops and asking congress for more money and getting it. he's made afghanistan obama's war and during the campaign he regarded it as a good war distinct from iraq which is a bad war and this is a difficult situation when you throw in pakistan and i don't believe that this president had to brace afghanistan as firmly has he could have walked away or set a time limit but he has forcefully embraced this policy and war as his own with consequences we cannot predict. >> and it's all his now because he has a new strategy. for example, he talks about --
and i don't know if you noticed as well, about going after al-qaida and that's when the laid out the strategy to go after al-qaida and they're going after the taliban and they're saying they're helping to finance them but not in that area so that's one thing i don't understand but it is all his now. it's his strategy and those are his fresh troops he is sending in there so he is as you said really embraced this war. >> charlie: what is the mindset of the administration of the previous administration and secondly how is it similar to the previous bush, bush xxxxi. > -- bush 41. >> i think that's normal in
american politics and government after all the obama administration inherited the problems with which the bush administration was wrestling and the bush administration was wrestling with problems such as afghanistan and north korea and iran because they're important and difficult. there are no easy solutions because if they were we would have thought of them and applied them so there is more continuity in foreign policy than the administration likes to advertise and that's the nature of foreign policy. the administration has much greater scope to make a break with the previous administration on domestic issues than on foreign policy issues and indeed domestic issues are more important to the country at this point. >> charlie: what do we know from the white house coverage of how this president has been changed by the reality of the world and he thought he might find/expect?
>> i think that's an interesting question and i don't think -- i'll go back to north korea. i think that's one of those things the obama administration has reached out and reached out to anothe north korea and iran slapped back, particularly by the north koreans and that's surprise something some in the administration but shouldn't have been because they've done that again and again and the reaching out to and they haven't gotten the response they wanted so i think that's probably surprised them but i think they've been thoughtful about looking at each of these coutries and moved slowly you can ask for reactions from a lot of things the white house and you won't get it right away. you'll get president who says i want to think about that and answer that thoughtfully.
going back to george bush 43 having covered the last term you saw a change in that president. a change in foreign policy in the last year as he was leaving. he too became far more thoughtful and far more engaged in the process and more nuance in what he was doing in the last term when he handed it over to obama especially. >> i want to quote some things in throw them in the mix in prague the president said the only power to abused a nuclear weapon the united states has a moral responsibility to act and we can lead the endeavor and start it. in cairo he said i consider it as part of my responsibility to the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam and cairo he said we can't impose peace but likewise israelis recognize the need for palestinian state it's time for
us to act on what everyone knows to be true. in cairo, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. progress must be shared. given i am particularly enamored of language, there it is, it seems to be staking out so there can be in mistaking ideas because the president has the opportunity to did that and create a new architecture. michael. >> so some extent every president has a blank slate. a new chance. people look at him for the first time and make judgments on the other hand as we've been discussing policies and problems do carry over from the past and limit any president's range of
flexibility. let me comment on the first quote that you read, charlie and let me say a word in favor of nuclear. he president as a vision of abolishing all nuclear weapons it's an attractive vision but as someone who spent his career writing about them and to one of the conclusions to which i came is not nuclear weapons but other people's nuclear weapons. ours aren't so bad and as the world is constituted now they serve an important purpose and prevent the spread of nuclear proliferation and the spread and others who are gain them have refrained because they can count on nuclear protection from us partly because we have so many nuclear weapons. without american nuclear
protection the japanese may well conclude they couldn't equal and an equal footing with china without getting them of their own and same is true of germany and russia and of course the danger of nuclear weapons coming into the hand of the islamic republic of iran is all the arab countries will feel they need them as well. while the vision of a nuclear-free world is an attractive one it's not a vision that can be or ought to be implemented anytime soon and in the short term the nuclear weapons we have really do serve an important purpose in disablizing the word and a trust the president understands that >> charlie: that's calling on the united states to reduce by a third. isn't that implementing a vision? >> it still leaves us very far from a nuclear-free war and
we're not going to get near to one as long as regimes such as north korea and iran continue to have nuclear weapons and if i could make one other comment on those two regimes, you and martha were discussing what this president has learned i suspect what he has learned and what he will learn is this approach that worked for him in his life and public life and reaching out and being inclusive and listening to people and gathering everybody on the same side, though a wonderful state of mind and a wonderful capacity in many context doesn't always work in foreign policy and it especially doesn't work with regimes that are bound and determined to oppose our interest such as north korea and iran. being inclusive, reaching out, understanding, listening, probably not going to get it done with those regimes. and here i suspect that the
president will find that he needs to draw on another part of his life experience. this is a zero-sum game in some cases. other the iranians are going to get nuclear weapons which is against our interest or not. i suspect the president will find dealing with them is like basketball. one side or another is going to control the paints and the territory. that is a lesson that will come -- that comes to every president but it may well be a difficult lesson for this one. >> charlie: what is it specifically this president can do to stop north korea? >> that's the $64 trillion-dollar-question. >> charlie: in today's world it's billions. >> one is that a balance of
power within the iranian government will shift in such a way that people within the government will come to power or will have influence that don't want to go over the nuclear threshold and believe it will be a bad thing and insist on the right to have the full fuel in richment process but no nuclear weapon. there's a chance of that. if that doesn't work there are serious economic sanctions including inserting the american navy in the persian gulf to prevent shipments of resigned petroleum from reaching iran. iran experts oil but has to import refined gasoline and if the united states should stop that it could shut down the country and that surely give the regime something to think about. the third option and the most extreme is military force.
bombing the nuclear weapons' programs facilities by the united states or israel. that would be the most extreme version of the effort to stop the nuclear weapons program but it may turn out to be the only way to have a chance of stopping it. >> the military strikes is what would that hit and could they really hit what they need to hit. obviously you disrupt any sort of nuclear weapons program but that is what concerns the military more than anything is what can they do beyond disrupting it and if you have just disrupted it and have the reaction in that part of the world as michael points out, that's a very very serious step and clearly one they don't want to take. i -- when i think about north korea and iran and them both wanting nuclear weapons and
continuing nuclear weapons program you have to go back and say why do they want them and in particular north korea. north korea has so many domestic problems. such poverty, people starving to death there. they want this as power. they want this as a bargaining chip and that's what they're doing now. that's the pattern they've been in through many administrations and it's the pattern that the obama administration has got to try to break and i am -- i really am slightly encouraged by what we've seen in the last couple of weeks probably will go away tomorrow and probably launch a long range missle in the coming weeks but there's slight in couragement with the ship turning around and the rhetoric being lowered from the united states side. it could go away tomorrow but it's encouraging. >> charlie: and here's a question i'd like both of you to
answer, what has the global economic crisis done to foreign policy. michael? >> in the short term it has focussed attention away from international and on to domestic issues and away from security and onto economic issues. in the longer term i think the fallout from the economic crisis with the rising cost of paying the bills for entitlements in the united states will have a substantial effect on american foreign policy. it will have a restraining-constraining effect. we'll be poorer, feel poorer and do less in the world. >> and it makes countries think about themselves more than the global reach out. just at the time when president obama wants to reach out to
other coutries it says we're in this together and the coutries are think of of their own economic crisis and what the united states can do and what power the united states has. when you talk about them dealing with china, it's changed the focus of important policy and it is a security problem. i think the economic crisis and you heard dennis blair, the dni director talk about that. >> charlie: he indeed did. >> probably with you. >> charlie: in that case he didn't but he did say that it was a -- i think he said one of the most important elements of the national security equation today. i forgot about this and i forgot. latin america and africa. it is there a policy about those two? we look at what's happening in ho
honduras and when the president went there and president chavez handing him books to read. >> this president obviously has a special connection to africa since his father came from kenya. >> charlie: and many say bush 43 that was his one best moment was his attitude about africa. >> but whatever his sentimental ties the president has to deal with what lands on his desk. he may believe that latin america and africa are more important than they have been treated as being in the past but in politics and government as in other aspects of life, the urgent drives out the important as long as the united states does not face a threat or crisis emanating from africa or latin
america, these two continents will get less attention than the place where's the crisis are brewing. >> charlie: martha. >> i couldn't agree more. they really are on the back burner. president obama talked about africa and you're right about president bush and his administration and the work they did in africa but i think latin america will be on the back burner unless they start shake their fists hardered and honduras does present a problem and it doesn't get much attention probably from the american public the coutries. president obama would like africa to get more attention i don't necessarily think he wants latin america to get more attention. he has enough problems. >> charlie: thank you both. marth raddatz, michael mantelbaum. stay with us.
>> sir alistair horne is here who dedicated himself to the freedom of france and knighted for his work. and his 1997 book and work on the subject has result of the eye war and it came 209 attention of the u.s. military and read by the president. the latest book is an authorized biography of former secretary of state of henry kissinger in 1973. it's called "kissinger, 1973, a crucial year. i'm pleased to have sir alistair horne back at the table. >> thank you so much. >> charlie: it's appropriately dedicated buckley jr. and you said in the memory of w.b. jr. the oldest and dearest of
friends end writing this book. so how did he encourage this book? >> because he's a close friend and colleague of henry's and it was marvelous. he would ring me up once or twice a week and in a cheerful way, "hi, al" and that sort of thing and i think behind the scenes he did a lot of input with henry himself. >> charlie: how do you mean? >> for instance, i look back on it as an extraordinary act of trust that henry asked me to do the book and he's not allowed it see it until it's published and bill helped give dr. kissinger my credentials and say he's all right. >> charlie: he didn't have to, i'm sure he knew who with you were. >> yes. >> charlie: and you spend time
interviewing him. >> many hours. >> charlie: and the idea was you would write a definitive biography. >> i heard he many many archives and i said i can't do this now and my wife said you're crazy, he's the most interesting man in the world. i said could you allow me to do one year and he said what year and i said 1973. to my amazement his face lit up and he said lets do it. >> charlie: why did you choose 1973. >> was one personal and one historic. it was the most important years in history. not only in american history but world history and all the things that happened from yom kippur to
the -- >> charlie: tell us what '73 was crucial. in 1972 president nixon was re-elected and looks like henry kissinger and richard nixon wore going to be able to rewrite the world. >> and things went progressively wrong and what happened was watergate and that bedeviled the whole of the year and ending in nixon's resignation and then the very important factor was the vietnam piece treaty that henry's negotiation with the vietmanese 15, 16 times secretly in paris. the very important fact was the continuation of the new alliance
or opening to china and then of course russia. >> charlie: we have vietnam, watergate over shadowing and initiatives with russia and the year of europe and china and the opening of china and how do you make that new relationship flourish in terms of some kind of mutuality of interesting. what impact does watergate have? >> when i first read kissinger's very copious biographies i thought he protested too much the effect that watergate had on his policies and i read it closer and i thought absolutely not. they were fundamental to wrecking everything or coming
close to wrecking everything. >> charlie: but it game him unparallel power. >> the unfortunate was he was the only person not tarnished by watergate. >> charlie: in '72 he said the problems were such that i was not necessarily prepared for all of them. and didn't have the requisite experience but in '73 i had the requisite experience and the situation had dramatically changed. >> i think he always wanted to be secretary of state and didn't think he'd get it because of nixon's jealousy to run it himself and he was prepared for it but what he was not prepared for was out of the blue came the
most important event of the year, yom kippur, the war. >> charlie: what role did he play and what was his tactic and strategy. >> the whole world was surprised and i recall a conversation at 6:00 in the morning and his aide came and said there was war in the middle east and it was extraordinary and his first call was to the russian ambassador and the russians were caught out and everybody was in fact including the israelis. so kissinger had to act very fast and he showed himself at his best under great pressure. >> charlie: what did he do? >> well, he ended the telephone and one was to make sure the israelis hadn't attacked first and that wasn't easy but he --
and then trying to get contact with the egyptians when there was no official relations. and then later on as the war p o progressed israel had done badly. >> charlie: and they went to defcom 3. >> yes. as i understand there are various levels of defense emergency in the united states. defcon 3 was the highest you can go to in time of peace. >> charlie: maximum to respond. >> and this was the 24th of october the meeting in the white house with the national security
committee with henry in charge and nixon was conspicuously not there and some asked who signed the order and i think it was schlessinger. >> charlie: in capacitated by what? >> he had a very low threshold. i find it difficult to get this out. i had to talk to all the members who were there except for one and henry kissinger's very -- respectful to the president and wouldn't say so but the impression i got from the others answered the question that nixon was incapacitated. >> charlie: and the end of yom kippur was that showed henry's
talents? >> and it came back to def con 3. some think he was over reacting and that the russians were threatening to get involved themselves directly and kissinger thought this is the way of making maximum impact on the russians and course if the russians hadn't reacted badly we may have hay confrontation when the russians and the american troops in the middle east and it was all over in 24 hours and the negotiating started and this is where kissinger showed his forte going to sadat and never being with an arab ruler and then for famous shuttle of di diplomacy h
extraordinary emergency and gradually coming together with a semblance of peace which is really in effect since then to this present day. >> charlie: vietnam. you and kissinger -- you actually cite that the former secretary of state believes vietnam was his biggest challenge and failure >> he's always said to me his biggest regret. it brings back to watergate. i think congress, if i dare say so as a brit, behaved badly in pulling out the carpet from underneath the south vietmanese and intense dislike and disgust of nixon and in june '73 they
passed an embargo on any further u.s. action in vietnam meant in the next year or so the vietnam wouldn't have enough fuel to keep their tanks running. >> i want to talk with the relationships and the dissented of his sense of himself and historical importance. how does he measure it? >> today? >> charlie: yes. >> that's one question i never managed to ask him directly is what is your legacy because as you know he's so incredibly active rushing around between russia and china and now japan in pursuit of what he was doing in '73 which is an attempt to reduce the terrible danger of a nuclear conflagration so in a way his policy and strategy from
'73 on has remained constant which is keeping the balls of the china ball and the russian ball in the air at the same time and -- his relations with putt are quit -- putin is beneficial. >> charlie: i come back to the question, what's the legacy? >> isn't that the legacy. the impact. the legacy is very important given we were in the cold war in '73 and america was not doing very well. the managing to cement the russians is much criticized from both right and left on this but it seems to be that which something that held and really the sense of trust which he
established i think has continued to this day. >> charlie: what's his reaction to the book? >> i've never written about a man or subject who is still alive which is problematic and he is a friend. >> charlie: so did you pull your punches? >> i don't think so. i don't think so. >> charlie: so what part of that was he sensitive to and do you think might have -- >> well, i think that he thinks i'm over critical in certain respects. >> charlie: in what respects? >> the very complicated handling of the abm. >> charlie: that's too complicated. >> to even talk about. >> charlie: what about his personality and attitude and his hubris around all those things? >> i think he accepts that. >> charlie: with a certain amusement.
>> and with great insecurity. i found one of the most extraordinary things is his relationship with nixon given that henry of course is jewish and nixon was very antisemetic and he must have had an appalling time dealing wit deal breshnev and made comments as he walked away. >> charlie: you talked about the fact that you and others argue in this book and elsewhere argue that coming from germany, you know, a jew that came and served as an american army and has been art of his psyche and a
motivating factor in attitude and i can help me with what you think at this stage. >> without standing flippant we were both refugees in different sense so i do understand that sensitivity. i think one thing i learned from the book is how difficult it was to be the first jewish secretary of state. the arabs disrupted him because he was jewish and they didn't think he was doing enough for israel and then he hadnism job and breshnev and the most serious problems was inside the states dealing with people like scoop jackson. and during the yom kippur war saying why aren't you second
more tanks to israel and he lost his cool and said -- to dennis, who was the israeli ambassador, and he said if you don't call off your dogs i'm going out of the supply business meaning i won't have any more weapons to israel. course he couldn't have done that but it was a significant threat with how exhausted he'd become with the comments. >> charlie: there's always this -- he believes this i think, he's given more credit for being a tactician than a strategist. there's always that dichotomy about him. >> and also the question of politics. he could be a superb strategist but tactician, i think that's
slightly under rating him. one thing is in terms of montreal. >> charlie: does the book show him as a strategist or tactician. >> a strategist. he didn't get them all right but for instance, one thing during the yom kippur war in a short time i'm a military historian i'm amazed how quickly he realized what was going on. quicker than the pentagon or cia. his belief early on from the israelis, though they were doing badly, that would come out on top within a matter of days which they did. >> charlie: is he responsible for giving president bush your book? >> that's right. >> charlie: he's responsible for putting that in his hands. >> sold a lot of copies. >> charlie: what's your opinion
of president bush's presidency and foreign policy. >> not very good. >> charlie: is because iraq destroyed credibility. >> i think iraq damaged credibility in europe and this is an open question i don't think dr. kissinger agrees with suppose tony blair at at the time of war said i'm not going in with you, i'm going in with the french. i do wonder if the war would have happened. >> charlie: you're surprised tony blair took that course, aren't you? >> yes, and i couldn't support him. i was in favor of the war because i felt as a natural american i should be in by america. i didn't realize we were being
lied to about our prime minister about thwmd. >> charlie: and you think what should be the consequences for tony blair that he did that? >> i think history will be his punishment. i'm not suggesting he should be sent to the hague. >> charlie: but a much bigger issue. >> yes. >> charlie: and finally the judgment of henry kissinger without legacy, his most influence on history where i in the end be china? >> that was nixon. the opening for china was very much nixon. he was the engineer. i think the -- kissinger's role was with the russians and pushing the door open and established rust. >> charlie: and the idea of datonte. >> and the relationship with
dubrenin. >> that's interesting. >> charlie: the long-time soviet ambassador. >> and they talked together as if they're old school chums like bill buckley and me where the conversations with the british ambassador is frigid. >> charlie: why is that? >> because the relations have not very good. it was not one of his great successes and ted heath didn't like measur america or american was unhelpful to you during the yom kippur war. >> charlie: sir alistair horne a savage war of peace, this kissinger, 1973, the crucial year.
>> charlie: we close this evening taking note of the services from michael jackson, the entertainer who died on june 25th. a public service full of music and mourning was held at the staples center and los angeles and predicted to have nearly 700,000 people expected to descend into the city. more than one million fans entered an on-line lottery to attend the surgery with 11,000 chosen at random to attend and it started with a choir an eulos and barry& gordy said the was te greatest entertainer and many paid tribute to his life, including stevie wonder, and lionel richie and there was to