Transcript: I don’t believe there ever was such a thing as the clash of civilizations, there was a term that caught on. Many people used it because they were afraid it might happen, in a way it was negatively aspirational [phonetic] in the sense of this is what we want to avoid but was there ever genuinely any monolithic civilizations to be clashing, no they weren’t civilizations have always been far too broad to be defined in that way and to be so exclusive as the term lead people to believe. So I don’t really think there is a clash of civilizations.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: Well, yeah. I think that global economy can still be made for work for America. We are still one of the top sapiens of foreign direct investment in the world. This whole discussion of sovereign wealth funds that money doesn’t need to go only into Wall Street to bail our private banks and their misdeeds and wrong decisions and poor judgments. They can also be channeled into broader infrastructural investments in America that build up, our capacity to create jobs. To boost our high-tech productivity and so forth the ways that make America’s long-term global economic presence renewed for the 21st century which happens again only in certain pockets, we brag about silicon valley, we have very low broad band internet penetration rate around the country far lower than an Europe for example, so we do need a serious infrastructural over hall, and without a deficit right now obviously we need foreign capital to do that for us, so if we were able to redirect some of that creatively, it’s a failure imagination really on our part. We still stand the chance of making America competitive. Well it is interesting perfect example of how to reconcile is Latin America. We face competition from Asian producers that are far cheaper and more efficient then we are, but we have Latin America which is very inefficient but yet very close to us. If we were to invest in Latin America for productivity and join exports with Latin firms or American owned firms in Latin America we could potentially be or become as a region or a hemispheric kind of area, more competitive with Asia and profit more from it but we don’t do that but we did do in the 1960s, it was called the alliance of progress and it worked and it built the infrastructural base in Brazil, Argentina and else where. So to do things like that again would really serve American interests but we haven't been as broad in our investments as we need to be in those countries in order to keep them a flow and find ways to partner and leverage what they can export to the world in order to profit ourselves.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Question: Is the American empire in decline?

Transcript: Is it in relative decline in terms of it’s influence overseas and it’s share of the world’s relevant power, yes we are in relative decline. We have been since world war II, when we are at really sitting on top of the world, so its very hard to deny that that is the case and that everyday as Chinese power grows, European power grows, Russia, India you name it Brazil our power therefore experiences a little bit more of a relative decline each time, so yes we are in relative decline.

Question: How can the U.S. maintain its global influence?

Transcript: Well America because America said so to speak on the other side of the world, we have a very small percentage of our population that is overseas, that is less than a 1% of the American citizen lives outside the United States. That percentage is actually quite a bit higher for Europe and other countries like China have gigantic Diasporas globally or send it on the pacific room which are over 50 million people India’s Diasporas 25 million people, as far fewer Americans overseas, it would be helpful to maintain our certain American influence. If there where loyal Americans placed in prominent positions all over the world and there are but its very small and narrow. There are four one does need to educate foreign populations and in view them with a certain sense of American-ness or American values. We still do that of course there are still of huge numbers of Chinese, Indian and even European students and business people who come here for work and for training, education and then they go back and they bring certain skills with them and a certain appreciation for what they have learned in America and American values and American model. We do have to continue to do that, even if we do that doesn’t mean that people won’t start to redirect their attention towards Europe and towards China. The fact is that education is a lot cheaper in Europe because its subsidized by the state and that China is increasingly a fascinating place and important place for people to be, in order to learn one of the key business languages in the 21st century which is of course Chinese. So we are going to be losing bright students to other countries but there if we do so or if we lose them because of suspicious or policies of suspension that are not based in individual case by case kind of approach but rather on more or less racist then we stand very little chance of gaining back to across the those population.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: I don’t know about right now versus and previous in eras or in the direction that it’s heading but there are certainly protectionist rhetoric and protectionist tendency is that are emerging and in many ways that it is self serving, there is a lot of flagrant misuse of data out there about how many jobs are lost in America due to off- shoring multinational corporations, that kind of thing inspires protectionism, but I don’t think that we are necessary protectionists at the moment, we are still rated the most open economy in the world.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: I think we should do better than just demand that countries develop sustainable. I think that we should help them do it. I think that we should be providing the leap frogging kind of technologies that allow them to industrialize but still remain energy conscious. We have those technologies and they are expensive, we need to provide them at a certain cost or low cost or package them together with our investments in those countries. They will be grateful in the long run progressive leaders will say here we are getting a package of investment that includes high technology, that allows us to modernize and increase the value of our exports while not damaging our own national health for infrastructure resources. So it can be win-win if our policies are more broad minded in that, it doesn’t really help to tell a poor country that they have to assert universal or at least nationally human rights or labor standards when they don’t even have the capacity to enforce any other kinds of laws, that’s just dreaming. We need to help the countries actually do it and if we show that care and depth of policy in concern and hand holding working together with partners and training countries as partners I think will go a long away.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: Well, the #1 reason for a lot of influence in those countries is not the fact that we have had a military driven strategy in the Middle East. Second world countries are everywhere from Malaysia to Colombia. Its not just about the perception that we are acting imperially in a distant part of the world. There is a lot more to do, it’s not seeing the benefits of the American engagement and investment in those countries, while actually seeing larger pay offs and more efficient payoffs from dealing with China or Europe, and the fact is that even if we get our act back together, it doesn’t mean that Europe and China disappear. They will continue to do what they do, so the most we can hope to achieve is to stabilize our position, but we have to recognize what others are doing and construct more attractive packages for each 2nd world country. Reason I wrote this book is because I wanted to show what countries think and what they want, in the case by case basis and say before we craft a policy towards country X, let’s first look at what it wants rather than just what it has and what we wanted to do and if we have a better understanding of what they want to be able to craft more attractive kind of packages and incentives and offerings to them. I think that’s the process is only just begun, they answered you hearts and minds questions is really a derivative of that.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: I don’t think that we can un-invent nuclear weapons. I think that we can going to get to a situation where the United States and Soviet Union have dismantled all but few hundred of their nuclear weapons each. We should mean that a number of hours had only a couple of hundred total each and that would be the limit. I think that would be very positive step. I don’t think its worth talking about grand proposals for evolution unless we can get to that point and have the political will internationally to get that point. It makes for a grade and provocative bet or series of war pads of Kissinger and Cove have done, what’s its not realistic until we can at least get to the stage that we were supposed to be at right now under arms control agreement that’s were signed in 1990s, but at more or less been ignored in the last 8 years.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: Talking with them doesn’t mean not having sanctions on them, we would continue to have sanctions the way we do now. It is just the question of making progress while those sanctions are in place. We had sanctions on the Iraq for a long time, we didn’t make a great deal of progress in dismantling the well we claim or George Bush claimed that we didn’t make any progress in dismantling Weapons of Mass Destruction program, just why he claimed, we have to go back and again the sanctions alone don’t do much. When we asked earlier about hard and soft power, I said it is a whole combination of things that have to happen simultaneously, well this is an example of that.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: I think that a Democrat needs to win because I don’t think that there was any hope of having a sea change in our approach or in our image branding under a McCain presidency which Democrat wins is less important than that democrat wins. I personally favor Obama’s policies internationally and especially on this issue of talking to talking even to our enemies sort of speak which is one of the few areas where there is a really concrete discrepancy between him and Hillary. I take his side on that today.

recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: That’s a really big difficult question. I don’t think it begins or it ends with who becomes the next president of United States. America has to be a lot more, and who is in the white house for us regain outstanding. It has to be about America’s foot print in the world in the influence of American society is renewal. We define American influence overseas is not just where our military is, but where our business are investing, where our philanthropists are providing assistance and where our social entrepreneurs are training people to fed for themselves and built their own businesses, where the peace squad is active. If we define Americas influence overseas is that way if it’s about Bill Gates, and not just about George Bush then we can see some real progress in the way America has perceived in the world.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: I don’t think that we miss the boat in the Chavez phenomenon in the sense that we knew about political instability and the potential for military who is in Venezuela for a very long time after all it’s happened many times before, but that he would become so rapidly anti American actually only began when we supported the business lead cool against them in 2002 for the first couple of years of this rule he was not as viciously anti- American, or rather anti-Bush as he is today.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: Well, America obviously has maintained either formally or loosely this notion of the Monroe Doctrine for a couple of centuries now, that it alone would dictate fairs in the western hemisphere or at least that no foreign power could intervene, recently when it became clear that Chinese investment and Chinese backing for certain governments such as that in Venezuela and the way in which China’s import of Latin American raw materials was providing a lot of liquid capital to a Latin American countries and allowing them to pay off the Math and shun Washington’s influence, that led to a lot of concern of the state departments and to senior official but they sharing and said we don’t want to you undermining our democracy agenda for the region and China said we are just doing business, so yet as of yet we haven't seen a lot of things happening in Latin America that may not otherwise happen, the Chavez phenomenon would have happened independently obviously of China. Chavez can talk about China and how he wants to replace America as the destination for Venezuela and oil, but of course that’s not going to happen the vast majority of Venezuela are still goes to United States where a lot of close of Venezuela and China is, so in the long term there is to some extent China could weaken America’s leverage in the region because it creates the conditions where financial independence from America but in the longer term I think we have to take responsibility for the failures of our own policies the region not blame on someone else.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript:  2nd world countries hold the majority of the world’s oil reserves so that does include Saudi Arabia, Russia other middle eastern states those in South East Asia, Brazil and Venezuela. The second world countries are most certainly where the natural resources are at that also means timber and other kinds of natural resources as well. So they will be a focal point for resource competition in the future whether or not, again that translates in to a conflict, I don’t know but second world countries also have increasing share of the worlds foreign exchange reserves and other kinds of capital equal like sovereign wealth funds and so they are able to not just be on the receiving end of empires like China that are resource hungry but they also have financial assets that can allow them to project their own power and set the terms.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: There is always a possibility of war, so if I were to answer the question say no there is no possibility, then that would not be particularly interesting. I would be declaring that there is world peace forever. Most certainly there is a possibility of tension. I wrote about these 2nd world countries, because I believe that that’s where the sparks may start to fly, because they are very strategic. So I write about places like Kazakhstan which at present is energy rich, but its not able to build pipelines fast enough to satisfy China and Russia and Europe is trying to tap in there as well. America wants to have the strategic military presence in the region. Everyone is in central Asia in the stands and particularly Kazakhstan. Trying to make sure that they get their share of what Kazakhstan has to offer, but what happens if one day the oil starts to run thin, or run slow, will there be tension there? You bet there will be, how will it be fought out probably one the battle field of globalization and deal making of cutting of one country supply, nullifying a deal in validating some contract that’s what’s going to happen, whether or not that sparks and turns into a military conflict in something no one can ever predict, it is hard to predict how World War I would break out, and the same goes for World War II when precisely the moment would be and so I can’t say whether it will be Taiwan, whether it will be something like Kazakhstan, whether it would be something in the Indian ocean in the Arabian sea, and the naval skirmish as China tries to protect the flow of oil
from Saudi Arabia to China, but either the Indian or the American maybe get in the way for what ever reason or Sudan where a similar situation could unfold because Sudan of course is not a landmark country. It does have sea access and China is buying and developing its oil. So one doesn’t know where the spark could happen but the potential for sparks is everywhere.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: Well it is interesting, every country that America has labeled a rouge state, or a state of concern when they are trying to be nice about it, is the country that’s also backed by China, either diplomatically, financially, strategically, militarily or otherwise. That includes even non-oil producing countries. The notion of there list out for the oil covers quite a few, but it doesn’t covers Zimbabwe, North Korea and other places. So the fact is that China is most certainly out there making friends and finding friends wherever it can, and if that means being friendly with so called rouge states, it will do that and it has good reasons and by the way it is a very good friend of Cuba as well. So China is most certainly causing tension for American foreign policy with respect to specific countries, but its also of course causing tension with respect American or current American priorities on trade in international institution. America would like India, or other or Japan to be in the UN security council. China doesn’t one either of them to. The United States would like certain countries to be sanctioned by the human rights counseling United Nations. China blocks that, America would like certain trade reforms to happen through the world trade organization but yet they have trade disputes on a regular basis there. So questions of product safety for example, labor standards environmental standards, all of these issues that are on the agenda, in the Doha development around of WTO are associated with that, are issues where the U.S and china on opposite sides of the debate.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: China’s rise has been so successful not only because of the smart policy decisions that they took from 1970 onwards in terms of opening to the global economy, in the way in which they have directed resources towards production and export. But its also that global economy itself that has catapulted and butter raised china’s rise, because china is the globalize super power without globalization it wouldn’t be able to harness or achieve that kind of revenues that it has from the global market place. So china is poster child for global economic integration leading to greater national power. And that is the #1 reason why China is rising.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: Well, right now for example the International Monetary Funds is considering issuing some principals on how seven low funds should be governed or what degrees of transparency they should have in their investments and they should be wedded to ensure that they are not politically motivated before they are approved. American treasury and the European union or also considering some similar sorts of proposals 4 standards for suborn wealth funds. Will there be a single global standard to which everyone agrees to which no exceptions are made and to which all sovereign wealth funds subscribe. No way, it will never ever happen. It may have an influence on the wedding that goes on when a sovereign wealth fund, invest in a prosperous country and the developed and matured and well regulated market like the United States or the Europe, because then they can control, and block certain transactions from happening, but if they over regulate has all been is oxially a teaches us, the money will just go else where.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: There have been efforts the most famous is the toban [phonetic] tax for example which you attempted to great or small. Almost in front us only small tags and global capital flows. The French have experimented with it and they have decided on means that have tax been capital they are taxing, air line or flight tickets small percentage in that’s going into a Poverty Alleviation sort of fund. So there is ideas out there I don’t know if one body can regulate any such thing. I think that’s smaller micro volunteer efforts are going to yield more success and faster and more efficiently than any notion of a new institution or body or intergovernmental organization I will tell you why. The reason is because globalization cannot be centrally controlled. So the United Nations and any other singular institution that wants to be the hub for an issue, now we are the centre of where global securities regulated this is where international traders where, these things are always fail because globalization cannot be controlled from a central point, and central institutions the way we think of them, the way we think of global governance will fail until it adopts to globalization itself.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: Well it’s everyone’s, but remember that because its everyone’s it happens all the time. There is a great book to travels over the T-Shirt in the global economy it shows that even for people at the absolute bottom of the global economy the cotton growers and the textile workers, globalization is happening all the time non stop and great many liveliness depend on it. So globalization now exists outside of any one of us, but all of us are doing something to support it, one way or the other. Everything we buy, everything we produce, every time you make a phone call, all of that stuff, all of those activities attribute to globalization. So it’s not America’s responsibility to keep global integration alive nor is that China’s, nor is it’s Europe’s. It’s everyone’s and its all in everyone’s interest to do so because of the money that comes in, exports that go out, the revenues that are gained. The share of a country’s GDP that depends on trade is growing. China is the highest in the world its something absolutely ridiculous, it is like maybe 75% of this GDP or something like that is dependent on external trade because that’s high savings rate and low consumption, and the same that’s same statistic is rising for other countries as well.

Recorded on: 3/3/08

Transcript: I think it’s a mix of both and I think that represents the future of what the mixed capitalism kind of model is. The state-ism that Europe has always practiced for corporations and the government are very much in delusion and what Asia has learned to do and does itself at Korea and Japan and China are doing. Is something that basically if you take European economies and Asian economies together, it puts us in the minority of players who have been practicing real genuine free market sort of practices and economics in the last decades. So I think we are going to learn to do things their way rather than vice versa, that speaks to a broader protégé of globalization which is that we don’t the countries don’t want to have unmanaged, unfed globalizations. They want to regulate, they want to have capital controls, they want to direct in channel, foreign investment in certain ways to serve their own national needs and to build their infrastructure and so forth. That is the model that is prevailing now in Asia because its proved to have great payoffs where as the free market model, is what is blamed correctly and incorrectly for the Asian financial crisis.

Recorded on: 3/3/08