From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Jessica matthews is here. She is president of the Carnegie Endowment for international peace, a Global Think Tank headquartered in washington. The Obama AdministrationForeign Policy is in the spotlight right now. Some have criticized it as feckless and is engaged. Typically, criticism of our Foreign Policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question that i would have is, why is everyone is so eager to use military force . For some reason, many who are proponents of what i consider to be a disastrous decision to go into iraq havent really learned the lesson of the last decade. Why . I dont know. But my job as commander in chief is to look at what it is that will advance our security interest over the long term to keep our military in reserve for where we absolutely need it. I am pleased to have Jessica Matthews back at this table. Welcome. Thank you. And i confess, she is a great friend and i adore her. It is nice to be here. Is there an obama Foreign Policy doctrine . And is it the right one . There is a doctrine, as we just heard. Lets stay out of war. Lets stay out of war. He has taken a pendulum that has swung too far and let it swing too far again. I was as strong, maybe stronger an opponent of the iraqi war than he, but i think he is not using all of the elements of our power now. We are not using all of the tools, says the secretary of defense, meaning a whole range of things. What do you mean by that . Well, there, i did not mean military power. He is using in ukraine visavis the russians the economic leverage that we have. To a degree. I think he is ratcheting up, as he says. Slowly. I think there are two things missing. One thing is that he never explained to the American People not as a candidate, but as a president behind that big desk, i want 15 minutes of network time and i want to talk to the American People and explain to them why this is important and how this is important, and what International Laws they are breaking. It is not something that you can do in two minutes in the pressroom and you cannot do it on the campaign trail. Because people dont hear it that way. But he has never explained as president. He has never communicated as president what his strategy is. And part of his stress shape his frustration, im virtually certain, comes from the sense that people dont understand what hes doing. But part of the reason that they dont understand it is because they dont he doesnt tell them. But part of that argument is he said an interesting thing to me in an interview. I said, it is important you learn from your own mistakes. What are your mistakes . And he said, primarily i have paid too much attention to the policy and not enough explaining the policy. But i have not seen that corrected. And the second thing is, i think he has to be less afraid of using the levers of military power. In ukraine, i think, to be specific, in the end of february very early, he should have accepted an invitation from the Ukrainian Government for Multinational Military exercises. And i think he should have taken an american brigade and put it on the ground in eastern ukraine. And then tried to get four or five other european allies to put in a battalion each and then called pruden and said, vladimir, we are having military exercises here, and when youre exercises are finished, our exercises will be finished. The russians arent going to attack us. But it would have been a way of saying, what you are doing matters to us, not because ukraine per se matters so much, but because you are taking a gigantic step backwards in how International Problems are solved, how sovereignty and borders are adjusted, and how conflict are resolved. And we find that step you are taking unacceptable. And the consequence would be that vladimir putin, in your judgment, would stop and go back to their bases, wherever they were . He is a bully. And bullies are tempted by weakness. And he is perceived as weak because . Because there is too much lack of clarity about what the american principles and behavior are. I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said in that piece, that there are people who seem to want to go and start shooting at the drop of every hat. Im not talking about shooting. But i am talking about using that part of our Foreign Policy toolbox, the military part, to make a strong statement. And i think sometimes that is the only way you can make that statement. It is said by some that the west, including europe, and the United States, missed an opportunity early in this before the russians even when into crimea. That we missed an opportunity to not make this, one, to facilitate a relationship with the European Union, but not to make it a choice between europe and russia. That was a terrible mistake. A terrible mistake. And early on, you could have avoided that. It should never have been allowed to happen. And we have not really had a ukraine policy for five years. But ukraine always had to be a buffer state and not a beachhead. When you say to ukraine, you have to choose between the European Union and the eurasian union, it awakes in the russians every Worst Nightmare they have about ukraine becoming part of the west. That should never have happened. It doesnt excuse what the russians have done since, but it was a terrible mistake. And do you believe it was a mistake also, as some do tom friedman being one that comes to mind to push nato membership in front of the georgians and talk about it for the ukrainians, scaring the death out of the russians . Yes, it was a mistake. Some of the worst mistakes and Foreign Policy are made when you are on top. Failing to take yes for an answer or not realizing when youve gone far enough. And recognizing that the russians could never deal strategically with ukraine being either a nato member or full eu member right near there but their borders is something that we should have understood. What should ukraine be . Of course, both brezinski and kissinger said, as soon as this thing happened, said finland. Im not even sure that finland is enough, that the russians could tolerate as much of a relationship with the west that finland has in ukraine. But as i said, i think ukraine has to be a buffer state. And it will the other piece of this that just doesnt get talked about nearly enough is that so much of what is happening that is bad is the ukrainians fault. They have had 23 years of corrupt government on both sides, prorussian and otherwise. And been unable to deal with energy and any form of moderately effective governance. They just havent done it. Here is what was told to reporters in asia. The notion to go forward with sanctions without the europeans would be the most effective deterrent to vladimir putin. That notion, he said camesa actually wrong. We will be in a stronger position to deter mr. He said, is factually wrong. We will been a stronger position to deter mr. Putin without europe. There are some strong differences of opinion. How does the president handle that . Does he go off on his own . Does he say, we need to put troops there and we need to do this and do that, or does he wait for some kind of unified plan . I think he needs to do a little but more leaning from the inside. I think he has to do both a major effort to keep the United States and europe together, understanding that the european dependence on Russian Energy is going to make it tough. And on trade with russia, the german trade with russia is huge and ours is tiny. On the other hand, the european for the last 60 years have relied on us for leadership, and in particular national security. And they are not the yet ready not yet ready to be coleaders. I think a little bit more American Leadership on this issue would have in important, even while we understand and agree with the point he is making. Syria, when the president made the decision not to attack syria after having said it had crossed a red line, and with russia may be agreement with respect to the elimination and removal of the chemical weapons, was that the right decision . And did it leave people dependent on American Leadership questioning American Leadership . Sure, because the process was so appalling. I mean, on two counts. You never create red lines unless you know when you enunciate them what you will do to enforce them. You just dont ever say it. The israelis have been creating red lines on iran for 15 years, and what credibility does it have any more . So, you dont do that, and you dont just allow a process to happen that makes it look so chaotic. The policymaking. Part of peoples confidence is that there should be some sense of clarity, of purpose, of straightline. And in this case, you had one position, and then another, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense were not part of it. It just looked like we had no idea what we were doing. And the irony is that out of this awful process, really just about the worst ive ever seen, comes this great success. Sometimes you get lucky. The removal of chemical weapons . Yes, sir. They did not finish on time, but they are very close. Can they hide chemical weapons . Sure. What is the process . We have pretty good intelligence. If there is two percent, or five percent maybe even of them left, im not sure what the strategic significance of that is. But look at the International Message of this. Use them and lose them. You know, you really could not ask for a better outcome. You use them, and we therefore are going to take them. If youve got chemical weapons, try using them, and you will lose them. That is what this process says. And even better, its not just the u. S. , but multinational. From a nonproliferation point of view, this has been a huge success. It just came out of an appalling situation. Did the president make a mistake in not offering more aid to the rebels, specifically military . You know, if you look backwards, the only answer is sort of, yes. But if you look as this was unfolding and there was no political process, there was no sense that if we go in and do more that, a, we have people to do it with, or, b, that there is some kind of political outcome that we can imagine working toward. That is exactly part of the lesson of the last two wars in afghanistan and iraq that you dont want to repeat. You dont want to go in without the able to see the Political Part of the military action. I would say that as it unfolded, he was right not to do more, not to go in with military force. As you look back, im a lot less certain. But nobody imagined this outcome, nobody. I do want to go to iran, because you know a lot about that. Where are we . We have a deadline coming up. The foreign minister has written an interesting piece in a magazine about what he wants and how he sees it. I think that they want a nuclear deal and we want a nuclear deal, so i think we can get one. Do they also want Nuclear Weapons . No, i dont think so. Certainly, this government doesnt. That is a really hard question to answer for this reason. They spent tens of billions of dollars and forewent hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues because of weapons activities. They became an international outcast. They lied to the iaea. They did things for which there is no rational expedition other than the weapons program. On the other hand they also said that Nuclear Weapons do not make sense for us for our military doctrine. And the Supreme Leader issued the law saying they are unethical in religious terms. They have covered the grounds. That means either they never made an explicit choice among or they were divided, which is quite likely. Or the japanese option, which is secretaries of state and secretaries of defense at this table saying, we dont know that they have made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. All we know is that they are doing things as you laid out and it does certainly to that conclusion. But we do not know that they made that decision. The question is, you say they want a deal. Now. Otherwise, they would not be going through this and they dont want to be a pariah among nations. And they do want a deal. The deal theyve already got, the interim deal is a terrific deal. It is much better for us than it is for them. Did anyone believe that it would be a bad deal for us and a good deal for them . He wrote Something Different about it. You had to write all the way to the end of the oped piece. And i would take him on on that. They gave an awful lot more than they got in this deal. And what of the reasons i think we will get a final deal is because as this deal persists, it is lousy for them. Because they have even up so much and gotten almost nothing. 7 billion worth of unfrozen assets. In talking about the global economy, what is north korea does north korea do about this . The North Koreans talk all the time about the fact that we are legally at war with them because all we did was sign an armistice and not a peace treaty. During the time that the negotiations were active, they kept saying, why wont you declare that you are not at war with us . And we say, you know, the usual thing you are taught as a diplomat or any kind of negotiator, it is a bargaining chip and we are holding the bargaining chip. And of course we dont say think we are at war with you. My view is that bargaining chip that you will never spend are not worth anything. My not just say, ok, yes. And try it. Maybe we will get nothing, but we are not getting anything anyway. It is not easy. Your mother, barbara tuchman, would be proud of you. O, thanks. It is so nice to see you. Im proud of her. Jessica mathews. Ian bremmer is here, president and founder of eurasia group, a Political Risk consulting firm. The crisis in ukraine continues to dominate international headlines. He says the forces there were unable to control unrest. Tensions remain high and on monday, more sanctions announced on key russian officials. Lastly, we also saw president obama travel to key ally countries, in asia one of the key stops, japan. Thank you welcome back to this table. Thank you. Lets talk about president obamas trip to asia. A success . A success. He needed to make this trip. These were a number of allies that felt they had not been a priority and that they had been overlooked. Obama went to japan and four times the japanese ambassador to the u. S. We will make this quick. Four times he said he is committed to the alliance with japan and that the East China Sea issue is explicitly a part of that. Prime minister shinzo abe needed to hear that. It was a very good there was a lot of bon ami in the meeting all the way through. The japanese liked it. Very happy with the expanded security relationship announced by the United States just before the before obamas visit. Korea and everything else, he hit all the pivots. And at the same time, he did not actually offend the chinese. He made a point at every stop to talk about how it is so important to work closely with the chinese. And i think obama can be credible in saying he has no ambition to contain the chinese with this administration. The fact that you have made both your allies in the region happier and the chinese feel there is no reason they have to over respond with their own saber rattling is about as much as he could have done on this trip. I give him high marks. How important is this trade agreement . The reason it is so important is when the tpp was first announced, we said we were not opposed to it. Now that it is going to actually happen and it has momentum, the chinese have teams their tune. Change their tune. Now they are looking at it and setting it carefully. If youre going to create tighter trade integration a bunch of between a bunch of likeminded nations and asia does not want to be left behind, they will have to reform more and engage in the kinds of behaviors that initially got them in the wto. That means we have to get our ducks in a row. The tpp was one of the stories you would have liked to have seen move faster in asia, but obama didnt have much to say because congress is still slow rolling this. Jessica mathews was here and she said to me, you know, the thing that the president the thing is that the president has not clearly communicated exactly what he means and what he wants to do and defined his own sense of americas place. Well, that is certainly true, but what jessica is implying there is that he actually knows it, but not saying. A very important difference. I dont think he wishes to create in this very dynamic and changing geopolitical environment where countries are in play and it is difficult to have what you want get done, i think obama would rather not have a doctrine or a clear view of americas place in the world. He would rather say we dont want to be the world police. But what is emerging in a variety of places is this idea that we have to stop thinking that we can cure everything by going to war. Sure. And i will do the American People something very valuable if i keep them from mistakes, that they are somehow avoiding traps is an important president ial mission. And syria is a good example of that. The outcome that the United States avoided getting into a conflict that has no win is one that most americans happen to be aligned with. I agree with that, but again, to hit back at mathews a little bit, the fact that he has been able to disengage from iraq and from afghanistan, the longest war in u. S. History and have remaining troops there. Definitely. I would argue that americas wielding of diplomatic instruments and wielding of economic instruments has been less exceptional than obamas unwillingness to yield with prudence the military instrument. That has actually been a challenge and one of the reasons why the last year has seen american views of o