That is going through massive transformation. Some people confuse that transformation with sins of omission or commission by administration, but there are forces that are at play that we cant necessarily stop or shift the direction of, we have to manage. And im speaking specifically of Something Like the arab spring. We couldnt stop the arab spring. And it happened because of a combination of new communications, aspiration, thatnity, the tensions have been created because of the invasion of iraq, which left shia and sunni with a new definition and contest. It happened because of aspirations of young people above all, because of bad governance, failing states. There are many forces that are unleashed right now. So the task for any administration is to tame the worst manifestations of these forces, to try to put together a strategy for how the United States can in fact advance its values and protect its interests in the mix of that transformation. I believe weve done a pretty managing moreof of these crisis that have come simultaneously than any time in recent memory. If you look i have said too many people and i will stand by completely legitimate that the United States of america and the last four years has been more engaged, more proactively, in more places, with more crises of different kinds, and with positive impact, than at any time in american history. You can look at africa, where we are on the cusp of a generation being born of kids free from aids, where we stopped ebola, without the Million People dying they predicted, or the south china sea, where we asserted the rights of navigation, or ukraine, where we stood up against russias incursion and put sanctions in place and held europe together, or iran, where we got an agreement to get a country we hadnt talked to in 35 years to stop its nuclear assumingprogram, thats where they were going, and joining the international to livey under the iaea up to standard straight we had a trifecta with respect to the environment, unprecedented. If we had done the paris agreement, that would have been a huge deal. We sent a signal to the global marketplace about clean energy and alternative, renewable energy. We got the Airline Industry together, which altogether is the size of the 12th largest emitter in the world. We have them reducing their emissions under a new agreement. Weve got about 200 nations came together in kigali, and rwanda. There we managed to phase out 1000gerants, which are times more potent than Carbon Dioxide and which in and of itself could save the planet 1 2 degree centigrade of warming. Im just starting to describe the things. In afghanistan we held a government together that threaten to implode, politically with the afghan completely shredded as a result because of the bad election. We put a unity government together. I can go from place to place, where i think the United States has offered leadership, and it contradicts completely this n otion of retreat or retrenchment, that the United States is somehow pulling back. Charlie let me come to that point. Do you believe that the cause of the events over the several years, that there is a new world order emerging . Secretary kerry clearly they are there are strains because of this transformation im talking about. For many years, the united have been americans when event times, when we made bad decisions, because we were really the only power standing for a long period of time, after world war ii as the order emerged and as we created the u. N. , all these things emerged, which is the order as we have referred to it, nato and so forth, the United States has been critical to the development of all of these structures, but increasingly, other countries are more powerful. Charlie and want to participate. Secretary kerry and they want to participate. They dont simply want to sit there and take orders thomas or simply be passive about the choices we are making in the context of those institutions. China, 1. 3 billion people. Secondlargest economy in the world, which will be automatically the largest economy in the world at some point in time, once to play differently. Be moret to determinative of their future and protect their interests. Likewise, other countries, russia, if you have a leader of a country like russia was leader says the most tragic moment of the 20th century was the fall of the soviet union, you can have a sense of where that person is coming from as he moves in response to things that the United States he wants to restore a level of respect and acceptance, and perhaps even more than that. Charlie do we give him that . Want to respect you, we want to give you a level of acceptance. You have the Worlds Largest collection of nuclear weapons. Charlie its important and clear from the diplomacy i pursued, i think its very important to talk to russia. People need to take note of the certain reality. Russia, when brought into the process and respected in the conversation and dealt with, actually produced. We were able to cooperate even as we know they have a different attitude about certain things, a different worldview, a different outlook. We are not going to be easily walking handinhand in some fashion down the road that brings us together because of the differences in that worldview and other interests. Russia doesnt like nato. Russia doesnt like the extension. Russia doesnt like what we did in libya, where they believe that we reached beyond the u. N. Resolution. Russia doesnt like revolutions. They dont like what happened in ukraine. There are a bunch of things that they reacted. We will have to work through those kinds of things in the relationship. But look, when we had to get chemical weapons out of syria, russia was the cooperating party that helps make that happen. You have been in a what has been unsuccessful effort to get them to help form a transition government. How many days . And how many hours and how many sessions, trying to help the form a transition government . Instead of doing that, what they have done is supported assad on the ground and he is now stronger than he has been in a very long time. Secretary kerry he is stronger than he has been. Charlie because of their support. No,etary kerry well, thats not completely the way it played out. There are a number of reasons why the ceasefire didnt work, and why we werent able to move to the geneva thing at this point in time. One of the reasons was our own internal division here in the United States. We had some folks who did not want to talk to russia. Thought it was wrong to have engagement with russia, and put their distrust of russia ahead of any efforts to find their way to the table. Hard, simple, real fact. There will be no political solution whatsoever to the crisis of syria without dealing with russia. The fact is what we succeeded in laying out in the course of the International Support group meetings, and the u. N. Resolutions, is the outline of how that political solution is going to look and come about. There will beu, ultimately some kind of negotiation because there has to be, and it will follow the framework of what we laid down. So, while we didnt get there yet, none of that diplomacy was wasted, none of that time to have a ceasefire. And it has established a framework which ultimately will work. The russians made a decision that because of our own challenges here, we werent able to develop the separation. One of the deals was we would separate. It wasnt able to be done. So, you know, i think separate them out, because they are al qaeda, and is no dealing with them. They represent al qaeda. Unfortunately, the opposition we were supporting got enmeshed with them, and it was very hard to distinguish who was who. Because it allowed us to continually bomb people and pretending he was going after al qaeda when he was going after the opposition, and never really went after isil or daesh. This is more complicated than meets the eye. Meanwhile, you had a major amount of proxy pressure being put on people. Turkey had proxy interests. You had saudi arabia, qataris, a nd so forth. Those proxy efforts complicated what people were willing to do and what you could hold accountable. Charlie two things about this. You said there were divisions in america. Said there were divisions in the administration, that secretary of state, you wanted to do more on the ground to give you more leverage, and you could not bring the president at that point. You had less leverage to deal and deliversians than you wanted. Speak to that. History. Kerry it is the administration has another few days and im still here and im not going to be going backwards yet. There were divisions in the administration, that secretary of state, you wanted to do more on the ground to give you moreits no secret that thee many debates within the differenttion, and concepts of how to try to deal with it. Charlie but you supported the 51 diplomats who said you cant negotiate without secretary kerry you need to have some leverage to negotiate. Negotiate whento the other side doesnt feel compelled to be accountable or do sin brings do certain things. The important thing is that while syria has been frustrating for everybody, including president obama, the fact is that weve, i think, managed to marshall Major Initiative within the region that has strengthened our allies in the region. Partly in response to the iran nuclear agreement. Beyond that charlie israel, you mean sunni arab state . Secretary kerry i mean israel, uae, the saudis. Charlie sunni arabs . Secretary kerry very much so. We had a major summit at camp david were they all came in, we strengthen the military support structure, the training, the flow of weaponry they felt they needed. We have enforced measures against iran that fell outside agreementn nuclear which regarded u. N. Resolutions or arms trafficking, state sponsorship of terrorism, so forth. Make itweve managed to clear that the United States has been solidly engaged. We put together a 68coalition country effort to defeat daesh. How can people suggest we are retreating when isil is moving across iraq, threatening baghdad, black flags flying, and the president of the United States immediately moved to put our aircraft in the sky and begin to take them on, to retrain the army, rebuild the army, and now we have liberated 65 of iraq that was taken over by daesh, 35 to 40 of syria. We are in the liberation of mosul, and im telling you without any question in my mind, daesh, isilarmy, and now we havd 65 of is going to be defeated sometime in the course year. T driving them out of those two Power Centers. Secretary kerry its more than that. Driving them out of the Power Centers will not fully deal with the problem. It could go into the next year. Its within a measurable period confident wei am are going to be able to liberate. Charlie the way that isil came out of al qaeda, wont there be some other terrorist organization that will be worse than they are that will follow isil . Where are we in the long struggle against terrorism . Secretary kerry at the beginning of that struggle, which will go on for some period of time. I said today that the United StatesNaval Academy i think is generational. Theres boko haram. Theres alshabab. You can run the list of these people, from africa to southeastcentral asia. Need to go,k we where the world has got to put effort, is into we need a new marshall plan. We need a greater engagement not just by the United States, but by all be developed and near developed worlds, need to come together more effectively to deal with this astounding in many parts of the world, where you have young people who in many places, they are not going to go to school and they dont have opportunity, and if all tively, as, collec leave them to the devices of radical religious extremists who grab those young minds, everybody is going to have a problem going forward. In terms of foreign policy, it is a mistake for somebody to say, we are not going to deal with over there. There is no over there anymore. Everywhere is in the same place you cant deny that after the socalled red line was crossed and there was not an american reaction, though you will say the reaction was to get the chemical weapons out, others expected more and were prepared for more, and so were you we can talk about that specifically. After what happened to mosad, peopleto mubarak, many believed our allies had no questions about where the u. S. Was and can account on them. The United States had to go to those nations and reassure them. Secretary kerry fair to say that some people through a message from the departure of mubarak and the red line. Thing, i think that is erroneous because in dy by virtuek alrea of the decision of the egyptian in the streetsut in the tens of millions, it was clear mubarak wasnt going to swallow that. President obama simply made clear publicly what was already clear on the ground, that he was gone, fundamentally. And that got hung on somehow on president , became this moment of doubt. Now to the red line with respect to syria. The president of the United States never, ever retreated from his position that he was going to strike. He announced that he would strike, he announced we would take action, and he went to congress to ask congress for permission to do that. Cameron,at after david Prime Minister of britain, had gone to parliament and been turned down. I was on a telephone call with congressmen, many of whom were saying, you have to come to us. The president decided to go to congress. In the intervening time will congress was deliberating, and congress became far more difficult to persuade than anybody thought they would be, but while that have, i was asked at a press conference in london, is there any way that assad could avoid being bombed . And i said declaratively, yes. You could get all the chemical weapons out of syria. Called minister lavrov it within a couple hours and said, i heard what you said in london. We need to work on that. President obama and president putin had talked about it. We went to work on it and in a matter of days we came to an agreement to get all of the chemical weapons out of syria. In effect, in reality, we by having saidre we were going to bomb, getting all the chemical weapons out, but people interpreted the president going to congress as an avoidance of the bombing. And i will absolutely confirm with you right here. Yes, it did hurt us. It took hold. Somehow there was this perception that the president backed off. Is ife the perception you cross a line and you say you are going to attack if theres a red line, and then you dont secretary kerry what was the reason for the red line . It was to tell him, dont use these. What was the best way to not use them . Take them away. We accomplished the goal exponentially beyond what we would. I concede, the fact of how it played out created this mythology and perception that somehow the president wasnt willing to do that. It did cost us. I know it cost us. I heard it, and i felt it, and i had to argue it with many people. Charlie and you had to convince them it was not the reality . Secretary kerry thats one of the reasons why we built up what we built up with camp david, the assurance program, the training, the increased efforts on the ground. A lot was done in terms of reassurance. Charlie as you remember, i was week talking to assad a before that and he said at that time that he would give up the chemical weapons if there was no strike because he thought it would be good to avoid war. London,member you in looking at that, and how timely it was. Theres also this in terms of history. The famous walk around the white house lawn, with a man i interviewed yesterday, the chief of staff. It is said the president came back from that walk and announced he would not attack. Charlie secretary kerry he announced he was going to go to congress to get the permission. Charlie there was nothing discussed and no decision made as a result of that walk. Consulting with the secretary of state, the National Security advisor. He took a walk, and that was a decisive moment in his own confirmation of his own thinking. Secretary kerry did the chief of staff tell you the president made a decision not to strike, or to go to congress . I got a phone call at 9 30 that night from the president saying, heres my thinking. It was the night after the walk. The president said to me, i think we have to go to congress and get permission. He never said to me, i decided not to strike. He went to congress to get permission to strike. The Foreign Relations committee voted Something Like 137. We were still on a track to strike. Secretary Kerry Charlie so the decision was to go to congress. Secretary kerry thats as i understand it. Assume you are right. Much has been made of that walk. Secretary kerry i know. It was a walk about whether or not he would strike on saturday, literally, or whether we have to go to congress. One of the reasons people felt compelled that the Congress Thing made sense was because david cameron, our close ally, british parliament, refused him permission to strike. Beendemocracy and ally had refused permission to join in this, was the president on weaker ground therefore, to go ahead and strike notwithstanding, or if it wasnt wiser to go to congress in our democracy and get the affirmation of the American People . Charlie there were those who argued you did not have to go to congress. Secretary kerry true. We werent arguing, charlie. We knew the president had the authority constitutionally to do the strike. That wasnt the issue. The issue was, should he go. Was he wiser to get the permission and buyin from the American People for use of force, and many members of congress argued he ought to do that. In the liberations of the National Security council, i the vast majority of people there it may have people, but one or two held that congress would give permission and do it pretty quickly. It was with that in mind that the president made the decision to go. Turned out not to be S