he doesn't know what he's talking about. >> fascinating discussion with google's executive chairman eric schmidt about the great babble between apple and google. why it matters who will win. here is my take. pakistan's military has been embarrassed, to put it mildly, by the suspicion it must have known where bin laden was hiding. in response it is using its old tricks. hoping to ride out the storm as it has in the past. it is leaking stories to favor right journalists, all with the aim of stoking anti-americanism in pakistan. having been caught in a situation that suggests either complicity with al qaeda or gross incompetence and the realities frontally a bit of both, it is now furiously trying to change the subject. angrily denouncing america for entering the country. pakistani friend put it to me this way. it is like a person caught in bed with another man's wife who is indignant that someone entered his house. the military has also once again been able to stop the civilian government. according to pakistani source it is speech given at a recent news conference was drafted by the military. so having come to power hoping to clip the military's wings, pakistan's democratically elected government has been reduced to mouthing talking points of written for it by the intelligence service. now some politicians and journalists say they want an inquiry into america entered pakistan. but is that really the issue? the united states has been involved in counterterrorist operations in pakistan for years using drones and people going in and out. the fundamental question is -- how was it that the leading terrorist was living in pakistan with some kind of support network which must have included parts of the pakistani government? how is it every major al qaeda official that has been captured or killed since 2002 has been found comfortably ensconced in a pakistani city? and how is it that any time these issues are raised, they get drowned out by an organized campaign of anti-americanism or religious fanaticism. washington has given in to the pakistani military time and again. but america has leverage. pakistan needs american aid, arms and training to sustain its army. if the generals are going to receive those benefits, they must become part of pakistan's solution and not its problem. washington should do three things. press for a major national commission in pakistan headed by a supreme court justice, not an army -- to investigate whether bin laden and other al qaeda leaders have been supported and sustained by elements of the pakistani state. demand the provisions of the lugar/kerry bill civilian control on the military be strictly followed. otherwise american aid will be withheld. ask to see a plan for the pakistani military to go after the major untouched terror networks in pakistan. in the longer run, as the united states scales back its military presence in afghanistan, which i hope it will do, it will need the pakistani military less and less to supply its rooms. pakistan'sive i willian government, business classes, intellectuals, have the largest role in this struggle. they should not get distracted by empty anti-american slogans or hypernationalism. this is their chance to become a normal country. and it might not come again. let's get started. joining me for our tour of world affairses who ex-perfecttees spans the globe but manage to bring them into our studios today. anne-marie slaughter was first one to serve as director of policy planning, top strategist at the u.s. department of state. she's now returned to princeton to teach. joshua cooper remo, managing director of kissinger associates. before that he was "time" magazine's youngest ever world editor. and kishore mahbubani has been a career diplomat representing singapore around the world and heading its foreign office. he's now the head of the school of public policy. welcome to all of you. kishore, the killing of osama bin laden, how has it been perceived around the world outside of the united states? >> i think the world is better off with osama being eliminated. nobody cried when he left the scene. but at the same time i was actually very troubled by the celebrations that you saw in america about his killing. because it seemed to imply that hey, the problem is over, we can now carry on. the fundamental problem of disconnect within america and islam yuck world in america at one point, muslims, still remains. it is important to not believe that the killing of osama bin laden has solved all their problem, indeed and there's probably a greater need now for america to engage islamic world mostly to try to bridge this growing disconnect and exists over there. >> what do you think, anne-marie? >> i don't think that the celebrations were -- this is the end of all our troubles. i think this was cathartic after a decade of 9/11 where no matter what we did, we couldn't even capture osama bin laden. particularly important the young people who were 12, 13, coming of age at 9/11 and they are in college now. they are the ones you saw just -- this relief and the sense that a shadow had been lifted. i also think that the real significance is not that al qaeda is not to be worried about as an enemy but it allows us to pivot to a different face of islam. now you can see the arab spring as the primary face of muslims demonstrating, seeking a better life. which is a far more positive image than that turbanned en. >> i what did you think of obama's leadership? the chinese view these things carefully. you spend half your time in china. >> i think a lot of us reflected on that remarkable image from the situation room. i mean, for all of us who grew upsetting foreign policy and obsessed by the nuances of everything that happens in these moments history is really made to have a photo like that and see the president sitting where he was sitting, to see the secretary of state either because had an allergy or having a human react, this is a horrible thing to be watching unfolding in front of your eyes. i think it demonstrates a real decisiveness to decide what was a clearly risky operation. you can see the president's instinct even in the photo where he is sitting off to the side to not lead from the center. you would have thought rich daly is the one in charge. that he lights the challenge evening going forward. as they look at the middle east, is america's role in middle east which will continue to evolve and what happened to bin laden is a milestone, to sit off to the side and be part of a group that's making things happen or is it to take a leadership role. i think that's a crucial question they have to answer in the coming weeks. there's huge national security problems we face, issues like iran, those things don't go away just because bin laden is gone. >> how do you think -- i was going to ask you how do you think the world reacts to the lead from behind idea? i will get to anne-marie because she is quoted in that article that phrase comes from. obama's team, somebody said -- to be fair, specifically about libya which was a case where they wanted the europeans to take the lead, isn't this, though the america that the world wanted to see and cooperative, multilateral america rely on other people to get involved? >> i think -- very important point i need to emphasize here is don't underestimate the sophistication of the elite overseas and understanding of what's happening in the word. they always look at both american remember toric and american power. it is present everywhere. if american power is present in -- israel and palestine, present everywhere, you cannot lead from behind. you are involved. you are there. you are participating. >> i have to say when we lead from the front you call us unilateral. when we lead from behind you say we are not leading from the front. >> no -- >> damned if you do and damned if you don't. >> policies you adopt. whether they work or they don't work. >> anne-marie? >> i don't think lead from behind is the right expression at all. i don't know where it came from. it is certainly not the way the white house thinks about it. i wouldn't read too much into that picture. i think they were all exhausted. they were all watching, risky operation. but the president came out of this looking like a very decisive person. someone was patient and persistent and ready to make a really tough call when he had to. i think that is true of libya, too. he delayed more than i wanted him to. he was decisive. but the way he describe it is leadership is we create the conditions and the coalitions for others to step up. that's not leading from behind. we are there. we are politically indispensable. we go to the u.n. and have to offer our support. we have to make sure that the other countries are participating. once we have done that, his idea is we shouldn't the global policemen. other countries have a really strong stake in these outcomes. and we should be willing to share responsibility with them. sometimes that means they will do things in ways we would have done slightly differently. but i don't think that's leading from behind. i think that's leading in a world of many different powers where you are still the dominant player but you immediate to make sure others are taking their share of responsibility. >> in other places, try to lead as the -- speech on the arab sprint or sprint plus the death of osama bin laden. do you think that -- presumably this there will be a chance for the united states to align its win interests with the people of the arab world. >> it is almost exactly would years ago, june 4, 2009, he gave the cairo speech. i think everybody understands the incredible significance of that. that would be example of something seen as a catalyzing event. when you look at it from the standpoint of what america's interest is in the middle east, is it likely to assume it will get us where we need and that's what's important about this speech. we believe it will stop iranian nuclear proliferation. can we afford to put a few ideas in motion or is that something we need to take charge of? hopefully the speech with l delineate those things. a strong american position is very important. iranian proliferation should be one of them. other cancers this catalytic approach would be appropriate. >> you are saying a nice speech about democracy will not stop iran's nuclear -- >> right, exactly. i think the idea that having democracy promotion as the kortenent of your foreign policy is a very important value. that's who we are. having said that, i don't think that in the time frame which we are talking about the possibility of developments in iran and at a pace that will make a meaningful difference to their nuclear trajectory is likely. i think the implications of a nuclear iran are tremendous. >> we will be back to discuss all of this and more right after this. >> every united states -- until we get strong again, has to be run through the filter of what does it take to have a strong economy. we have no hope of garnering the sorts of loyalties we immediate. need. ♪ [ man ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business, i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah. ♪ run through the filter of what what's this option? that's new. personal pricing now on brakes. tell us what you want to pay. we do our best to make that work. deal! my money. my choice. my meineke. we are back with anne-marie slaughter from princeton. kishore mahbubani from singapore. josh ramo from china and the united states. kishore, one of the things obama has to deal with, no matter what happens in his foreign policy, it is the economy that's going to determine whether he gets re-elected. and you wrote a broadside against base you cannily whole way americans are approaching their economic policy. you are saying it is all about cutting budgets and all about worrying about, you know, medicare and medicaid. what you really need is strong state directed economic planning in the model of surprise, surprise singapore or china. right? >> well -- i think you sort of exaggerated the argument a bit. >> you know the -- the magazine has two rules that says when it -- hires its young editors. it says simplify and then exaggerate. >> true. i want to emphasize one point. that -- the world wants america to succeed. but now the level of concern about the future of the american economy is the highest i have ever seen in my entire life. and -- there's a sense of hey, what happen it is things go fundamentally wrong in america? i mean, just imagine it is conceivable that within two to three years, the markets or bond markets will say hey, don't touch u.s. treasury bills, what happens then? that's the kind of -- inconceivable but now conceivable and actually have you traders figuring out what might happen and what -- >> is it conceivable, josh? i mean, look at what's happening in greece right now with europe. when you look at the alternatives -- >> i think one of the -- certain within of the loans the last few years of inconceivable should be conceivable. his point is a good one. i think it is a valid point for a couple of reasons. in terms of domestic economics, we are at three years of 9% unemployment. there is reason to be nervous. we haven't seen that before. i thinking the second point which is how the rest of the world looks at the united states is also very significant. i think every united states -- until we get strong again has to be run through the filter of what it takes to have a strong economy. no hope of garnering sorts of loyalties we need. people think we are weak and declining. >> speak up for america. >> i always do. first place, i don't know, i remember the 1970s, stagflation, the sense we were going absolutely nowhere. other countries were going to pass us. i see this as absolutely a critical point. this president came in knowing this was his job. he has done a number of things that are going to take a while to -- >> don't you feel a lack of urgency? i look at the amount of urgency there is in beijing about policy planning, economic policy. i come back to the united states and spend time in washington and new york. i don't feel nearly the sense of urgency. >> no. on the contrary. we are having real huge debates. first about the '11 budget and now the debate about the debt ceiling is enormous. we are going to figure out what the consensus is. >> 9% unemployment and no job bill. >> because the american political process has focused first on the debt and deficit. which is right because we know long term we have the chief of -- head of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, says our deficit and long-term debt is the biggest national security threat we face. secretary of state says that. the president as a national security strategy that says we have to rebuild our economic foundations at home. >> doesn't that make you nervous when there is that much consensus? the debt and immediately makes me think -- these people can't -- >> you don't think -- >> i think the debt is important but every single american discussion a has to be terroristen through issue what does it to create around the world to create a perception we are a strong and prosperous country. >> the perception we are not strong has to do with -- >> sometimes we have to go into debt. like people have to borrow money to invest in their education and other things. debt is a sensible strategy so we -- we are in a position we can take on the debt. >> one more discussion about this. we have to go. anne-in ray slaughter, kishore mahbubani, thank you so much. we will be right back. man: all right. we were actually thinking, maybe... mahbubani, thank you so much. we will be right back. r slaught mahbubani, thank you so much. we will be right back. inie slau mahbubani, thank you so much. we will be right back. whew! i think it's worth it. working with a partner you can trust is always a good decision. massmutual. let our financial professionals help you reach your goals. now for our what in the world segmentment here are some aastronautston i sha astonishing numbers. bribery costs a trillion dollars every year. i was intrigued to hear about an innovative idea to deal with corruption. from one of the place most plagued by it -- india. india's chief economic adviser posted a paper on his personal website in which he made a case for legalizing certain types of bribes. corruption is a huge and growing problem in more than half of all indians said they had to pay a bribe last year. many of those are what are called harassment bribes. illegal payments to get basic servic services. these are the kind of bribes he wants to change. under current law the bribe giver and bribe take rer guilty. if they are caught, both are fined an equal amount. the state gets 200 rupis total. he has a radical proposal. fine the bribe taker 200. led the bribe giver go scot-free. the government collect it is amount in fines but the person who had to pay the bribe is not fined. instead he gets his bribe money back. so how does this reduce corruption? his theory simulation suggests bribery in general will decrease because people who are asked for bribes can pay the money and they can still go and complain without worrying that they will be prosecuted. and the corrupt official who takes the bribe will know if they take the money they face twice the penalty. it is a fascinating idea. it has come in for lots of criticism. critics are missing the point. india needs creative thinking to cure the cancer of corruption that it actual sly getting much worse and not just in india. take a look at this map. it is a corruption index. put together by transparency international. the redder a country is, the more corrupt are the bureaucrats. yellow spots are less corrupt. you notice here in the u.s. we are not doing too badly. so what's the least corrupt country in the world? singapore. about five decades ago that tiny country was newly independent. and for all of the rapid growth, it has the usual third world culture. that changed. he decided to pay government officials at power with those in the private sector. that killed the incentive for officials to be corrupt. the singapore solution is expensive especially for large countries with large bureaucracies but would probably still be a bargain considering how much corruption costs most. another idea kim out of africa. a man often wondered why his continent has the richest resources and richest natural resources and yet the poorest people. identifying corrupt leaders is the problem. he tried to change those leaders' incentives. instituted the annual prize, it awards $5 million to an african leader who is not corrupt and leads office peacefully. the winner then goes on to get an additional $200,000 annually for life. a great incentive, right? the problem is they couldn't find a winner for 2009 or 2010. the jury simply refused to make the award to someone that was not truly deserving. the point of this story isn't to despair. corruption or bribery are not innate cultural qualities. singapore shows that cultures can change and studies show that these crimes are due to inertia. if everyone is doing it, incentive to take bribe as well. but how do you get to a critical mass where people stop doing it? smart government policies, good leadership from the private and public sector, all that helps. it is possible that this is the year of change, after all. remember, much of the popular anger against the arab world this year was fueled by the sense that they were out of touch, repres