>> if i had one constant prayer the last 35 years of my life, it would be to bring peace to israel. >> his place in history. what's the one piece of advice you would give any president when they walk in the oval office for the first time? >> the tell the truth. >> and his controversial opinion of some of the gop candidates. >> gingrich in the south carolina debate, i think he has that subtlety of racism that i know quite well and that gingrich knows quite well. >> jimmy carter and his wife, rosalinde, for the hour. the piers morgan interview starts now. jimmy carter was president from 1977 to 1981, but his work since then has won him praise worldwide and a nobel peace prize. his latest book is "through the year with jimmy carter" and tonight i'm privileged to sit down with president carter and his wife, rosalind, who will gin us later. mr. president, thank you for welcoming us to this extraordinary center. >> good to have you at the carter center. >> i love the dates here. you became president in '77. cnn is launched in -- >> '80. >> 1980. the carter center is launched in 1982. so we're all kind of interwoven here. the carter center is unusual in the sense that most ex-presidents went for a big library and that would be the way they would do their work. but the this center is really extraordinary. just walking around the library is really a small part of it. you've got all these different areas, covering all kind of global charities and things that you support and stuff. what was the overriding concept for the center? >> well, to promote two things. human rights and all of its ramifications and also peace. and we have -- we started out just trying to negotiate peace between people and we still do that, but i think now about 80% of our total budget goes in curing diseases or preventing diseases that afflict hundreds of millions of people in africa and latin america, but don't touch rich countries anymore. we also monitor elections. we just did our 89th election in egypt. we're still going over there. we just finished in tunisia and this is a major part of the carter center's work. >> do you feel you've achieved more outside of the presidency than you did when you were there? >> well, it's a different kind of thing. you know, i couldn't have brought peace between israel and egypt. i couldn't have normalized diplomatic relations with china have i hadn't been in the white house. those two things have momentous historic influence in the future. but it's a much more intimate relationship. last year we gave treatment to prevent blindness to over 12 million people. and we have now just about eradicated a disease called guinea worm, which afflicted 3.5 million people. now we're down to about 1,000 cases. so we're almost on the verge of doing away with this disease. and you know, i couldn't have gone to egypt and participated in a detailed meeting with all the political parties and monitoring the election if i hadn't been in the white house. so it's a much more personal, intimate relationship with people who are in need than it could have been. >> do you think you get a bit of a bad rap for your presidency? the reason i ask that, if you look at the achievements and if you look at the israel/egypt treaty, which has stood to this day. you look at the way you brought america back into relations with china, the most pivotal relationship now that america could possibly have, just on those two things alone, pretty big ticks in the box, weren't they? >> well, they were. and we kept our country at peace. we had a lot of challenges, a lot of opportunities, a lot of advice, and i had to start another war, attacks on somebody. we department do that. we not only kept peace for ourself and promoted human rights, but we brought peace to other people and formed alliances, china's the most important one, that had been a strain for america on 30 years or so. >> you've just been to egypt, and this has obviously been the most extraordinary 12 months. when you look at the middle east and egypt in particular and the repercussions for israel and surrounding countries, what is your sense on the ground there? because the big concern is, after all the euphoria of a year ago, that actually the islamists are taking control in egypt and that this could be very worrying. >> well, we have to remember that egypt has about 90% muslims. and for muslim political parties to be elected, it's no surprise. and i think the muslim leader, with whom i've met extensively during this past week, are very determined to put on a good face for the rest of the world and to show that islamists can govern effectively and fairly and honor human rights. it remains to be seen, of course. one of the things that's important to realize is that the united states is now recognizing the right of the islamist parties to form a government. >> when you saw people like mubarak being deposed after 30-odd years, gadhafi killed and so on. i mean, extraordinary times. >> yes. >> the kind of thing you couldn't have even imagined five years ago, did part of you celebrate and the other part slightly think, okay, what's going to happen now? >> well, both. there was a celebration, because democracy had come for the first time, really in the history of egypt. and some trepidation about the future, because it's unpredictable, as you know. and i think a lot of what happens in egypt, and also in tunisia, and also in the future in libya and so forth, will depend on the attitude of the united states and european countries toward the new government. will we support them and say, these are the premises on which we will give you financial assistance and also give you economic and political support, or will we try to do away with them, just because we don't like the leaders who have now taken power? i hope that we'll reach out to them with a friendly hand, give them help, and let them have a chance to form a good government. >> well, what should america's role be? >> i think the promote democracy and freedom. and that is what has happened in egypt. they have a chance now for a democratic government, chosen by the people, and they have a chance for freedom that is to have all the human rights that normally go with a free society. and in the past, we haven't always done that. for us, it was an election in palestine in 2006 in january, when the muslim government won. the hamas won. and in advance of that, we had supported hamas supported their candidates, but after they won the election, the united states said, no, we can't let them take office. so we declared after the election was over that they were terrorists, and we forbad them to take office. >> do you think that was a mistake? >> i think it was a serious mistake. we probably would have had peace in the middle east if we had recognized a newly elected government and worked with them with support. but this is what we have now learned in egypt and i think we'll do a different path and give them a chance to govern. >> israel is understandably pretty twitchy about what's going on. you know, i interviewed president netanyahu and he took me to the map of the region, showing these big countries, saudi arabia, egypt, iran, and so on, and then he put his thumbprint on israel, and you got a sense of the vulnerability they feel. you've always been criticized for being more pro-palestinian than israeli in the conflict. do you think naturally that you are? >> no, i don't. if i had one constant prayer the last 35 years of my life, it would be to bring peace to israel. because i know about the holy land, i've taught lessons about the holy land all my life, but you can't bring peace to israel without giving the palestinian also peace. and lebanon and jordan and syria as well. and i believe that this is still an opportunity for the united states and europe to play a positive role in bringing about a peace, based on all the international agreements. that it is a withdrawal to the '67 borders with some modifications negotiated to allow the big settlements to stay right near -- >> how much was your view slightly colored by the fact, whenever you met bagen, he would refer to any palestinian as a terrorist. >> yes, he did. >> and i might be wrong, but i kind of got a sense that when you heard this repeatedly, it made you determined not to portray every palestinian as a terrorist, and led you to move slightly more to their side in people's eyes. would that be a fair comment? >> i don't think so. when i first went to israel, about 15% of the palestinians were christians and they were my friends and soul mates in the worship of the same god in the same way. now they've almost been removed from palestine. so the palestinians are human beings, just like the americans, just like the jews in israel are, and i think they deserve a right to govern their own territory, and their own territory is palestine. which has been defined by international law as a west bank and gaza and east jerusalem. and there could be some modifications to that, as president obama pointed out in may of last year. but israel has to realize that they will never have peace, unless they basically withdraw from palestine and have two governments side by side, that is a two-state solution. and a two-state solution is what the international community all unanimously endorses. and in word of mouth, at least, prime netanyahu says, we want a two-state solution. >> do you think he means it? >> i'm not sure. their present policies are leading to yuan-state solution, which i believe in the future will be a catastrophe for israel. >> to the israelis who say that you don't fully, i guess, feel their pain of being on the receiving end of the suicide bombing and the attacks and so on, what do you say to them? >> i don't have much chance to talk of israeli leaders anymore, but last time i was over there, i did meet with the speaker of the house and i met with the deputy prime minister and also the mayor of jerusalem. i still talk to some leaders. but i encourage them to treat the palestinians fairly and to honor international law, and to realize that israel can be a strong, safe, and recognized country by all the palestinians, if they will go back to the '67 borders. and that's the only solution, i think, in the future. but i love israel. i've been there many, many times. i have many friends there, including ma knocken bagen, and many other of the prime ministers. but i think the current policy under netanyahu departs dramatically from all of his predecessors, including his most recent predecessor, olmert, who i knew quite well. he's recognized palestinian's rights to form a government side by side with israel. i'm not sure netanyahu will do that under any reasonable circumstances. i hope he will. >> you brought this amazing peace accord between egypt and israel. how much of this is done to individual personalities, leaders, who just get it and do we have the right people in charge of israel, of palestine? are they the people you could have done business with as president? >> maknockenbagen when he was first elected had a terrible reputation against peace, in fact, he had been branded by the british government before as the number one terrorist in the middle east. but he came around, because of persuasion by me and because of persuasion and because he knew what was best for his own country. and the peace agreement that we worked out, the camp david accords, had two major facets. number one was, no more war between israel egypt. that party's been honored for 37 years. the other was equal rights for the palestinians and a withdraw by israel from palestinian, which he agreed to. and the united states agreed to and egypt agreed to. that part of it has not been carried out, and i believe that's still an integral part of the future process. but i'm very close to the israeli people and i want very much for them to have peace along with peace for their neighbors. >> let's take a little break and come back and talk about three less than peaceful parts of the world, north korea, iran, and syria. all of which you know rather well. >> yes. [♪...] >> announcer: with nothing but his computer, an identity thief is able to use your information to open a bank account... in order to make your money his money. [whoosh, clang] you need lifelock-- the only identity protection company that now monitors bank accounts for takeover fraud. lifelock-- relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. if you have painful, swollen joints, i've been in your shoes. one day i'm on top of the world... the next i'm saying... i have this thing called psoriatic arthritis. i had some intense pain. it progressively got worse. my rheumatologist told me about enbrel. i'm surprised how quickly my symptoms have been managed. [ male announcer ] because enbrel suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ male announcer ] enbrel. the #1 biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. [ indistinct conversations ] [ hissing ] agents, what did we learn here today? that lint balls are extremely flammable! well, yeah. and that 15,000 dryer fires happen every year! that's why it's important to regularly clean and inspect your vents! correct. where did you get that?! i built it. [ male announcer ] we are insurance. ♪ we are farmers ♪ bum, ba-da-bum, bum, bum, bum ♪ it is a new world, but america should not fear it. it is a new world, and we should help to shape it. it is a new world that calls for a new american foreign policy, a policy based on constant decency. >> that's president jimmy carter speaking at notre dame in 1977. very prescient words there. i mean, that could almost have been a speech you'd be making in '09. because it really, american foreign policy is being reshaped before our very eyes. if you look at the way that iraq played out and even afghanistan, and then compared to someone like libya, you could almost see president obama watching your speech and thinking, here, i think this may be the way to go. >> well, that was a different time. that was when america first instituted the real application of human rights in dealing with other countries around the world. so we promoted human rights and transformed, for instance, all the countries in latin america were just about military dictatorship because of that policy, they soon all became democracies. and that's changed a lot for other countries around the world. and so, now, of course, it's a different time. and we see the so-called arab spring, which may bring 2011 into history books as a matter of transforming that entire region of the world into a move toward democracy, away fro dictatorships. >> could that have happened in iraq if it had been left to its own devices? >> well, i certainly think so. and if we hadn't invaded iraq, which was a horrible tragedy and a mistake in my opinion, it might very well be that iraq would have been the first -- one of the earliest arab countries to fall as the people rose up to replace the dictatorship. and the fact that it surprised everyone when it happened in tunisia and libya and egypt i think shows very clearly that iraq would have been a likely candidate for that purpose. >> there are three danger spots for america right now, i would argue. i mean, correct me if i'm wrong. you know a lot more about this than i do. but iran, syria, north korea, traditional danger spots, but certainly more so now than ever with a change of leadership in north korea, with ahmadinejad in iran behaving ever-more erratically and threateningly, some would argue, and syria going up in flames. is there a consistent policy that america should pursue with the three or are they all very different cases? >> well, they are different, but there are basic principles that should be followed. one is to negotiate as best you can through directly or through intermediaries with the people with whom you have differences. for instance, north korea is a good example. i went over there in 1994 to help prevent an almost certain war between north and south korea. i negotiated with kim il-sun, the grandfather, and the most revered leader, and worked out an agreement that he would do away with nuclear weapons and would have peace with north korea and south korea. and president clinton adopted that agreement and put it into effect. unfortunately, when president bush came into office, george w. bush, he threw all that in the waist basket. syria is a different proposition. that's a case where the people are rising up, the regime in power, nobody knows how much support they have among their own people, still are very abusive, and i think the world is very reluctant to go in like we did in libya, to have a military operation against syria. it's a much more powerful company and much more a respected country, having been there since ancient times. >> should assad go, though, do you think? >> i think assad is very likely to go in the next few months, maybe during this current year. but i would like to see some effort made, the russians are now supporting syria, as you know, protecting them in a way, which they are in iran as well. but i think the russians would come on board if there was an opportunity for a democratic process in syria to be orchestrated, very similar to what we are now seeing in egypt, where the people will have a right to decide who will be their leaders, including their president, elect their own parliament and let the people decide. as far as other problems are concerned, like iran, there is a regime that i believe is very likely to go to a nuclear weapon capability. they swear that they won't. i don't agree with what they are saying. i think it's very likely that they will go to a nuclear capability. >> and the big question then is how does america respond if it has absolute concrete evidence that iran now has a nuclear weapon? >> i don't think america has that kind of confidence. and i don't think that our secret information, our intelligence information leads us to that capability. they have the right and ability to go there, not the right to build weapons, but they have the right to purify uranium. i happen to be a nuclear engineer by training and i understand the process. in order to use it in their research and also to use it to generate power. i don't know what the truth is, but i think we need to do everything we can to deter them from going that way. if we cut off iran's ability to export oil, which would face them with the prospect of a devastating economic blow, then i think that would be an inevitable movement to war. and i think it would be a very serious mistake. >> and you deliberately avoided any kind of military conflict with iran, when you were president? >> yes, i did. i was advised by many of our people to go to war with iran, to bomb them, and to punish them for holding our hostages. >> you still think it would have been a terrible error to do that? >> i do, because every one of the hostages came home safe and free. there was no one killed in the war. we didn't have a war with iran. i was a military officer by profession. i was a submarine officer and i know what it means to have a strong mil