Great davis cup captain, who taught the labors, the rosewalls all these great australians and having a fallout with that federation and moving to new york, hi no idea who this guy was but he had this aura about him and he made you want to do more for him, try harder. He helped me quite a bit. The other guy was this great mexican player, who taught me how to play and sort of had me look at the court like a gee metric equation. Rose burns and mcenroe when we continue. Funding for charlie rose is provided by the following bank of america. Life better connected and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. William burns is here in 2015. He became the president of the Carnegie Endowment for international peace. He retired from the Foreign Service in 2014 after 33 years in the state department where he helped post in both russian and jordan, he was the oak second career diplomat to beak deputy secretary of state. John kerry described him as a diplomats diplomat on the short list of american diplomatic legend, im pleased to have bill burns back at this table. Legend . Hardly, hardly, great to see you. Rose good to see you. Lets just talk about the world. When you look from washington, tell me where the problem areas are, there is always the middle east. Beyond that. There are, i mean i think the two sort of most imminent problems are first north korea, you know, where the north korean regime is making steady progress toward having a miss thail you can put a Nuclear Warhead on and strike the konl u. S. There is an increasing danger with a collision with iran as you look the attentions in the gulf. But i think there are a lot of deeper problems too. This is one of those big periods of transformation on the international landscape, sort of like 1945 was, 1989 was at the end of the cold war. And a lot of things are in flux. And so American Leadership becomes critically important and theres a lot of uncertainty, i think, about the nature of American Leadership. And the interesting thing about it, from my perspective as a student, it is a time for opportunity. It is. Or a loss. It is, it is an opportunity with the United States, still there is the preeminent player in the world to help adapt institutions and alliances and shape that landscape before it gets shaped for us. You know, 10, 20, 30 years down the road. So i think theres no substitute for that kind of American Leadership. Do you worry that we today are shining that role. I think we are leading too much you know leavek too much uncertainty in peoples minds, there is too much unpredict ability. People have gotten accustomed whether they liked or disliked particular american policies, they are accustomed to the United States trying to make sense of these changes and trying to mobilize coalitions of countries to deal with them. So thats why when the United States pulls out of the paris climate agreement, it leaves a hole there which is difficult for other players right now to fill. Yeah, but doesnt nature abhor a vacuum. It does. And if we dont play that role, you can see already lots of other people, china and asia, russia, especially putins russia and europe. Iran and regional players, and the middle east and other parts of the world. So events and the landscape are going to get shaped it is just a question of whether we are playing an active role in trying to shape them. Has the idea of america changed . You have written about the idea of america. Yeah, i think the idea of america, and by that i mean the sense of respect for Human Dignity when we are at our best, the political and economic openness that is attached to us, the sense of enlightened selfinterest that has driven our Foreign Policy at its best. 70 years ago this month the marshal plan was launched which was, i think, the best example i know of enlightened selfinterest. A sense that our own selfinterest was best served by encouraging others to share in the same kind of enterprice. Rose rather than a zero sum game whereas they gain, we lose. I worry there is more emphasis on the self part than the enlightened part and that is a danger, i think, over time. Rose you have traveled a bits ahead of the Carnegie Endowment. Is the world changing in the way they see us . Did they think we are different . Well, there is a pew poll. I saw it today, came out today. In the last days it shows a pretty significant drop in peoples positive impression of the United States, in particular their impression of President Trump, polls come and go. You know its kind of built into the mix that there will be a certain amount of resentment of American Power and leadership in the world. But thats a source of concern, i think, when peoples view of americas role, of the american idea is beginning to shift in a more negative direction. But the world is changing too as you know better than anyone. Its no longer as it was after world war ii. Right. Other nations, other countries, other regions have risen. Right. No, i agree, charlie t is no longer the way it was in the almost two decades after the end of the cold war in 1989 when the United States was by anybodys account the dominant player in the international system. Now just as you said you have more di fusion of power, the rise of china over the longer temple, the rise of india, the resurgence of russia. At the same time you also have, i think, increasing uncertainty especially in advanced economies about the future of globalization. Lots of people frustrated by that. And then you have this, i think, increasingly unsettled question of americas role in the world too. So you put them all together, and you know, its a period of a fair amount of flux and uncertainty. Interesting that at daffous, a place where leaders come to speak, the champion of globalization was xi jinping. And its kind of richly ironic that a chinese leader in this day and age becomes the champion of openness. And Everything Else. Everything else too. But its just underscores the point you made before. People are going to fill a vacuum when they see an opportunity to do so. And its interesting too, i just heard on the radio, new the other day that china is building some huge port somewhere. I dont know whether it was in the middle east or africa, but it gave them, theyre building it with their money and their labor. And gives them a geo political advantage. Sure, and there is this big new one belt one road strategy that the chinese launched with a lot of fan fare a few months ago. Part of it is straight forward and economic. There is huge need for infrastructure, construction across eurasia. The chinese have a lot of underutilized capacity for that. But another part of it is strategic. This is about extending chinese influence, you know, across eurasia. And thats not to suggest that that is a threat to american interests. But it is something that you got to recognize. Its a strategy and thats. Glor rose but their strategy, help me you are the professor here, their strategy has not been hegomonic or imperialistic, in the past. No, there has always been the sense in china that historically, its region revolves around china, the middle kingdom. And it ought to be surrounded by defer recommendation players. Bt that is different than i think aspiring to a global hegomonic role right now. I think china proflted enormously over the last 30 years from the kind of order that the United States, you know, lead the way in shaping. So that their Economic Opportunities for china, a sense of security across asia as well, so i dont theres nothing inevitable about a collision between the United States and china but it will be a tricky relationship to manage. Graham allison, people are writing books that are saying that it may be inevitable. Well, and history is full of collisions between rising powers and established ones. Rose thats a real rather than exsception. Right there are exceptions, however, and thats the challenge for state craft, and leadership is to manage the complicated relationships like that. What do they call the the trap, right and rising powers are inevitably going to be in conflict with established powers. There are going to be collisions but what kind of collisions they are, whether they are political or economic or military, whether they can be managed in a more or less peaceful way is a different issue. And that question, i think, is not forward. What about institutions, the president first says they are obsolete and he goes over there and says no, they are not obsolete, but he doesnt give a ringing defense and participation and support for article five. He doesnt. Which i think is a misjudgement. Because for the United States, our alliances are what sets us apart from lonelier powers like russia and power that dont have that network of alliances and coalitions and partners. Rose there used to be the warsaw pact. Right, but today they dont. So we need to invest in those over time. Of course they have to change and a dament and of course our European Partners need to do more for our common defense. But the United States needs to make clear the priority we attach to those alliances. Rose and then there are those issues that are not nation state but that are transnational. Right. There are climate. Rose National Security issues. They are. And increasingly food and security, water and security, Global Health issues. I mean the administration of george w. Bush deserves enormous creddity for launching the initiative which has brought not just africa but most to the edge at least to the generation. Those are really important things for the United States to lee. Cyberissues are going to be an increasing challenge. In the Nuclear Field 60 years ago there werent any rules of the road to deal with this hugely important phenomenon. The United States took the lead in trying to develop those kind of rules of the road to manage this. We will try to have to do the same thing on cyberissues. Rose were you moscows ambassador. 5 to 8. Rose and where was, who was in. Putin was the second term, right. Kind of the middle putin phase. Rose give me your a fes your assessment, and it is different today. You know, like any leader, any human being, hes evolved. I think he is a pretty imussable combination of grieveance and insecurity and ambition. Like a lot of russians that was shaped in the 1990s and yell sins russia when putin felt that the western United States were taking advantage of russias moment of weakness. He put that attitude in a much more pugnacio us form and is he willing to play rough, take calculated risks. So when he sees ownings whether in syria, ukraine or elsewhere, he will push hard. Rose should we have challenged him more in syria and ukraine . You know, i think there are things we could have done differently over the years. And syria, i think, and ukraine, the response of the Obama Administration and importantly the response alongside Angela Merkel and our European Partners was a strong one. And i think helped prevent putin from overreaching even further beyond crimea. So i think that was a sensible response. But this is going to require longterm firmness and vij lens because i think our relationship with putins russia is likely to be adversarial for some time to come. What if we had said when we went into crimea, either you leave or else whatever else. Well, the else is a tough question then. Because i think for putin, crimea and ukraine was a kind of very fundamental interest for lots of russians. He wasnt going to back down. He was most likely to double down there. Even the, that is two conversations i have had with him. Some were lengthy. I mean he talks about those people who speak russian. Right. Rose who are no longer within russia. Right. And he has this sense, and its true of a number of russians in the political elite that you ought to have a deferential ukraine, and if you cant have that, the next best thing from putins point of view is a disfunctional ukraine. Rose should we recognize i mean clearly we ought to recognize that there has been a history, and you have to appreciate the culture and history of a place. Right, you do. Rose but should we recognize a deferential relationship between ukraine and russia . No, i think ukraine, i think its a fundamental point in International Order that ukrainians like any other country ought to be able to make their own choices. They shouldnt be sub order nant to another power. Of course you have to recognize the bonds of history and culture and you know, economics as well. But no, i dont think the russians are entitled to a sphere of influence which would include ukraine. Do you worry about russia and iran . Yeah, i mean, you know, there is a lot of mistrust between russians and the iranians historically. In energy terms they are competitors, not partners. When we used to do the secret talks, nubbing clear talks with iranians, the surest way to get a rise out of either the russians or iranians was to raise the other party. But tactically in the short term they have made a lot of common cause, because theyve both seen opportunities to chip away at American Leadership and the middle east. But it was possible to work with the russians on the iranian nubbing clear agreement. Rose they were supportive. They were. Rose an very helpful, the president has said that. They were pretty solid partners and we quite consciencely from the beginning of those negotiations tried to make it very difficult for the iranians to drive a wedge between us and the russians because we knew if we held that part of the cooperative effort together, we could hold the whole coalition. Rose where do they stand in terms of iranian behavior, having to do with, you know, supporting hezbollah and. They are partners with the assad regime and syria which creates all sorts of challenges for us and our friends in the middle east. I think the russians have been pretty good in insisessing that the iranians hold to their obligations in the nubbing clear agreement. In general they have looked for ways to make common cause with iran in the middle east. What can we do about iran other than impose more sanctions, what the congress has done . You know, i think or not to do with the nubbing clear deal. I think inevitably managing iran you and developing a strategy loo be complicated no matter who got elected last november because the challenge would be how do you implemented nubbing clear agreement which i continue to believe is the best of the available alternatives from preventing and getting a bsh bsh du how do you do that embedded in a wider strategy which recommends that the iranians threaten us and threaten our interest in important parts of the middle east. And so thats a tough balance to strike. But i mean i think thats the challenge. So there are sanctions that, you know, we can employ whether its with regard to missile tests that the iranians do, and the development of that capability or human rights issues too. We shouldnt be high about doing that. But its a tough balance. Rose history whether, i suggest, probably look at that secret mission that you and i guess jake sullivan, not sure who else was there. Explain that to us. What happened . Well, i mean you know, in the first term of the Obama Administration we worked hard to build up a fair amount of pressure and leverage against iran. So by the beginning of 2013, you know, the value with the oil exports had dropped by 50 . The value of their currency dropped by 50 . So there was a moment when you could use this leverage and president obama decided, i think rightly, that the best way to test whether the iranians are serious, given the baggage on both sides of the iranian revolution, the hostage crisis and Everything Else was to do it quietly. The omani government had a track record of working with the iranians, they helped with the release of three. Which government. The omani government, they had a track record so we, starting in early march of 2013 met on nine or ten different occasions with an iranian delegation. Rose what would you do, show up at a hotel and nobody knows who are you and up on the floor above you a bunch of iranians and go down to the Conference Room and chat. No, well, you know, unmarked u. S. Government aircraft, so we did the best we could in this day and age to keep it quiet. And then we actually met in what was an old mani military Officers Club on the beach about 30 minutes outside of where there wasnt a lot to do other than engage with iranians. And especially after president rouhani was elected and ksh became Iranian Foreign minister. It became clear that the iranians we were dealing with, wanted to try to reach a negotiated resolution. They are very tough tbheshters. It was not an easy process at all. But you know, i think we were able to make pretty rapid progress. Rose they wanted a deal. They did. And it wasnt. Rose and you wanted a deal. Right, and it wasnt a coincidence because they were feeling very heavy economic pressure. But i think we faced one of those situations where having built all this leverage with a coalition behind us, and an iran yn government after rouhanis election which was evidently ready to engage seriously, either use that leverage or you risk losing it because our partners would have gotten quite nervous. So that was the moment to try to take advantage of that. Rose in terms of negotiating, was that as good an effort as you have seen . I mean you