>> 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 administration foreign 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 haven't really learned the lesson of the last decade. why? i don't 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. >> let's stay out of war. >> let's 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 vis-à-vis 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 don't 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, i'm virtually certain, comes from the sense that people don't understand what he's doing. but part of the reason that they don't understand it is because they don't -- he doesn't 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 you're exercises are finished, our exercises will be finished. the russians aren't 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. i'm 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 doesn't 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

you've 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. i'm 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 doesn't 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, pro-russian and otherwise. and been unable to deal with energy and any form of moderately effective governance. they just haven't 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 don't 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 don't do that, and you

don't just allow a process to happen that makes it look so chaotic. the policymaking. part of people's confidence is that there should be some sense of clarity, of purpose, of straight-line. 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 i've 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, i'm 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 you've got chemical weapons, try using them, and you will lose them. that is what this process says. and even better, it's 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 don't want to repeat. you don't 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, i'm 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 don't think so. certainly, this government doesn't. 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 don't 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 don't want to be a pariah among nations. >> and they do want a deal. the deal they've 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 op-ed 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 won't 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 don't 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. >> i'm 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. >> let's talk about president obama's 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 obama's 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 you're going to create tighter trade integration a bunch of -- between a bunch of like-minded 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 didn't 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 america's 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 don't 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 america's place in the world. he would rather say we don't 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 presidential 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 america's wielding of diplomatic instruments and wielding of economic instruments has been less exceptional than obama's 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 obama on foreign policy at record lows. >> what do you think about ukraine? what do you think the russians are going to do? and how should the u.s. and the west respond? >> i give obama an a minus on the asia trip, maybe even an "a." on ukraine, i'm not grading on a curve. this is failed policy. this is the united states saying, russia, if you don't behave the way we want, we will

isolate you. no we are not. russia is not iran. the sanctions process with the europeans, we almost lost that last week. we can barely get the europeans at the table. >> why? >> because the europeans do not want to punish the russians. they want to support the cranium. they have a lot at stake economically and they cannot coordinate. >> what do they have at stake? >> if you look at transactions, for instance, gas, even real estate. in germany, you have a german population, which especially after snowden, is mistrustful of what the u.s. wants for foreign policy, does not want to get involved, and is strongly opposed to sanctions. you have an industrial lobby and a financial lobby that is

telling merkel in own -- in no uncertain terms, we want access. and then you've just lost a $2 billion deal that siemens picked up by going over to moscow and dealing with putin and saying, hey, we are dealing. you cannot keep the europeans on board. you have the last order of sanctions that the americans just put on this week after they said there were going to be consequences. and basically, they are just ripping up the geneva agreement on ukraine. after a couple of weeks of saying there are going to be consequences, but as we make things tough, but you? it goes up. and there is not a single break. not brazil, not china, not one iota listening to our policy. we cannot isolate the russians.

we can push them toward china. that is not in our interest. right now, our coalition on ukraine is canada, because they have a large ukrainian population and elections are coming up, and japan because they are japan. i like canada and japan. they are great countries. but that is not a coalition. we would not have gone into syria with that coalition. >> what is a brimmer solution for the united states? >> one is to try to back down on sanctions. >> what do you do then to stop the russians? >> i think that the russians were not solvable in crimea or in cap is that you. you mentioned at the outset that the ukrainian government, there is nothing they can do. we have been pretty clear that we are not providing military support. it looks like southeast ukraine is going. we need to provide real economic support for the ukrainians.

real economic support. do you know what we have done so far? we have done $1 billion in loan guarantees. you telling me that we are willing to punish the russians and hurt our own economies and companies and we have $100 billion in loan guarantees for the ukrainians? it is a disaster. >> you think you got to be $18 billion from europe and the united states? >> the imf is doing a lot. we know that kiev is losing legitimacy every hour because of what the russians are doing in southeast ukraine that cannot be stopped. if we cannot stop the russians and if we want to balance that out, we better support the ukrainians so that some of that legitimacy comes back. i know that a lot of the money that you give to ukraine is going to go to morale. but again, compared to the damage we are doing to the international order by trying to isolate the russians with no effect, we are just getting the russians to keep pushing back. >> can the russians just going

to ukraine and have their way? >> if you are asking me if i'm happy with the russians taking crimea, no. am i happy with the russians having occupied 12 cities, police stations, legislatures in places like donetsk and clearly having russian forces on the ground, i'm not happy with that either. what i'm saying is that given that we are not considering military action and that escalation of sanctions won't work, we have to look at what is feasible. >> sanctions are not going to work and you can support the ukrainians in kiev and hope that they can do it on their own. >> you can support the ukrainians in kiev to a vastly greater degree than we have so far, and together with the europeans. and by the way, i understand it is a loss in southeast ukraine and crimea. but there is a win to be had with nato.

because you've got governments right now in europe, in eastern europe that are saying, my god, and we thought nader was not really relevant. nato is really relevant. -- we thought nato was not really relevant. and germany needs to play a leadership role on nato. long-term, they are hemorrhaging cash in russia. >> places reform are really working? china? >> china, yes. i see xi jinping as exceeding everyone's expectations. >> as a leader? acts as a leader. he is -- >> as a leader. he is moving towards meaningful reform. >> japan? >> despite the fact that the markets have gotten a little bit

lethargic about the pace of japanese reform, the commitments of the corporate in japan to the ldp, the liberal democratic hearty, and shinzo abe -- the liberal democratic party, and shinzo abe -- >> what about shinzo abe a's nationalism? >> if you ask what i think about criticism of what he's done so far, it is the nationalism against china. but there has been success in getting engagement with china. the governor of tokyo with just over in a meeting with the deputy prime minister of china, i think obviously that -- backing out a little bit on a unilateral view of history. i we will see more out of that

-- i suspect we will see more out of that relationship in the past -- in the next few months than we have seen in the past. >> syria is in a stalemate? >> not quite. a thought is consolidating power. -- assad is consolidating power. >> you think he will remain in power? >> i certainly do. i saw with prime minister and >> i certainly do. i saw with prime minister prime ministerrdogan is mainly concerned with holding onto power. >> and what about this interview yet complex it was an extraordinary interview. he was dealing with a six

percent success in local -- 46% success in local elections. his response on corruption was problematic, to say the least. saying, well, i could not possibly be corrupt because how could i build all those roads? what he said, if you watch closely, i think that interview will lay very well for his domestic audience, for those who voted for him was up i think he is taking the fight to get back at those who were against him. it is not that they must not win, but that they must lose. that is what will be most troubling for the markets. winning should lead to consolidation. that is what the market wants. he is going to go after these guys. even if they leave the country, he's going to hunt them down. >> that is scary. >> it is not scary for me or you. >> no, i mean, but for people who may be scared for the future of turkey. >> i think this is a country that has spent so many decades working too slowly and methodically build institutions. it takes a long time.

erdogan is starting to unravel that. >> but there were some positive moves. >> i think he sees himself as someone with a legacy. but it will be a much more volatile place to invest. >> because they simply do not like to hear from him? why do they not want to invest in turkey? >> volatility around the guy who after he has wons going to do everything to go after these enemies -- look, if you win, you lose, and you still have to work together. >> you are saying he appears to be angry, vindictive, and unwilling to be criticized. >> he appears to be willing to go after a series of folks that are actually critical to the functioning of turkish society, even if they are not in power. if i were an investor in turkey, that would unnerve me. >> thank you for coming.

>> good to see you, charlie. ♪

>> ramahandra chua is here, and author and historian. time magazine has called him india's democracy clerk. he has garnered critical acclaim. his new book is a two-part biography about the life of mahatma gandhi. it is called, "gandhi before india." tell me where you think india is today. >> it is the 16th election as a democratic country. elections are largely free and fair, always contentious, and this time we are almost certainly going to see a change of government. that is all we can say. what the new leader will be like and what the new government will

be like is hard to tell. but it is a tumultuous, exciting, important election. >> this, because of the fact of the democratic process at work. >> yes, and imagine, imagine 600 million citizens, humans going to the ballot boxed and exercising their preference. and i can see, particularly after florida in 2000 or whatever it was, our election is fairer than most. >> you don't have to get into democracy in florida. if a new party wins, does that change india's significant? >> india is so large and complex. we are a system of 28 states with their own governments, so one leader can only do so much. but we have had for the past 10 years and highly educated man who has proven to be a weak and incompetent prime minister. >> why is that?

>> he was indefinite and insecure in his position. he did not have political. -- political courage. he did not have good advisors. and one of the candidates is abrasive. we could exchange a weak and insecure prime minister for an aggressive and possibly intolerant one. but we have checks and balances. and mr. bodie will find that he is in a democracy, scrutinized fearlessly. >> he wasn't a great student? >> he was a mediocre student. in having the distinction of being a first-class student, there is also a distinction in being a third class student.

and he was also a failed lawyer. >> because he was so interested in politics? >> no, no, but because he was just a bad speaker. it is interesting that such a great leader that started as a bad lawyer had a bad stutter. and he went to south africa. but and -- >> and he found his way into a court case how? collect he went to settle -- >> he went to settle one dispute ended their 21 years. and the differences with the religious communities, that is where he understood the diversity of india. when he went to south africa, he was exposed to tamil speakers, christians, muslims, far sees, -- farsi.

he understood the verse -- diverse languages. >> what brought him back to india? >> in south africa, he realized the power he had to command appeal and attention and devotion. he was a great man, but also an ambitious man. he said, in south africa, and can only be a community leader. in india, there is a national movement emerging. i can be of great national figure. he didn't articulate it in this way, but when you read his writings in his letters, this is what it was.

he was a great organizer. he edited a magazine in four languages. >> about vegetarianism. >> partially, but also about other things. he took on other things as a writer, propagandists, a. , and a leader -- as a purist and a leader. >> a man of many talents. he was an ambitious man. >> indeed, he was an ambitious man. but he was also a questioning man. he was ceaselessly asking himself questions about society and the world, expanding his reason.

and the friendships that he forged with jewish people, who were also marginalized in african society. and he interacted with people that could argue back and expand his worldview. >> he sharpened his school -- his tools, his skills. >> absolutely. he extended his worldview. >> what does he have in the history of today for india? >> he will be credited with a technique to avoid oppression that was nonviolent. you had two options before. you either said, please stop, or you picked up a gun and bashed him. gandhi expressed nonviolent action. the second and important thing, i think, why he was such a great figure is the ability to forge relations between rival religious groups, hindu, muslim, christian, and jew. and more and more we keep having to recognize that he was important in these criticisms that industrialization could do. he warned against it.

>> how did he warn against it? >> he said, if india takes to industrialization after the men of the west, he said, india will strip the world bear. much like china. these two massive and populated countries, of course they need to end suffering and destitution, but do it in a -- an environmentally responsible way. gandhi was the first to recognize this back in the 1920's. >> he was a good writer. >> he was a clear and reflective writer. he did not have rhetorical flourish.

>> what was his biggest flaw, do you think he, during the south african series? >> one was, he started out and saw them as uncivilized. it was a hierarchy of civilizations. but slowly, he grew out of it. and later you could recognize that they were not what he thought them to be. his greatest flaw in south africa was that he was an indifferent husband and a disastrous father. >> an unhappy marriage. >> not really, but a disastrous father. i think he imposed on his two sons impossible conditions because he had given up his

study in india and become a social activist, he said they must stay out of traditional society. he made experiments of especially his first son, who was devastated by the excessively high expectations that his father had impressed upon them. >> what happened to the son? >> he became a broken man. he was deeply in love with his wife and she died and he became an alcoholic and destitute. it is often the case with great writers and thinkers that they alienate those closest to them. he was meeting new kinds of people. he was shedding the racial prejudice that he had towards africans.

when he went to india, returning again in 1950, he thought of the caste system, the dividing into four classes was not religiously sanctioned. the bigness of gandhi in many ways is that he was open to criticism and reflection and to shedding the prejudices of religion and class and nationality. >> what was his vision for india? >> is vision has several components. he wanted an india in which religious minorities would have equal rights.

despite all of the provocations and the problems, india is not a hindu pakistan. it is not a nationalist state. he wanted everyone to have the freedom to speak their own language. we have 17 languages and scripts. that part is achieved. -- 70 to from languages and scripts. that part is achieved. but you have the exhibitionism of the wealth, the corruption of the government, the dishonesty of public officials, and the environmental devastation of much of the countryside. gandhi would have had a qualified verdict on india today. he would have been appreciative of the democracy, of the fact that we are not a hindu state, that we respect pluralism and diversity, but the economic policies and the morality of our rich add to the corruption of the ruling elite.

>> what was your idea of nehru? >> he was his fifth son. they disagreed on economic policy. it was an extraordinary relationship. >> what did he die of? >> he was assassinated by a hindu fanatic. but he saved india. he started the creation riots, during a time of great religious animosity. because gandhi was killed by a fellow hindu, the other hindus were appalled by what he had done. -- by what had been done. in my view, through his

martyrdom, he showed we could establish a democracy. >> it was said by rabin that he was killed by a jew. and his place in history for you? >> his place in history for me is that he is not without flaws or controversy, but in many ways was a global figure. >> who do you think influenced him the most? >> he had multiple influences. i think tolstoy would have been one. and he also felt that the kingdom of god is within you. every human being must follow his own part to the divine. and he was a successful professional in being an activist. he was the greatest novelist of his age. and he was for pacifism to fight for the rights of peasants. i think tolstoy was very important. there was a philosopher that influences ideas toward vegetarianism. amanda gandhi met when he was very young. -- it is a man gandhi met when he was very young. he had a very together vision. you must go from your compartment to the next and to the next.

>> and then you will know more and you are better off. >> yes. >> what was his problem with churchill? >> he said, i have not become the king's first minister to preside over the empire. in that respect, churchill was wrong and gandhi was right. >> he was. and when you think about what lyndon johnson did in terms of civil rights. he said, i don't want to preside over the first american seat over a big war. and churchill felt that way about india. >> he had seen india as a lieutenant in the 1950's. he saw it through the eyes of a navy officer, you know, unruly

peasants. >> because it has become a democracy, there was a time when people thought that india might well surpass china in his own development. do you believe that is still true? >> no, i don't think so. we have succeeded in the vote. we have not been able to get our act together in many aspects. that is the nature of a democracy. i am very glad we are not like china. if i was a chinese national and an intellectual, i could not live in my country. here i am and i can be critical of the ruling party and of gandhi and practice my trade as an artist.

a democracy gets its act together slowly. but with freedom along the way. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover innovation, technology and the future of business. i'm emily chang. the c.e.o. of target has now resigned. we get the latest on google as v.c. business. the jury in the apple-samsung patent trial was hauled back to court to recalculate some of the damages and they came to the same overall figure, $119.6 million. samsung plans to appeal. nokia plans to invest in companies that develop smart car technologies.