>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." president obama faces a convergence of conflict around the globe. peter baker wrote, rarely has

the president then hit with so many disparate global crises at once. in gaza, the death toll rises despite calls for an immediate cease-fire. they have agreed to leverage tougher sanctions against moscow. president obama addressed the situation earlier today. >> today, russia is once again isolating itself from the community dating back decades of genuine prospect -- progress. it did not have to come to this. it does not have to be this way. this is a choice that russia and president putin in particular has made. there continues to be a better choice, the choice of de-escalation, joining the world in a diplomatic solution, a choice in which russia recognizes it can be a good neighbor and trading partner even as ukraine is developing

ties with europe and other parts of the world. the islamistade by state of iraq and syria threaten global security. they blame this on president obama's lack of leadership. joining me now is tom donilon who served as the national security advisor from 2010-20 third in. he is now on the council of foreign relations. he recently wrote an argue argue against the prospect of american decline. i'm pleased to have him back cap this table. i do not want to talk so much about american decline. you know the players and you know how the president inks about these things. first, ukraine. these newicance of sanctions and seemingly the united states and europe on the same page. they reflect, of course,

is president putin doubling down to his activities in ukraine. >> meaning? forncreasing his support the insurgents. >> in what ways? >> it's actually evolved. the operation initially underway goes to his wanting to bring ukraine back into the spirit of russian influence. it goes to getting leverage in the situation and he had been running a covert operation of sorts, deniability. militarygents and folks. a lot of military support, arms, heavy weapons, intelligent support. >> on the ground with the separatists? and we havehere are a lot information the so-called separatists have come back to get instruction and we have very

clear efforts right now, charlie, that the russian government has been supporting in all of the ways outlined the insurgency to ukraine. indeed, the violence escalating -- not the escalating, this violence is really something the putin government has fermented and supported. you had the terrible shootdown of the malaysian aircraft where 300 people lost their lives. prudent had an opportunity then to come forward with a cooperative or conciliatory way to deal with this in a political fashion and he did not. instead he doubled down, increased support of the ukrainian separatists including material and other supports in eastern ukraine. what happened is, now we have that the russians are operating directly against the ukrainian army coming from

inside russia. you move from a covert operation to a much more overt operation actionsct military across borders. why is that? putin has himself in a trap here. has a high 80 five percent approval rating. internationally, it's exceedingly difficult for him. approval a high 85% rating. the insurgents are actually facing military defeat in eastern ukraine and that is what he's reacting to. he has this big propaganda effort to support the insurgents. he cannot be seen as that in down -- battoned down. >> it would be detrimental to his own. >> exactly. inside crane, you have the --ernment pushing hard

inside ukraine, you have the government pushing hard. the option they've taken is to increase support and escalate. could putin actually pull back and tried to make them more determined effort to engage in a political set of negotiations, i don't know. what's resulted of course is now you have europeans and the united states acting together in terms of pressure. something code and have been able to avoid by only going so far in terms of support and calling back keeping separate. with the shootdown of a malaysian aircraft, the escalation, and the evidence of direct action you are not together. sustainable

specifically the netherlands and germany? >> the separatists led by germany, the most orton to condom in europe -- the most important economy in europe and the most important economic relationship in russia, chancellor angela merkel has made it clear to the business community and her population that put in has had a number of opportunities here -- putin has had a number of opportunities. president poroshenko offered a political process that russia rejected. is a precipitating list of events by the ukrainian army. >> what do you think would be a red line for the west? >> clearly an invasion. or a participation of russian

troops across the border. line,that was the red what would be the response of the west? sanctions or something else? >> much more intensive sanctions but right now, i do not think most people would believe we would be here a month ago. plane, theg of the choice that putin made to escalate, not de-escalate, to not engage in a political process. thehat do you think involvement might have been in shooting down the plane? pointsuntain of evidence to the fact that the plane was shot down from separatist territory and i think the only issue really is the degree of russian help. >> what is the degree of their complicity? >> at a minimum they provided the training with respect to

this sophisticated ground to air missile system. >> the missile system as well as the training and intelligence officers operating themselves. >> it's only a matter to the degree. what we know is they provided the system within ukrainian territory when it shot down the malaysian airliner. someone had to train these guys how to run the system. likelihoodn all trained by the russians. i think that's the view of the west. were they there? were they directly involved in the shootdown? it's been a big effort to cover-up which we have seen. it likely moved back across the border into russia and we saw a lot of horrible act unity. a do you believe there is difference in the putin we are seeing now and the one you met? >> a couple things.

the general latitude, i don't think, has changed that russia would define its foreign-policy essentially encounter distinction to, negative to the west and united states foreign policy. he was going to pursue that very aggressively with propaganda at home. i do think that, number one. two, the concept here all along that the balance of power, spheres of influence, zero s um, these all came together in ukraine. >> when yanukovych well, did that give him the opportunity? -- when yanukovych fell? did he see that as an opportunity? >> he saw it as a crisis. >> otherwise lose face? >> lose the sphere of influence

over ukraine. prudent had a vision here of establishing something he called the eurasian union which would be a counterweight. it's impossible without ukraine. indeed, a lot of people in russia including those close to kootenay and the security services there could never really regarded ukraine as an independent nation. inyou look at the debates 1990 one around ukraine becoming an independent state, ucf. of that. russia has always exercised a lot of influence in ukraine. >> and that's ok with us. >> it is. they have had some influence in ukraine so there is a natural connection to that part of ukraine with russia. itt is the american goal, is not? let ukraine be free. the fact that ukraine is between

the west, russia, therefore andeting interests there it's not necessarily zero-sum. but as an independent nation able to make choices and have roots in the west & the free trade agreement and continuing also to have roots in russia, cultural, linguistic, historical ties and there are important economic ties between the ukraine and russia which will continue. what cannot continue his this putin toy foo destabilize ukraine and a constant way. i think the proposition he is pursuing his this. ukraine failing with all kinds of territorial issues is far superior than a stable, secure ukraine with ties to the west. >> general martin dempsey said

last week at a security for him you have a russian government that has made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its object to. they are clearly on a path to assert themselves differently not just in the eastern europe at europe in the main and toward the united states. that me repeat. they are clearly on a path to assert themselves differently, not just in eastern europe, but europe in the main and towards the united states. that's the chairman of the joint chiefs. >> we have dialogues and formal structures at nato. he was the national security advisor to boris yeltsin who politicalst-soviet

issues and putin rejects that. i think general dempsey is correct that he has neglected integration and he does not seem interested. to useconscious decision military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its object is. they're clearly on a path to assert themselves differently. >> both of the statements are absolutely true. it really cannot be denied. ukraine has seen crimea go to russia. it was a russian covert military he got away with it. but theybeen accepted did obviously undertake a mission in ukraine and separate crimea. >> ♪ ♪ -- >> they're trying to run an

operation to destabilize this to keep it from moving to the west. he did it through covert means. a complicated, dangerous. in ishappened here to put when you lose proxy forces, you lose control and you can have things happen with some malaysian airliner's. >> that's what the president said, the reason he was than to provide more support for rebels and syria was something like this could go on. >> it's a dangerous game. it's a very dangerous game. putin did this in a reckless fashion. eiko ones now looking of the decisions the president made that a lot of people, even though the chemical weapons are that'ssyria, they say the point where they lost some faith in the ministration. -- in the administration.

pressure mounts in russia in wake of $50 billion ruling yesterday after internal tribunal ordered russia to pay former owners as they prepare to ramp up sanctions over role in the ukraine crisis. >> that's another role where the west moving further apart in this will be seen as another example of western institutions acting unfairly against them. we are moving towards a cold period, not necessarily all war, but it's dangerous and one we will have to spend a lot of time working through the concepts and working through how we deal with russia going forward. >> one reason it's so dangerous is that there are many places where it would be very positive

for russia and united states to work together. syria and iran. had direct conversations with president putin about this. and theirve relationships among great powers would provide a good platform from which to address global issues and pursue our interests as well. that's true. that's how we pursued we generating alliances and intensive interaction with the chinese. for a longresident

time. this is a real challenge for the west. >> what accident could turn it from a cold war to a hot war? >> any number of things. there are plenty of incentives for it not happen obviously. that's not where we are today. he could make a decision to invade ukraine. >> what would happen if he invaded? >> there would be a ferocious reaction. >> what does that mean? i didn't say that we would putting troops on the ground. but essentially in terms of isolation and in terms of additional sanctions which, why the way, russia is exceedingly vulnerable to. stage of sanctions, sectoral sanctions, would be very damaging that there would

be knocked off in the european economy as well but the bigger implications would be more globally. in terms of the dynamics of the world you were describing, a could have a lot of effect on our ability to do with issues around the world. are the chinese in any way trying to take advantage of our relationship with russia? are they trying to make a warmer relationship? >> the chinese will pursue their interests. >> are their interests to get closer to russia? the most important relationship to china is clearly the united states. the market relationship pales in comparison to the market relationship between china and the united states. that said, they have a strategic relationship and you see them acting in concert at the united nations and elsewhere. >> on the security council. saw it in the crisis.

president putin went to russia signing one of the largest trade deal over this natural gas trying to show that he has other options. the chinese will pursue. obviously think about this carefully and look for other options when they see -- and i hope a do see -- europe the coming more independent in terms of its energy. they will continue to turn to markets for their energy resources and to try to pursue a deep and strategic relationship. it's important for us to continue our deep engagement with the chinese. with the idea of russia. there is serious and iran. what do you think is happening in syria today? in the last 48 hours, probably the bloodiest in the syrian war, 7800 people killed. -- 78 to 100 killed.

>> give or take 200 that have been killed in the matter of a week in gaza. >> you have the continuing exceedingly violent civil war where isis, the most radical group, has made gains both as against the other oppositionist groups -- >> in syria. >> and made some gains turning hard against the assad government as well. this is what i worry about with respect to isis -- and i will call it the syria-iraq theater because i think it's important to think about it that way because the border really has been obliterated between iraq and syria by the blitzkrieg across western and northern iraq by the isis forces which says a lot about the al-maliki government. that cannot have happened without an exceeding degree of alienation by sunni in western

iraq. isis because the al-maliki government gave them no option to participate. >> that's exactly how they see it and tolerating is a good word. they have great difficulty because of who they are and no one wants to live in a territory run by isis. it was underscored this past week by comments that matt olson made, the director of our national counterterrorism -- counterterrorism operation he's a very thoughtful, insightful who's been running and ctc for a few years and he said in a conference in athens something that's very important. the numbers of foreign fighters now in that the editor, syria, iraq, where isis is centered, the numbers are at around 12,000. these are much bigger numbers that were coming into iraq at the height of the iraq war. there may be as many as 1000

your pms and maybe as 100 americans. he qualified 100 americans by saying that there could be more. why should that concern us? these are not from serious and iraq that they are from around the world. somere going to go home at point. this is a very serious security concern for the united states if someone who has gone to this theater has fought jihad, radicalized theologically, gained fighting skills and they come back to europe, as you know, in europe among 26 countries in the region where there is no border control, they can move around all 26 european countries and 20 out of 28 have visa waiver programs to the effect of the united states. this is a very big intelligence problem. >> what do we do?

>> we need to put pressure on them where they are now which means getting the iraqi government together to put iraq to on isis in support the moderates and moderate oppositionist groups in syria but to work very closely with the europeans, frankly, on monitoring these people coming in and out of this theater. iraq and talk about al-maliki. you said he was intolerant of sunni and therefore they became tolerant of isis. i get a sense from traveling in the middle east that it is changing. in fact, clearly saudi arabia is to those sunnis in iraq that this is not the way to go to somehow siding with isis and i get a sense also that the sunni forces that have been supporting some of the rebels

who were born islamist that they are beginning to rethink that and look for other people to support against assad because they have not lost sight of wanting to overthrow assad. >> two or three things. number one, it's not just al malik he was not tolerant. migrated to an autocratic sectarian regime. he really diminished the armed forces by politicizing it. he used brutal means against peaceful sunni protests and he pushed them out of the government essentially to the point where, as we were discussing, where these sunni had defeated al qaeda in iraq, the predecessor of isis, with the help of the united states and others welcoming them back and in order to take down al malik i do not think you will see them break, frankly, any efforts in iraq as he stays as prime minister. >> he's looking for someone else.

>> and his own party saying people should not cling to office. that's the first point that he has been the source of this but i do not think you will see a lot of coming together in a multi-sectarian government in pressure, andunni militarily through isis until he goes away, until he is no longer the prime minister. on saturday though, it's important because there are a couple of coalitions building now. it's very interesting. they have their own internal problems with saudi arabia, turkey any number of countries, right? they are all anti-isis. >> most people say no to the possibility of it being a good idea, but is it possible that all of these things, the united states and iran, leading to a better understanding? would bethings first

my response to that. the first thing that would have to happen tom a and it should be the sole focus right now is to get this nuclear deal done with iran. >> do you think it can be done? >> i think it's impossible to tell right now because it will be up to the supreme leader in the iranian government and where they come down. we have the most important negotiations and interactions between the u.s. and iran since 1979 and they were over a six month period over the nuclear deal. and it was a sound basis that rolled back parts of it. that was good. now they have extended the negotiations for four month because the two sides -- by the way, the u.s. and europeans include the russians and the chinese and they could not close. why not? they could not close on the issue of what kind of indigenous

richness capability will be left in iran at the end of the deal. the iranians have a much, much too big set of goals here when, in fact, it can only be very small. >> they also have a problem with how long the restrictions would last. >> what is the size, if any, enrichment facilities? and then the question, how long do the restrictions stay on iran? we are very far apart on those and it will require iran to become quite a ways for a deal to be made. quickly turned to israeli hamas. john kerry has been first in cairo and then in paris. he is basically trying to get a wants are and then he negotiation about some of the questions raised on the part of this cold siege that hamas would like to make a part of the negotiations. what is your way out?

>> first of all, the israeli state is a very difficult security situation. the history here obviously is three israeli teenagers who were kidnapped and killed. you had a revenge killing against palestinians and hamas facing a nexus central crisis of its own and her really have been diminished. it had lost its iranian sponsorship. it had lost its egyptian sponsorship. cutuse the egyptians really down -- >> the syrian's were angry. >> that's right. they were really quite alone. they shut down the smuggling operation which is a big source of the economy. >> then they try to create unity. >> then that fails for lots of different reasons.

>> knowing that they kill a lot of their people. israelis certainly knew that this was underway. a much more expensive tunnel operation that would allow hamas to conduct operations deep in israel. it's a whole another threat that has to be dealt with. the israelis are determined to deal with it as part of the operation. talkey would be happy to about a cease-fire but if they get month, it will not stop the effort to close down the tunnel. security a legitimate concerns of the israelis have, for sure. , this needsurse

some context here because sometimes when we talk about this, we talk about it as if israel and hamas are two government entities involved in ae dispute, involved in border dispute of some sort and that's not the case. it's important to add some context here. hamas is a terrorist organization. they have violently taken over gaza in 2007 through the fact fatwa.- they consistently attacked through terror and other kinds of attacks. in this current context, they have rejected cease-fire after cease-fire including an egyptian effort which the israelis had agreed to. tactic is to attack response, andr a to put in place their military infrastructure in places and in the context of a military

response that civilians will get killed and then they blame the israelis for the killing of civilians all for these political reasons. you met with the head of hamas in delhi recently. ,he level of callousness recklessness, cynicism, it is a natural of the extreme organizations and that is what israel is having to deal with. >> what do you think israel should do? >> they have to deal with their security issues. >> that's a huge, wide open thing. destroying the capacity of hamas to make or fire missiles. >> they are focusing on the grading significantly hamas could this -- capability with the tunnel problem. that is essentially the articulated goal of the israeli government, not to destroy the hamas regime in gaza, although some in the government are

arguing for that. they need to sit down and work through a de-militarization controlling what comes in and out. and in conjunction, socioeconomic development of the strip. what i would do is have these four or five goals, addressed the security issue, reach a situation of calm, work with the egyptians to come up with a set of proposals going forward here, involved the palestinian authority and i think it's a good idea to have them be passagesng the border and for us to work with this , egypt, jordan, saudi

arabia, united arab emirates, and the palestinian authority to move forward. enhancing and supporting the palestinian authority is a really important piece of this. if we are going to have any sort of -- >> if they had an opportunity to try to come to an agreement with the israelis to the offices of the secretary of state john kerry. they have that opportunity. >> it would have been the office of the secretary of state and we saw how important it was. >> and it failed. >> it failed. those would be my goals, what i would do. >> he would simply deal with the palestinian authority? >> i would try to enhance and support the authority in any way that i could in a solution here and i would deal directly with the egyptians, obviously. you've got a lot of these

countries who want to participate in this, qatar, the turks, and others. the egyptians can actually do something about this. the egyptians have some control over what comes in and out of gaza. they can do something about the economic situation in gaza. they can do some thing about the security situation in gaza. you shouldrules is deal with the people who can actually do something about the situation in the egyptians, here, actually can make a positive contribution. i also, by the way, would look at this for an opportunity for the united states to build a better relationship with the egyptians. >> thank you for coming. >> can i say one more thing? united states needs to be repaired to take action in the event that iran moves towards getting a nuclear weapons if negotiation to break down. moret to point out one thing, the united states has

35,000 military forces in the persian gulf. president obama worked for years building on an initiative and i was deeply involved in this to put in place the resources and the capability to do what needs to be done. everybody hopes that -- >> those forces are in place. andhe u.s. has the ability the forces to do. it clears the intent. you, tom. former national security adviser for president obama, tom donilon. we will be back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

buy a ferrari. >> elephant ivory has been a desired commodity and in years demand has skyrocketed. in 2013, more than 20,000 elephants were brutally killed for their tusks. president obama issued an executive order to try to stop the illegal trade. the african wildlife foundation has been a leader in efforts to preserve the elephant population. patrick bergin is the ceo. veronica varekova is a trusty

and good will to the african wildlife foundation. marcus asner is an attorney and is on the residence advisory council for wildlife trafficking. i'm pleased to have you all here with me. this is an important conversation. tell me about the magnificence of the elephant. period. >> for all of us, elephants represent savannah, africa, the great landscape, the serengeti. and then their behavior, the way elephants treat their young, the way they live in complex societies. for so many of us, elephants are evocative what africa is. >> and they are not alone in terms of wildlife in trouble. >> it is so magnificent and so diverse. there are the great cats -- the

lions, the leopards, the cheetah. >> all under threat. >> if you look at numbers, they are plummeting and it's very alarming. four of the five great apes in the world are in africa. there are orangutans, bonobos, chimpanzees. as central african forest are being logged and being captured for the pet trade, they are also under threat. really, it's about wildlife generally. africa is undergoing economic modernization. but we hope is that it does not lose its wildlife in the course of that change. >> what's happening to the elephant? >> during the 1980's, as you probably know, there was a huge poaching crisis. elephant numbers were cut in half from 1.2 million. the international community rallied and we were able to throw on the brakes and the poaching stopped.

for about 10 or 15 years, things were quiet. now the poaching has started act up again. >> has demand gone up? >> there are trade routes between africa and asia. through thailand, hong kong. singapore, malaysia, other countries. ivory coming out of west africa through ports in togo and nigeria. african elephants are, once again, very much under threat. the forest elephant is estimated to be 60% lost in the last four years. >> are we near a tipping point? >> the scenario from cameroon, the entire population of elephants just disappeared in one month -- was it? it was such brutality. it was people from chad. >> the terrorist groups that the

state department, president obama, secretary clinton believe are involved in this, the horse games went into northern cameroon and wiped out a population of 450 elephants. complete decimation. they see it as cash to be harvested. >> the prices in 2010 you would get $750 per kilo of ivory and now it's $2500, something like that. there's a lot of cash. >> is the biggest demand coming from china? >> it's the emerging middle class. it's where the biggest demand is. it is seen as a status item. it is still an important demand center and it also really sets the framework for the rest of the world. for better or for worse, but for here hopefully it's for better because the u.s. is very much a

leader in this area. we've taken a lot of steps legally and on the enforcement side of the rest of the world seems to be following which opens good. >> what are the steps? >> we've really focused on enforcement. really no other country does wildlife enforcement like the united states does. our laws are really out the forefront. i think they can be strengthened in some ways but this act is really at the forefront and is very groundbreaking. the rest of the world is much wants to follow. >> what is the cities treatment? >> patrick is deeper into that van i am. i deal with it in passing. >> it is the international global treaty that governs trade between all sorts of endangered species, plants, animals, so forth.

it is very important and very central to this discussion. remember it's about legal trade. criminal gangs are not bothered by international treaties. they are criminals. we have to understand that. at last met in bangkok a little more than a year ago. this is where, for example, species can be put into various appendices and the elephants were in appendix one which basically meant no trade. the concern is where sales have been allowed on a one-off basis that the sales that allow for the laundering of ivory and other products. there is been confusion. is it legal or illegal? >> does your organization want to destroy all ivory so that there is no market and therefore no trade, therefore no demand? >> there's a lot of symbolism and i was happy to attend with

patrick the ivory crush in denver. i don't think it's feasible. this is a government-possessed product. there is such a volume in it. tanzania has still refused to destroy the stockpile of ivory which is worth around roughly $50 million. it's a very difficult decision to be made in a developing economy. it's much different to crush ivory here in this country and sort of start the fashion for someone like china, france, or other countries that possess stockpiles of ivory. for developing countries, the value is huge. wildlife trade per year generates about $19 billion. >> $19 million per year. >> if you look at wildlife

strictly, narrowly speaking, it is estimated between $7 billion and $20 billion. if you look at illegal fisheries and logging, add another zero to those numbers. >> what are you going to do to stop this? >> veronica is right that it's a real perplexing decision. i am in favor of countries destroying their stock pile. a message was unfortunately sense that there is a future in ivory and people are invested in it. we want to send the complete opposite message. if you are in this business, get out. if you thing that marcus said, destroying stockpiles and others have done so including several african countries to promote a domestic ban on sales inside the country. >> to drive of scarcity, drive

up demand, drive up price? >> i don't think i will. it's about the car market. these are thugs. they want to steal something that does not along to them and settle it illegally. there are lots of ways to sell a legal car. >> illegal gangs are driving the market. >> absolutely. that's the big difference in the poaching crisis compared to 20 years ago. >> there's a distinction to be made between your authentic, antique, something your grandmother may have had and it's a very complicated issue we've been wrestling a lot with in the advisory council. there is real, authentic, important art that is very old. society's views have changed with respect to modern ivory and

we are in a real crisis point. you asked about what we could do about it. i was a federal prosecutor for a long time and it boils down to risk-reward. the bad guys don't kill elephants because they hate them. they kill them because they equate money. you and to increase risk and dampen demand. enhanced penalties by making it more likely that they get caught and help law enforcement by furthering the victim countries making sure they get restitution for the crime. >> is there room for public education here? leonardo dicaprio, jane goodall, some others have signed an open letter to "the washington post." >> there's a huge need for that

particularly in asia. many years ago, african wildlife campaign and it was only elephants should wear ivory to educate the public. they had another adds that i love that says today in america, someone killed an elephant for a bracelet. it linked to the consumer to the death. it needs to happen in asia. we are working with a group called wild aid and some asian stars like jackie chan, maggie q, doing targeted service announcements and china and the asian marketplace. >> should the u.s. lead? >> the rest of the world looks to us for leadership in this situation. we're the only country with the ability to actually do this. we are the only country that can do cross-border prosecutions and investigations and the way that we do them. you ask about demand. the key is to make it not cool so that the chinese don't like it. it's not cool to smoke now in the united states. >> i absolutely agree but i

think there is a little problem with the way american culture has been structured around ivory. definitely, hunting for trophy but in china, the story behind owning ivory is a symbol of wealth. this is a futile mythology engraved in their culture. to change that, yes, education, yes everything that could be. you are going against 2000 years of history. >> where were you before this? >> i grew up in illinois, went to the peace corps and i've been in africa more than 25 years. >> does that sound like something that happened to you? >> i didn't do the peace corps but i climbed kilimanjaro and fell in love. >> you live there now? >> i do not but i go every two or three months. >> i was a prosecutor in

manhattan and then joined arnold porter about five years ago. >> because of that firm in new york and then the president committee? >> i joined the advisory council last summer because of work i had done as a prosecutor. >> this seems to me so obvious. you look at this kind of issue and think about the risk of losing the elephant population and all the things we talked about and it just seems it's such a crime to do it. >> it is done. i just don't understand why the chinese would not get it. drive a ferrari. >> i think that's exactly right. we are just exactly one year now -- >> give up your ivory and buy a ferrari. >> we are one year out from obama's executive order and during that time, the u.s. has shown a lot of leadership, the clintons, the united nation, the british government held an international meeting in february.

now the center of gravity needs to move east. we need leadership from china itself. and from the chinese states. >> i understand chinese culture is different but it has a long culture of bribery. in the last year you see what's happened in china where they have made great inroads into that. >> they just took a news anchor off tv. we've seen the reports. [laughter] >> for corruption. >> they really focused on it recently. you can change cultures. it's hard. >> my faith is in the youth. those kids need to go on a really cool safari and come back and just say, dad, you are silly. >> they should go to africa and talk to them. >> exactly. >> i'm traveling to asia more

because of this issue. i was talking to a guy who leads a think tank. because of the shark fin soup issue, the bear gallbladder issue, the tiger issue, the next generation in china is becoming literate on environmental issues and endangered species. there is context for this discussion. >> beyond the fact of the danger to these magnificent creatures, to somehow be able to galvanize some influence on china. >> i was at the recent africa meeting and the chinese premier was there giving eight speech about a high-speed rail network linking all of africa. but then he mentioned wildlife

trade by name in the speech and environmental protection one of four themes on which there should be china-africa collaboration. african leaders the to stand up and say to china, this is a priority for us. we want you to help us solve our problem. you don't want to lose the panda. we don't want to lose the elephant, rhino, and the cats. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> this is "taking stock on wednesday, july 30, 2014. i'm cory johnson in for pimm fox. today's theme is health. the sovereign health of argentina is under the microscope. collective default by s&p companies. we are using a latest and ongoing negotiations. plus, obamacare. we checked the temperature of that rollout. and former white house counsel for president richard nixon, john dean, will be with us.