>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with our continuing coverage of the greek debt crisis. prime minister alexis tsipras gave a speech today after he offered a new w proposal to the eurozone. he accepted most of the terms from previous negotiations with him conditions attached. joining me now is erik schatzker . here in new york, peter coy economics editor of bloomberg

businessweek magazine. i'm pleased to have both of them here as we try to make sense of this story as it unfolds day by day. where are we in the continuing drama of what is going to happen to greece? eric: trying to make sense of the story is exactly what we're trying to do. we earn -- learn earlier in the day that alexis tsipras made a counter offer to his european creditors, saying i will take most of what you put on the table but with some conditions. these are not minor conditions. he has some issues with the value added tax, for example. he has issues with pension reform. he wants to delay pension reform. he wants to give parliament an opportunity to weigh in on labor legislation. they sound like small, discrete points, but added up, they are very them or did. it's not clear how well they would go down with european

creditors, and i'm talking about the imf and the ecb and the european commission, if they were willing to sit down at the table, but what we learned from the dutch finance minister who leads the eurogroup of finance ministers today, is that the time for negotiation has come and gone. what the eurogroup and presumably the imf and ecb want to see now is a referendum. that is where we are headed on sunday. charlie: what is the likely outcome of that referendum? eric: no is no two of european bailout under the current offer and yes is yes to the current conditions. everybody has figured it out, yes is yes to the eurozone, and no is yes to a grexit, so to speak.

it looks like more athenians and grecians than not want to stay in the eurozone. charlie: is citrus supporting a no vote, as i understand he is? eric: absolutely. he went on state television in a taped address to urge his evil to vote no -- to urge his people to vote no. on that basis, there appears to be no room between him and jerome dyson bloom and john claude juncker and mario draghi and madame lagarde. he's going his way, they are going the other way. it appears we will not know how this is resolved until some point late in the evening on sunday, and between now and then, it's going to be some furious campaigning. charlie: if the vote is yes will alexis tsipras resign? eric: he promised on monday night that if the vote goes yes, he will resign. the open question is, if the margin of difference between

victory and loss is very narrow will he actually live up to that promise? i don't know. the reason i raise that question is because this government, not just the prime minister but the finance minister and other members of the cabinet have made promises to which they have not lived up, many steps along the way since january, since this drama began. it remains to be seen. that's what he said he would do. we will see. what else can i say at this point? charlie: you said that well. let me go to peter. so where are we? peter: i think mario draghi is the key figure here. if you're talking about the crisis for greece now is that they don't have any money in its banks, and that is because the ecb has put a cap on how much emergency loan it will allow the bank of greece to make available to the greek banks.

that's why when people show up at the atms, they are having trouble money -- having trouble getting money out. that cannot go on. something's got to change their. the ecb is supposed to be a political, not mixed up in who is elected, who is in and out of office. we are just the technocrats who run the banking system. but they are getting pulled into this. what the ecb decides in the days and weeks ahead will pretty much determined whether greece stays in our goes out of the eurozone. charlie: two cases i want you to make that alexi silvers has a point, it's hard to get growth in an economy when you have to live under the restrictions that have been imposed on it by its creditors. peter: joe stiglitz said he cannot think of a time when the country has suffered through depression as deep as this one

that was essentially voluntarily imposed upon it. stiglitz is sort of sympathetic to paul krugman. they have a point, which is that greece is suffering under major austerity. raising taxes now and cutting the budget is only going to exacerbate that problem. the finance minister of greece has been making the point that this austerity is crushing the country. the problem is that alexis tsipras has lost his credibility as a spokesperson. they have flip-flopped so many times. just this week, we have seen examples of that. so many offers and counter offers that nobody wants to listen to them anymore. charlie: bloomberg businessweek with a cover story called "how greece can get past the pain."

how can greece save itself? peter: in the article, we try to say, somehow we will get past the crisis stage, and then we will be on to what are the fundamentals of greece that it can use to rebuild the new economy. what are they? their number one moneymaker is shipping. it has to be a key. tourism is another key. it's such a gorgeous country. anyone who has been there loves it. charlie: what with the germans say? eric: the germans would say that the greeks lacked discipline simple as that. [laughter] there is a point there, but the time for moralizing is passed. let's try to move forward. they just don't trust the greeks

to do the right thing. that's why the latest offer, the europeans are not even willing to listen. we have heard from you guys. charlie: then you come back with conditions to accepting our offer -- no thank you. so eric, what should we watch for now? just simply wait for the referendum, or whatever event could be influential? eric: at the moment, it's a waiting game. you're going to see furious campaigning from the government which is plastering athens with signs and posters in favor of a no vote. the yes campaign has to get itself organized. it's not well-organized right now. we may see that beginning to play out. polling numbers suggest that things are working in favor of yes, so they may not have to work that hard. but you know the prime minister and his cabinet are going to be

out there on the streets and on television telling greeks to vote no. it doesn't appear that the movement of international markets, or the euro, are going to affect much at this point. i think that serves as a bit of a distraction. it's really what happens here on the ground in greece. the signs we get from the germans and the finance ministers in the eurogroup is that they are done. we are probably not going to hear from them between now and sunday in a substantial way unless something crazy happens here. i don't even know what that would be. they said there is no basis for us to reinitiate negotiations. the opportunities to do that ended last night with the expiration of the previous bailout program. now it's up to the greeks. charlie: eric, thank you so

much. we may come back to you as the story unfolds. ♪

quicksilver young burwell is secretary of the department of health and human services. she presides over government health care programs including medicare and the affordable health care act. in the clinton administration

she was chief of staff to the treasury secretary, who said she was simply the best. she was president of global development at the gates foundation and then president of the walmart foundation. she came back to government in 2013 when barack obama asked her to be director of the office of management and budget. she was named the 22nd hhs secretary. when the supreme court ruled in favor of the affordable health care act last week, she said she cried tears of joy. a proud daughter of west virginia, she was a rhodes scholar. she's often called the policy wonder can. i was done to see last week she celebrated her 50th birthday. a belated happy birthday, and thank you for joining us. sylvia: thank you for the birthday wishes. happy to be here. al: you've seen the reaction since the decision in the court last week. how does it change the

landscape, if at all, and what are the major challenges you? sylvia: it gives us an opportunity to build on the progress we have seen in the areas of polity, affordability, and access in the health care space. i think we can turn and build on that and focus on some important things we need to focus on and do together. we need to work on those numbers and we can do that for having a strong open enrollment and doing further medicated tension. al: 40% of subsidy eligible people are now enrolled. is it sustainable at that rate, and what do you think you can get to? sylvia: what we saw last year when we saw 25% more plans coming into the marketplace that you have something that is a sustainable marketplace where there is competition and choice

that the consumer can come in and use. we want to continue to reach those who are part of the uninsured and make sure were helping them understand that they can afford quality care and help and support them in using that care. al: now that the court has said federal exchanges are part of the law, do you expect some of those seventeenths eight exchanges, a number of which are having financial struggles, that they will switch to health care.com? sylvia: we haven't seen that. in terms of where we were before -- we were having those conversations with hawaii. we've worked with a number of states as they work through how and where they want to be. there are number of states have had very successful exchanges. connecticut, kentucky, new york a number of states. our plan is to work with the state that want to be state exchanges, and for those that

don't, we work on the federal exchanges. al: you did see enrollment in the last sign up or greater on the federal than the state exchanges. sylvia: we did see a strong enrollment on the federal exchanges. states had increases across the board. as we go into the next open enrollment, that's one of the things were focused on. had we make sure that the federal and state exchanges continue to bring people in? al: the republican congress is not going to repeal obama care. but they can project difficulties. they can cut funding for cms, try to eliminate the independent payment advisory board or patient centered outcomes. what kind of problems with those create? sylvia: lack of funding is a problem. that's an issue across the entire government. the idea that as a nation sequester would stay in place and we would have funding levels

that some of the lowest levels in decades. that is an issue for running medicare and other programs like that, but also the in ih and places like that, or the centers for disease control, that we depended on so much this year for so many things, whether ebola or our conversations around measles, or supporting a state like indiana through its difficulties with hiv. al: how optimistic are you? sylvia: i came to town as an optimist. i came to town right as sequester was beginning and people we were going to get there. then there was a deal that led to all of the bills being passed. that was the first time since 1987 that all the bills passed together. i think it can be done again. we can get to a place where there can be agreement.

october 1 is a very important deadline in terms of funding the government for the next year. al: bill frist, former senate republican leader and generally a supporter of the affordable health care act, said the president has to start to do now what he says he has failed to do, which is try to bring the parties together to fix parts of the law. are you going to do that, and what do you need to fix? sylvia: today the president is in tennessee. that's a big part of the conversation. tennessee is a state where we have seen affordability and quality move together in a bipartisan way. we've seen it move with the private and the public sector working together. he is there and tennessee to reflect that. we need to go there as a nation and build on the progress we've made, and focus on making sure people know how to use that care , how to access a doctor and understand the bills.

and there are presented -- preventive services you can get without co-pay. with regard to the legislative issues, there are number we have articulated. we want to have a real conversation about the substance. in the current budget we expand the tax credits for small businesses to companies that have more employees. we got feedback that the number was too low so we propose that. another proposal is something that gets to a topic that people talk about a lot. giving the secretary of hhs the ability to negotiate on high-cost pharmaceuticals. that's something in terms of the price issues that people are focused on. al: i'm guessing you get some certain resistance from the industry on that. sylvia: we want to work to create a system. it's a historic time in terms of the energy from the private sector, meaning insurers as well as providers, as well as the public sector on changing our delivery system and how we

deliver health care in the u.s. in terms of improving the quality spending the taxpayer's dollar better and putting the consumer at the center of care. al: to get some of that, you're going to have to give up some stuff. that's what bargaining is all about. would you put on the table the medical device tax? sylvia: with regard to the idea of negotiations and knowing that you don't always get what you want, whether that's the ryan murray work that was done or in the most recent sustainable growth rate, there were so me things that were great about that bill. but there were things we would have liked as well. in any of these conversations, we know that the place we will have to go. with regard to the medical device tax, as we've said in the space, were going to review things based on four basic things. affordability, access and quality, and what does it do to

the economy? increasing our deficit by $24 billion is something we have a real question about. we would want to understand, why do you want to take this step in terms of improving access, affordability, and quality and what you would do with regard to deficit impact. al: it wasn't the reaction of a lot of prominent republicans. paul ryan blasted chief justice roberts for writing legislation from the bench. he said obama care is a bust because government control brings higher prices fewer choices, and lower quality. sylvia: this is what we need to do in this conversation that will help bring us together. let's look at the substance. in terms of the issues of higher

prices, if we look at what happened before, that's an important part of the conversation. where were we as a nation before? having been in both the private and public sector, the issue is increased health care costs. the rates they were increasing could not be sustained. now we see some of the lowest price rose in health care that we've seen in the history of keeping records. with regard to issues of quality, i think most people agree, and even mr. bush agreed saying keep those pre-existing conditions he said it should be reserved. al: are we talking about the president, or the candidate? sylvia: mr. jeb bush. pre-existing congestions cap -- conditions can no longer keep you off your insurance.

in terms of preventive care, co-pays for many things like immunizations as well as preventive cancer services in terms of screening, many of those things no longer have co-pays, and most people want that. we need to connect the conversation to the substance of what is happening, and where there are issues, let's find places where we can improve the problem we want to work on. with regard to the question of choices, when we look at the marketplace and 25% more folks came into the marketplace. it's important to reflect, it's a marketplace. the great thing about the system, it means you're making choices as an individual between private plans. that's what it is. it is a market. getting to the consumer at the center, 29% of those individuals who reenrolled this year came

in shopped, and selected new plans. that is a consumer that is informed and making choices. al: there are widespread reports that after the earrings this year, the premiums, some people say are going to soar 10% or more. does that worry you? sylvia: i will always focus on premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs. that's something the affordable care act and our efforts are very focused on. with regard to the specifics there are number of things we know. part of what happened in the affordable care act is creating transparency, so people in the marketplace can see what's happening. anything over 10% has to be justified and reviewed. that's part of downward pressure on premiums. most insurers have said they believe that the majority of people that will come in the

marketplace in 2016 will have plans with less than a 10% increase in premiums. the studies being done say 5.8%. last year people came in with their premiums levels of a proposed and then they come down. but it is an important thing to watch. al: would you expect that premiums will rise more year than this year -- next year than this year? sylvia: you may see some of that. one of the other things that just happened the law is complicated. the three r's, those mechanisms put in place to put downward pressure on premiums and help people adjust, two of those we just talked about this week at hhs. what we saw is that in the

claims data and things coming through, we believe are going to pay even more back in terms of additional downward pressure. risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridor doors. they target different things. some target the fact that as people were entering into the market, some insurers might not have priced correctly. so how we adjusted help them adjust, they pay money and admin money goes back out on a number of these. cbo tells you how many uninsured as well. what people need to do is, let's understand what all the specifics are. are you going to get rid of kids on their plan for 26? are you going to get rid of the consumer protections that have been put in place, things like

lifetime limits, annual limits, or no co-pay for preventive services? when they say there is an approach we believe what we have in front of us is working. al: how does the ryan plan score? sylvia: i don't know that there is a score, and that is my point. we need to get to the specifics and the substance and what the substance will do. al: suppose for a moment the aca had not passed. comparatively, what with the health care system look like today? care, coverage, and cost? sylvia: with regard to questions of access, we've seen the largest drop in terms of coverage. access has been a huge part of what has happened. with regard to issues of

quality, we have reduced the number of arms, things happening in the hospital, either false or other things that occur in a hospital setting. we reduced the number of harms using tools in the affordable care act. in that area of affordability the trajectory of medicare spending, from passage of the act in 2009, we would have spent $316 billion more on medicare. if it didn't exist there are 9 million seniors in this country who have received $15 million. it's because we closed the doughnut hole as part of the affordable care act. even two weeks ago, and it did not receive a lot of attention, the attorney general and i announced the largest takedown

in terms of medicare fraud. over $700 million over 200 million -- over 200 people charged. some of the authorities, so we are protecting the taxpayer dollar. >> the court in its 2011 ruling said the states do not have to follow the medicaid expansion for coverage for poor people. a lot of states did not. some you have negotiated with like indiana. there are still over 20 states that have not expanded medicaid. are you optimistic that any of those will go along, and what about hard-core places like texas and louisiana? sylvia: i agree there are some states that will be very hard. but i also am optimistic we can get some more stay thin. the question of what it means

for individuals, and many of these are working individuals. they are at a place in terms of, people are working but don't have health coverage for them. having traveled the country and met the folks we are talking about in terms of the people what it means in terms of their lives and health and their families health and financial security, that is an important driver. the second part of this is the issue of what it means to states and their economies. in kentucky governor bush years has had studies done along the way to measure the impact in the state of kentucky. university of louisville did a study that said by 2021, 40,000 jobs will be created kentucky because of the expansion and $30 billion will flow into the kentucky budget system. it's everything together. al: why today, five years later

is the aca -- i want say unpopular, but it doesn't command majority support even today. sylvia: i think as an administration, we have not done as much as we could to make sure people understand the breadth of the benefit. it became about the marketplace, at one point in time. but it is about so much more. making sure that people understand that benefits they get every day and that they are using are things that are part of the affordable care act. they are things that are now in the fabric. the pre-existing conditions is just one of many things. those are things that people now accepted as part of our health care system. al: when you leave office, would you expect that most people would talk about it as the aca, or will it still be known

primarily as obamacare? sylvia: i hope people talk about a system or they get better quality and it is more affordable, that they actually talk about what it is and what it means. that's what i believe this is about. the more we give people the information to make their choices, that is the empowered consumer. both their choice in politics and the substance of their health care. i believe the american people, when given that information, they make good choices. ♪

charlie: cut the stroke of midnight on august 15 1947 the creation of two new countries india and pakistan. it sparked some of the worst sectarian violence of the 20th century. along the newly created border between the two nations, hindus, muslims, and seeks killed hundreds of thousands of people in an or to violence and lasted six we for nearly 70 years pakistan and india have lived in the shadow of that violence. both sides have built up massive arsenals of nuclear weapons aimed at each other's cities. it has fueled the rise of islamic fundamentalism in

afghanistan and beyond. it's the basis of a new book by nisid hajari. an author and asian editor of bloomberg view, i'm very pleased to have him talk about this very good book. welcome. what is potentially the argument? the petition meant pakistan always inc. smaller -- always being smaller. they both were in competition not only with each other, but also in other places and from that came the rise of fundamentalist islamic groups. nisid: the founder of pakistan never intended to be a theocracy. it was supposed to be a state

where muslims could be the majority. in this process of partition, what happened was, you created a state that was small, inherently weak, and received only about 17% of the assets, and because of the experience and what followed afterwards, the initial war in kashmir and so forth, developed an idea that its larger neighbor was out to destroy it and was in existential threat. if you listen to quotes of indian leaders at the time -- charlie: remarkable research you've done, going back to a whole range of sources. nisid: the speeches they gave the personal diaries, it was incredible. the indian leaders intended and hoped pakistan wouldn't survive at first. the hope that in a few years it

would decided once we are to india again, in a friendly way. charlie: and in fact, india has the second largest muslim population in the world. but it has so many interesting stories. nisid: the book is based around the rivalry, two men who are very similar scientifically minded, very secular, really disliked each other. their mutual antipathy hit a particularly vitriolic point after jenna had married the daughter of a friend. he was a rising political star at the time. his star was eclipsed by mahatma gandhi and by nehru. his marriage fell apart and his wife committed suicide. his wife passed away from

tuberculosis. before that he was with the young indian woman who was best friends with the former wife. charlie: and that was the source of the enmity. nisid: there was a time when he believed he would be the leader of the united india and it became clear after his fall that it would never happen. charlie: how did you approach this, because other books have been written about this. freedom at midnight was one. and midnight's children was the second one. yet this is such an exciting story. nisid: the drama is incredible. freedom at midnight is a great operatic tale.

the authors base most of it on the testimony of lord mountbatten. his stories all involved him playing a central role in saving the day at the last possible moment. it made for great cinematic texts, but doesn't bear that much resemblance to reality. i wanted to bring in treats from both sides into a narrative -- truths that would show both sides. there were faults in leaders for each of them. charlie: how many people were killed in all? nisid: the estimates range from 200,000 up to 2 million. my guess is it would be toward the low end of the scale, but the records were very scattershot. hundreds of thousands of people were buried in shallow graves along the roads as they were fleeing from one country to the other. charlie: tell me who the main characters are. nisid: mahatma gandhi

obviously. his great campaigns against the british it taken place in the 20's. at this point he was almost 80 years old. he was still important in a spiritual sense. but he was not a political factor in a way that nehru was. then there was lord mountbatten this flamboyant british member of the royalty amen and attempted to give away the empire. then there was nehru's hardline deputy, very different from him and personality. wanted the same things but when about them in a very different way. had much less tolerance for impetuosity and flights of fancy. patel was not as sympathetic about muslims. his issue was, if you don't want to be here, go to pakistan.

it's not a huge issue politicians who want to -- if politicians want to -- the present prime minister. these tensions are there and can be exploited. they were exploited in 1947 as well. charlie: and today, the link to radical fundamentalism, islamic terrorism, goes back to the mindset that was ingrained in pakistan in 1947. in these few short weeks in 1947, this idea that pat and would always be vulnerable to its larger neighbor and you see within about two months of independent in 1947 various

pakistani leaders sponsored and unofficial jihad sending pash tun tribesmen into the state of kashmir to try to overthrow the maharaja. there is nothing ideologically that unified pakistan to begin with. when it began, it was two separate parts of the country not even connected physically. so there's a very loose association there. they decided what would unify them was enmity towards india and islam. so they had to pop up the islamic factor in their fight for kashmir and so on. that started to spread the ideas a young -- among young pakistan. charlie: some consider pakistan the most dangerous country in the world.

do you still believe that? nisid: i do in one sense. pakistan provide safe haven to -- unofficial support to islamic militants. charlie: they put them in prison for a day and then let them out. nisid: exactly. and they are building the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. the chances of a nuclear war breaking out or greater here than anywhere else in the world. charlie: by mistake and miscalculation? nisid: a couple of weeks ago indians were threatening to grow -- to go across the border if another terror attack happens. pakistan responded by saying we reserve the right to use tactical nuclear weapons if you cross the border. because of this inequality of

power it's an open threat. they have signed eight no first use treaty. charlie: who has the stronger military? nisid: the indians do, by far. it's a much more powerful military. they have lost every single war they have had with india. they have the nuclear weapons to give them a major deterrent, but they are still outgunned. charlie: it used to be that the indians were an ally of the soviet union and the united states was an ally of pakistan. nisid: in 1947, they were pitching the u.s. as a ally.

we will be your bulwark against communism in southwest asia. that's something pakistani generals ever since then have laid upon. and the u.s. has bought into this at various points over the years. we have better relations with india today because we realized all the eight were sending to pakistan is designed mostly to defend themselves against india, not to fight militants. afghanistan is an area of contrast. any conflict in india they would be able to fall back into a friendly afghanistan if need be. they also fear encirclement and influence in kabul that would work against them in the case of a conflict. charlie: it's not an irrational fear because the indians have set up consulates and everything else in afghanistan, trying to make sure that they will have

influence with the taliban and somehow try to counterpoint the pakistani influence with the taliban. nisid: it's an important country for india as well. they are building roads training afghan officials. india can make a good case for meeting that role in afghanistan. charlie: did they ever get over the midnight theories? nisid: the pakistan military establishment has not. the idea of the world shaped by -- that has not really changed. most indians and pakistanis most were born after partition. some have heard stories and india is a huge country.

my family is from western india. none of them were affected by the partition. they were just stories they read about in newspapers or the history books. charlie: you would think in the history since 1947, there would have been politicians who would have made it their life's work to make the situation better, to find a way to eliminate all the things unleashed by the midnight theories. nisid: everyone knows what needs to be done. they were talking that opening trade lanes and infrastructure. everyone knows this is what needs to be done and it would benefit both countries. but the pakistani military benefits too much from the stalemate. there are demagogues from both sides of don't have any interest in compromise. the loudest voices tend to win out. it happens in the u.s. as well.

charlie: what do you think of india as a democracy? it is the world's largest democracy. it has a lot of problems with corruption and other issues. nisid: he's pitching it as an india not defined by caste that it will be defined by opportunity. they all want the same thing, jobs, development, and modernity. i think he's right in that, he would be smart to stick with that as his message. the dangers that much of his hard-core base is a hindu nationalist base. they have gone off on various campaigns to reconvert muslims and so forth. they are a distraction to his agenda. he has not been quite quick enough to put a stop to it. charlie: you've had the nehru

family, the gandhi family at one time in power or the other. where does he stand today politically? nisid: not very strong. he's a fairly diffident politician. it's not clear if he wants to be running party. charlie: and his mother maintains her power over the party? nisid: yes. nehru himself was wary of hero worship. he wrote an article under a pseudonym in his younger days warning against followers heaping too much praise on him and turning him into a potential dictator. charlie: like george washington. nisid: exactly. the idea that his errors would later try to run the country, i

think would have appalled him. charlie: what likelihood is there that there would be a coming together? would benazir bhutto have made a difference? nisid: it's hard to say. china is getting much more involved in the region. mostly investments. they need stability in pakistan. they are worried about islamic extremism themselves and worried about it coming out of pakistan. they would like to see better relations. charlie: they wouldn't want perfect because? nisid: it suits them to have india a little bit distracted. charlie: what's amazing to me, the chinese are scared of islamic extremism. europe is scared of islamic extremism.

parts of the middle east are scared of islamic extremism. they can get together on a strategy and policy to do something about islamic extremism. nisid: they'd meant that islamic extremism is the central threat in pakistan. charlie: every country says that. it's the dilemma of our time. nisid: it's different in every country. in pakistan, while they are worried about this, they are still releasing other militants after a few days in jail because they serve their purposes. they think they can control them and they're afraid if they go after them too hard they will face a multi-front were. charlie: the man behind the hotel bombings in mumbai has been released.

do we know where he is? nisid: he is openly living in pakistan right now. they say it's the legal system there's not much more they can do. you look at afghanistan as well. they talked about cooperating on security. charlie: they are better than they were 12 years ago. nisid: they have gone after militant strongholds in parts of the rebel areas. the haqqani network, the afghan taliban -- charlie: they have not gone after the haqqani network? nisid: not where anyone can point any real evidence. charlie: what do you think will happen in afghanistan? nisid: i think it's just going

to be more of the same. if they wanted to push them to the negotiating table, they could deny them safe haven. charlie: do you believe pakistan new -- not necessarily prime minister are the chief of staff of the army. they would've been embarrassed by, among other things. and that they invaded their sovereignty to get it. nisid: i think was the latter that embarrass them more. i think it was just trying to make themselves look better. you cannot keep a conspiracy that big bet silent for that long in any country. i think in this feature is fairly bright.

they need to make big changes but they are all within their power to do. pakistan is a little more unclear, because they haven't been able to come to grips with the ideological nature of the threat against them. they can say were going after these militants because they are criminals. until you eradicate the idea that islamic extremism is some kind of patriotic act, it will never be finished. you tied -- try to draw the map of kashmir in any book in the sensors will come with a black pen and market out. charlie: was this fun to do? nisid: it was fascinating. charlie: he said pakistan is the world's most dangerous country.

you can only truly understand the country by going to its roots. it's a powerful, intelligent, and beautifully written book. the violence is now directed onto the global stage. thank you for coming. pleasure to have you here. ♪

>> china asked questions below the 4000 line in the sand. u.s. equities endured their worst week since march as greece overshadows all and angry in athens. tensions rise ahead of the referendum. welcome to "first up."