that's it for "360." thanks for watching. "piers morgan tonight" starts now. tonight two world leaders. two very different views of america. former british prime minister gordon brown and former president of pakistan pervez musharraf. >> you think he's arrogant? >> i think so. >> i think he is a great president. >> president obama. >> if you look at what president obama has achieve and half the al qaeda leadership has been wiped out as a result of the americans. >> no country has a right to

intrude into any other country. >> gordon brown and former president of pakistan, pervez musharraf. >> there's too much division in pakistan to be a fight against terrorism to be effect. >> the situation in pakistan is more complicated in that there is al qaeda, there's taliban, and taliban spreading talibanization. >> two the most powerful men in the world. now they can speak freely. this is "piers morgan tonight." between the u.s. and u.k. has been showing some strains lately. is it working? joining me is a man that knows a lot about the special relationship, former prime minister gordon brown. thank you for joining me. >> pleasure. >> president obama and prime minister cameron wrote a piece in which they described the relationship as not just special but as essential and went on to say the united states and britain stand together. people and people around the world become more secure and more prosperous. what do you say to that? >> indispensable relationship. that's how i would put it. it is based on volumes.

not just based on history and common actions we have takening to. based on a shared approach to the world that survived libber zpi dignity of the individual and fairness. it is about opportunity. you know, i think that the -- new special relationship of the last 50 years because -- after all, you kicked us out 200 years ago the americans. kicked the monarchy out of america. for the last 50 years, what's happened? when you have almost every single battlefield of europe and every single symmetry, war symmetry, american and british soldiers lined side by side, part of that amazing sacrifice of what we call the greatest generation, that's what is seem meanted our relationship. when an american soldier dies british people mourn. when a british soldier die it is american people mourn. i think that is at the heart of why we are so close, this join shared sacrifice that was made so many years ago for the liberty of the world. >> when you were prime minister,

did you get a sense that britain was special to the american administration? or is that just a form of words these days? how important are we? >> when britain and america work together and i think it is now britain as part of europe and america work together, will's very little we cannot do. the if you look at the success of nato and ending the cold war europe and america work together. when europe and america are with britain right at the center of europe don't work well together, then things start to go wrong. i think that -- the -- swreent managed to move forward on frayed. if europe and america but particularly britain and america were able to work more closely together, you can see more results that i think work to the benefit of the world. the lesson over the last 60 years is when we work together in britain's -- bridge really here you can actually achieve so much. >> president obama's been in britain this week. created quite a storm. charismatic guy and island as well. amazing scenes there.

how do you think he is doing as president? >> i think he is a great president. it is not only, you know, historic presidency. the first black president. first one who has shown that america can repair all of the wounds of civil rights and the -- civil war. he's actually a person of great personality, great intellect, very caring and also i think very reflective. i think he -- he understands america's role in history and he understands where america wants to be. it is a huge change from 50 years ago. i would say telling some of the story a day or two ago, john f. kennedy came to britain. to meet mcmillen, then the prime minister. they had a great relationship. one older and one younger. john f. kennedy arrived. harold wilson at down sting -- mcmillen was still asleep. he -- he slept in. they had to -- john f. kennedy had to sit on downing street reading his newspaper in the waiting room for half an hour. >> is that right? >> if that happened now or -- on

any presidential visit, you know, the second nature of these visits, if anything goes wrong like that it would be a national outcry. >> david cameron would have to resign. >> it would be -- then you have the -- where harry truman invited atley across to washington. they were deep in the negotiations that brought about nato and -- march ever marshall plan and everything else. truman was invited to the washington residents of the british ambassador. i think it was near christmas and so they spent the time singing. and -- played the piano. harry truman did the singing. >> did you ever do this? president bush. president bush and you rent a piano? >> i don't think he would appreciate my singing. president bush and i would talk a huge amount about history. he was -- very avid reader of history. the image that was presented of

him in america and around the world is quite different from his real-life where he read -- talk to you about history books, he read about european history. when i we brought him to down sting and had a dinner for him and we discuss who'd he would like to have invited, you might have thought he would have wanted some of the celebrities. he wanted a group of historians so he could talk to them about american and british history and enjoyed that evening. >> given events as they have been unfolding in the middle east in particular, do you think president bush's legacy will improve over time. obviously he was a very unpopular president. both in his own country and britain. >> there is a big decision that was made in 2001. and really we are seeing it played through with the death of osama bin laden. how great was this terrorist threat? i think bush, people will look back and say president bush, george w. bush, did make the right decision to recognize that this was a major threat to the -- civilization of the world that it had to be taken on. the next set of decisions are controversial. i don't think you can doubt the first decision that when you

have the -- bonds in new york, planes going into the -- buildings, and -- you have america trying to recover from that, it -- had to be the right decision to say we are going to take this terrorist threat on. i think president bush will be remembered actually for taking that terrorist threat on. now, in afghanistan, he obviously did the right thing because he kicked al qaeda out of afghanistan. perhaps we should have spent more time following that through and -- equally at the same time we now have osama bin laden is no longer alive. al qaeda is in disarray. if you look at what president obama's achieved, half al qaeda leadership wiped out in recent years, as a result of the efforts of the americans, it was a historic decision. >> was the big mistake for president bush and obviously you heard over here as blair, was the war in iraq given all we now know, was that a mistake, do you think? >> no, i don't think so. i think you have to distinguish between the -- rightness of the case and the u.n. and the whole world supported the rightness of the case. and then the follow-through. follow-through became very

difficult. in the modern world you can't just have a just war. you have a just peace. if you cannot plan through a reconstruction that -- leaves a country in a position where it can build for the future, quickly, then you have a question what was going on so i think when -- all these inquiries are finished people will conclude the justness of the case against sad ham hussein was proved by unwillingness ever to halt the united nations resolutions but should have been par better planning of what lay next or what could lead next before things happened. >> there has been one of those state dinner here with the master and queen and members of the royal family. huge royal wedding recently in britain as well. is part of the special relationship in britain and america connected to the royal family, do you think?

i think the royal familiar sly incredibly popular in america. i was speaking in america and it was an economic speech. i think when they were -- asking me what i was going to say, preferred if hi given the speech about the royal family. i think it is about britain and our heritage and about the fact so many people in america descended either britain or from ireland. >> you were -- heavily involved in the princess diana memorial fund. princes and members of the royal family. when you saw what happened to princess diana, who you knew, and i knew, for that matter, we saw the attention that she got and relentlessness of it leading to the terrible events of her death, do you worry about the attention now and -- william and kate? new superstars of the british royal family? >> i think it was a tragedy what happened to princess diana and i did not know her really but i do know that the pressure on her family and on her children has been immense. i think it is remarkable tribute to these two young men that despite all the publicity and attempts to catch them out and everything else that they have grown up to be a very good -- citizens, very good members of the royal family.

i think it is -- true to say prince william has been special and -- place in the affections of people not least because of the successes of his wedding. >> obviously covering it now, incredible success, the wedding. to me it felt like we were getting a huge re-energizing of the british monarchy. particularly around the world. did you get that sense? >> i think that was important. you have to look forward as well. it is going to have been to be a modern monarchy in the future. now i think our alliances is about economic cooperation and it is also about cultural cooperation. it is also about how we deal with some of the other problems in the world, climate change. i hi we can be more successful in the future. europe and america and africa working together that would be something i think could achieve a lot of -- >> when we come back, we will talk about the imf, scandal that's enveloped the organization.

what it means for the global economy. what you would do now to really restore the global economy back to where it was precrisis.

right now with the british former prime minister gordon

brown. huge events going on involving the imf. you knew dominique strauss-kahn very well. he worked alongside him for a long time. what did you make of the scandal? what does it mean for the imf in terms of the global economy? >> personal tragedy. dominique strauss-kahn was steering the imf through what you might call the difficult post-crisis period where you are trying to avoid a world depression. and -- very successfully, i think, g-20, imf, world bank came together to do that. you know, the next stage is quite different. and the next stage is about this decade. americans must look at this decade with some insecurity because unemployment is high and youth unemployment is high. living standards are not rising. and america can't consume a huge amount more. it has to export to the rest of the world for its prosperity. the same problem exists for europe. you need some global growth

arrangement, some expansion of trade, expansion of growth. that would suit america and europe and china. that's the first challenge. second challenge that dominique was starting to face is we are not certain that we have financial stability. nobody can say we have done enough yet to avoid a future crisis. we have the other problems because we have the middle east and africa. have you massive unemployment. you have 35% of young people in egypt out of work. >> you also have a massively higher population. this is -- being in that lower age bracket. have you many more young people and many of those are unemployed and feeling -- also they are getting information to social networking to a better world, aren't they? creates its own problems. >> absolutely. expectations and aspirations are so high what the experience is and we know economic discontent started again in egypt. even with the change of regime. we know that there's real

problems because young people feel they haven't got the opportunities. we know that you need to sea about 50 million jobs in the middle east, north africa to meet that population. and you know that if they don't get jobs there, then this migration will spread across to europe and cause social problems there or become a security problem in africa. that's why you need the sort of major initiatives that i think the g-8 and 20 would have to look at. need something equivalent, immediatele eastern and north africa development bank will make its business to reduce the unemployment and build the infrastructure and investment as necessary. it is a major project for the world. >> how important is the imf to the global economy? >> you see, for 50 years, the imf was dealing with national problems. if a country, argentina, brazil, indonesia, britain in one case, fell into problems, imf would take action to bail it out and to -- rescue it and say what it had to do. now you are dealing with something quite different since the financial crisis. you didn't -- what you might call a global problem. cannot be solved without a globe am institution or global action. financial instability affects all of us. you cannot have financial stability now in one country and if you have instability in

another country. >> imf become more important. >> it is -- got to coordinate the approach to financial stability. it has to make possible greater global growth and trade. otherwise america and europe as i say who have to export will lose out. and, of courses, has this responsibility to the poorer countries with the world bank. >> given how important the imf now is, these are big blows -- guy running it, has been involved in this huge scandal. from all i hear -- interested in your observation on this, he was very good at the job. >> dominique strauss-kahn is an old friend of mine. we worked very well together when he was finance minister. i think what happened in the last three years, have you the g-20 which president obama helped create. global growth plan which is imf is hoping to administer. have you trade negotiations faltering. have you the climate change that's never actually happened. so your international -- whether the imf or g-20, world bank, going to become far more important in future years. it is to the benefit of america and countries like britain we have strong international

institutions that carry legitimacy. >> people listening to you, mr. brown, saying what you say perfect guy for the job. why don't you take over the imf? >> i was actually -- i was -- i was in charge of the selection possibles when i was chairman of the imf committee in the early 2000. this is a long prolonged selection process being -- it is being -- administered, if you like into a few days. you know, the whole of the world has to be consulted. you can't have one country without listening to another country and another country. you will get in the next few weeks views from india and china and africa and from -- >> if you were offered the job would you take it? >> i don't think it comes to that to be honest. i'm not interested in running a campaign for a job. i'm more interested in saying what the proper agenda is for the future. you know, i was -- offered the

job on -- one occasion previously. i think the issue for me is -- how you can get the world to work together. this candidate, whoever does it, has to be able to bring consensus of the world together. i think that's going to be very important. >> when we come back we will talk about the world since you left office. necessary necessarily an economic view. just what's happening to this planet of ours. [ man ] i got this new citi thankyou card

and started earning loads of points. you got a weather balloon with points? yes i did. [ man ] points i could use for just about anything. ♪ ♪

there it is. [ man ] so i used mine to get a whole new perspective. ♪ [ male announcer ] the new citi thankyou premier card gives you more ways to earn points. what's your story? citi can help you write it. the former british prime minister gordon brown. talked earlier about the economics of the world.

you were at the forefront of saving the world from this financial crash. in terms of -- the world generally, markets immediate morals. and it struck me that actually what the financial crisis taught us was probably the world could do with better moral leadership. there was a kind of fundamental breakdown, moral guidance, i felt for many countries, many people in positions of power. would you agree with that? >> i think we have these big problems that require people to take a longer term view than just their own self i shall individual or national interests. have you climate changes. have you terrorism that's a huge problem and have you the issues of security with this mass migration that could take place any time of large numbers of people from the middle east from north africa and africa. you have these economic problems that arise from financial instability which is a market failure. what are the values we share in

common? can you build your institutions on a stronger basis? i think you would then conclude that there had to be greater cooperation between the major countries. you would have to have a -- not just g-20 type organization. you have to have a constituency system that every country felt it was represented. and you would have to build a number of better -- institutions where people could find that at least they were addressing the problems we faced. >> has the internet eroded political power in conventional sense? because -- as you are seeing all over the middle east, we said the young oppressed people unemployed and angry, also able to get information about how other people lived and saying that's what i want. that didn't exist before. so you are saying now people power driven from the floor up. >> it is because of the internet that we -- know about events in burma and the fraud elections in zimbabwe. we knew about many of the things that were going in egypt and knew about some of the things -- >> end of the despotic rule as we knew it. >> the few elites that talk to each and never consulted the public.

i think that is over. diplomacy which is just a few privileged people carving up the world around them, popular protests, now the internet has been called a shouting match without an umpire. you have people shouting at each other across the world. what will happen over the next few years is social organizations will emerge. and you will have people across frontiers able to org with each other, china, russia, many other countries and they will come to common causes that they want to promote. now, whether that's an end to torture or whether that's -- an environmental campaign, you will find worldwide campaigns that build up and suddenly the -- elite leaders of a few countries are under enormous pressure to do something about it. without them having realized this movement was even starting in the first place. that really is very significant. because it will change economic policy and change environmental policy and it will change the way we see the world. >> we also mean the trust between countries will never be more important. you saw a real breakdown, i think, when osama bin laden was

found to be living right in the middle of pakistan for five years. and compound next to a military intelligence base. where we surprised when you heard that? >> no. pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism. we have to recognize even in britain, we were following perhaps 2,000 potential terrorists living in britain. 20, 30 groups that were operating within britain. and -- most of them and -- some from somalia and some from yemen. most taking orders from pakistan. i think that will be true of any western european country and -- >> do you think anybody at high level in pakistan would have known that bin laden was there? >> the question in pakistan is you have the army and security services and have you the politicians and business class. you have a very divided political system. until there is unity in pakistan, until people come together, then the attack on

terrorism, fight against terrorism, will be infective and this is the real problem we face. afghanistan is soluble. if we had -- stability in pakistan. and -- terrorism in pakistan needs the local government, local people to come together with these -- with nonsectarian politics and with the army and sturtze services working with them to deal with this threat and too much division in pakistan for the fight against terrorism to be effective. >> finally, what do you miss most about being prime minister? >> i can tell you what i don't miss. what you don't miss is -- british newspapers. what you don't miss is your -- ability to -- you know, to travel. you now have ability to travel abroad without people asking lots of questions. enjoy my time coming to america in particular. i don't miss the pomp and

circumstance. i suppose i miss -- you know, we started a big project to reform the world commonly. we started to deal with the -- banking -- >> do you feel personally you are given a bad rap of this? americans when i talk to them about your role -- said to be saving the world's economy, very effusive in their praise. you get such a battering where many in other countries consider you one of the people who saved the economy. >> well, 90% of the british media is conservative. we made two big decisions that -- i think were important. one is we decided the problems of the bank were structure am. not just cyclical or sort of passing problem. we had to completely restructure the banks. every other country recognized that to be the case. we have to follow that through. second thing we realize is this

is the world consult with come together. we created an organization in g-20 which met in london to do that. i think the issue now is the follow-through. because if i am right global problems can not be solved simply by one country or two work together on their own. but needs this form of global corporation and whether it is climate change or security or whether it is terrorism itself or whether it is population and migration, particularly when it is economics and financial stability we have to find a way of working together better. people look to america for leadership. and america is the leading country in the world. whatever america is in a position to advocate working with other countries, it can achieve. i think the -- real lesson of this is america's role is still absolutely central to everything that happens in the world. and -- i want to back the leadership of america and what they try to do to make the world a safer place as president obama has done with the -- death of bin laden. also made the world a more prosperous place. the verdict is still got to be pounced on how we have done in coming out of this crisis. >> mr. brown, thank you very much, indeed. >> thank you. >> lovely to see you again. another former world leader, pervez musharraf. he was the president of pakistan. could he be again?

medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you from paying up to thousands of dollars... out of your own pocket. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... with all you need to enroll. put their trust in aarp medicare supplement insurance. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. the prices are competitive. i can keep my own doctor. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. call now to get a free information kit. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. and the advantages don't end there.

choose from a range of medicare supplement plans... that are all competitively priced. we have a plan for almost everyone, so you can find one that fits your needs and budget. with all medicare supplement plans, there are virtually no claim forms to fill out. plus you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare. and best of all, these plans are... the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. when they told me these plans were endorsed by aarp... i had only one thing to say... sign me up. call the number on your screen now... and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan. you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, to help you choose the plan that's right for you. as with all medicare supplement plans, you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare, get help paying for what medicare doesn't... and save up to thousands of dollars. call this toll-free number now.

pakistan is one of the united states' most crucial allies of the war on terror. now there are tough questions on both sides about that relationship. joining me now is the once and perhaps future president of pakistan, pervez musharraf. mr. president, thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> quite clearly will is a problem in the relationship between sxheshg pakistan now. lot of it centers around the discovery osama bin laden was living right in the middle of what appeared to be a intelligence compound all this time. how would you describe the

relationship as it stands n. >> this has been persisting since the last one year. not because of osama alone. they were -- mistrust in the past. therefore, the final culmination of this, there was total mistrust. therefore, pakistan was not even told and -- as people take it, there was a violation of pakistan's sovereignty. therefore, it led to a lot of more misunderstanding. i think that which is extremely detrimental to the cause of fighting terror. >> there's no doubt most world leaders now say that pakistan has become the center of the world terror. do you accept that? >> to an extent yes. the real fight is in afghanistan. if -- we can win in afghanistan, we will win in pakistan also. it is not vice versa. if we win in pakistan -- so i don't believe that. there is no doubt that the

situation in pakistan is more complicated. in that there is al qaeda and taliban and -- taliban spreading talibanization into -- and then there's extremist in our society. and then there are mujahadin involved. the situation is more complicated in pakistan. >> is it -- but there is obvious frustration and concern in america, not least because it was pakistan has a reputed -- at least 100 nuclear weapons. if the country continues to deteriorate in terms of stability it becomes a very dangerous situation for the world. >> if pakistan disintegrates, then it can be dangerous. otherwise if pakistan's integrity is there and which i'm sure it will be there, the armed forces of pakistan are there, there is no danger of the nuclear strategic assets falling in any. >> we talked about disintegration. it is all relative. 35,000 pakistani people have been killed in terror related incidents since 9/11. there are suicide bombings every week now in pakistan. and to -- a neutral observer, it does appear that you part -- country, pakistan is going through a form of disintegration. >> i wouldn't call it disintegration.

the armed forces of pakistan keep the unity. and the -- and the provinces of pakistan certainly are not looking for separation. but, therefore, there's no doubt in my mind that this disintegration will not be possible. and, therefore, any -- outside world, i would like to say also that -- understands that disintegration of pakistan already harmed integrity of pakistan will be extremely dangerous for -- for the world. for the region and world. >> you understand why president obama and his administration feel pretty angry when they discover that the most wanted terrorist in american history is living right in the heart of pakistan next to a military base? i mean, it defies credibility. i'm not saying you knew anything but certainly nobody -- at any high level in pakistan had in idea that osama bin laden was there. >> i don't think anyone had an idea. i don't think so. >> you were -- you worked in that compound.

you worked in the base, next to the compound. 2 1/2 years. >> yes. >> is it credible no one else in >> you understand why president obama and his administration feel pretty angry when they discover that the most wanted terrorist in american history is living right in the heart of pakistan next to a military base? i mean, it defies credibility. i'm not saying you knew anything but certainly nobody -- at any high level in pakistan had in idea that osama bin laden was there. >> i don't think anyone had an idea. i don't think so. >> you were -- you worked in that compound. you worked in the base, next to the compound. 2 1/2 years. >> yes. >> is it credible no one else in that base -- all this time would have had any idea? >> when you see -- i work there, no, i was trained there. i was a cadet when i was in the army. >> that means you know it very well. >> yeah. >> you know where that house is. you know the proximity. >> yes. >> i'm not suggesting you knew for a moment. what i'm suggesting is that does it seem likely to you -- was all the military intelligence people

around the compound nobody knew anything? >> no. there's -- normal. military intelligence people, must have been a detachment. a few people. that's the detachment and anywhere. pakistan. it is not that there was -- intelligence people around. not at all. and -- the -- the issue, yes, indeed. it is a terrible -- mishap. terrible failure. but to -- think that there was complicity of the strategic level at the government level is -- is certainly not there. the people around, thousands of them living around this house, they also didn't know osama bin laden sin side. i really -- i have certain reservations on this issue whether it was there for five years. i can't imagine that. but if we were there, well, again, it was a great failure, failure of the intelligence,

detachments there. should have known. >> hold that thought, mr. president. coming up more on the relationship between the u.s. and pakistan.

with general pervez musharraf. if you had been the president of pakistan when this raid took place, would you have been entirely comfortable with what the americans did and in terms of dropping navy s.e.a.l.s into the compound, killing him on the sovereign soil and not telling

anybody in the pakistani government? would you have been happy about that? >> not at all. not the least. in fact, in my time it was very, very clear we don't want anybody in the cross borders. no force. we decided on intelligence cooperation. all the dozens of al qaeda people that we got, important ones, were intelligence cooperation. locate them, identify them. the action was invariably by pakistan forces. and never any outside -- >> how would you have reacted? >> i certainly would have reacted, very -- very -- angry. this is violation of our sovereignty. >> is it, therefore, illegal what the americans did? >> it is absolutely illegal, yes. >> not a lawful assassination? >> now you are getting into the legality of -- world class risk. he has caused -- i'm referring

to the mission itself. if, as you say, it was an illegal raid on sovereign territory, therefore it becomes an illegal unlawful assassination. >> well, i think that -- i -- i don't want to get involved in these legalities of the issue. >> you did say -- that's why i asked you if you thought it was illegal. if it is illegal the killing of bin laden becomes an unlawful assassination. >> so what would you have done if you had been president? have you this unlawful assassination as you see it on your sovereign soil. what could pakistan -- what should pakistan have done? >> well, i don't think that i would have looked at it from international law point of view or legalities or juris prudence points of view. it should have been pakistan forces.

u.s. forces violated our sovereignty. and certainly it would have and my own people would have. therefore, any leader in pakistan allowing this is -- his own reputation is at stake. rightly so. therefore, i would have -- wouldn't have liked it. objected. but i would not have objected to the killing of osama bin laden, whether it was violation of any law or -- >> american administration to have informed you. >> yes. >> possibly included pakistani forces in the raid. is that what you are saying? >> no. i would have certainly insisted it be pakistan's special forces going to deal with it. >> here is the problem. you are president obama and know there has been a breakdown in trust between pakistan and america. high level. trust is not what it used to be.

there are good reasons for that. you get intelligence of bin laden is in his compound. and you have to make a choice. either we tell the authorities the government of a country we do not trust, and who we may think, we may suspect that know osama bin laden is there. some of them knew this. why, if you are president obama, could you possibly take the risk under those circumstances of not acting unilaterally? >> well, no pakistani, no leader in pakistan, will allow this as a justification for any intrusion into pakistan. nobody can do that. no country's leader, would america allow such an action by mexico? i mean -- let's treat all countries with sovereign equality. >> president obama said this week on british television for a state visit to britain that -- p

the same -- event arose again he would do the same. if it happens in the future with other known terrorists in al qaeda he would take the same action. we have a clear flash point between pakistan and america. >> i think this is putting pakistan leadership and government -- i think it is -- it is not a very responsible statement. >> you think it is irresponsible for president obama to say that >> yes, indeed there it basically implies america has rights in terms of taking action on this sovereign soil as in pakistan. bin laden. it has a right to deal do that when you say it has no right to do that. certainly no country has a right to intruding to new other country. actually -- i mean, if technically or legally you see it, it is an act of war. therefore, i think it is an irresponsible statement and i think such arrogance should not be shown publicly to the world. >> you think he is arrogant? >> i think so. i think it is arrogance, we don't care, we don't care for your national opinion. we don't care for your people. we will come in and do the same

thing. this is -- this is arrogance. >> when you say an act of war, that's pretty serious language. would you say -- another raid by the americans to get rid of another al qaeda terrorist an exactly the same circumstances, without informing the pakistani government, would that be an act of war? >> theoretically, technically, yes, indeed. it is an act of war. any violation by forces of a country's sovereignty is an act of war. theoretically. now how to deal with it is the question. leave it to the government there, how they want to deal with it. diplomatically dealing through protests or physical military action. and military response. it could be a serious situation. we must all understand that. ing the world should understand it. president obama should understand it. >> we will take a short break now. when we come back i want to talk about your political future and

rumors you may well launch a new bid to become president again of pakistan.

back now with general perez musharraf, former president of zach. mr. president, there is a growing clammer in pakistan for you to possibly return in the next election in 2013. will you consider doing that? >> yes, i have already taken a decision. i did consider the situation in pakistan, and i saw that there is a requirement of creating

another political option. otherwise, pakistan is going in the wrong direction. therefore, i have made my -- formed my own party and i do intend absolutely to return to pakistan. i will -- >> do you believe you can win? >> well, i entered into politics because i do believe i can win. as far as going back as president, we've got a parliamentary form of government. the party has to win, and if my party wins, one has to decide whether one becomes a prime minister or a president. >> you've been quite outspoken in this interview about president obama, called him arrogant, you say it would be an act of war if it happens again. if you become president, you will know that pakistan is very reliant on american aid, $3 billion a year is a lot of money.

are you worried if you ramp up the rhetoric over the search for the terrorists in pakistan against the americans they might respond and say, we're yanking our money? >> well, first of all, i didn't say act of war. yes, technically and theoretically, any intrusion, it is an act of war. but i didn't say that one would like to declare it as an act of war. i think it has very serious repercussions. >> the point i was making is if you create too much of a rift with america, with president obama, if you go back into power, they won't forget that. and pakistan is reliant on this aid money. it's a lot of money every year. >> money is coming, it is there. it assists pakistan, there's no doubt about that. but that doesn't mean pakistan can give up its sovereignty, its national interests. now this has to be dealt with in a diplomatic manner.

we have to reduce the trust deficit. we have to restore trust. it was there for six or seven years when i was there. we had good trust, and we were taking action and we were very frank and direct. >> have you personally always been 100% honest with america? >> 500% honest. i don't believe in dishonesty. i believe in telling a person right straight, because then that is how trust is developed. the moment you are hiding or distorting facts, that is when the trust deficit starts. >> do you believe the current pakistani administration has been 100% honest? >> i don't know, i don't know. i can't comment on that. certainly, the mistrust is that the pakistan army or the isi assists the taliban and the bone of contention lies in north waziristan not being attacked and one of the leaders of the taliban is not being dealt with. i don't know what discussions take place, but if i was there, there has to be a reason why it is not being done. a strategic reason, or maybe it will be done a little later. but whatever it is, the concerns of the united states and the

coalition must be given straight and clearly through the united states. what is the reason this is not happening. and that is what diplomacy is, really. and we must do that. pakistan will want to address this issue against al qaeda and taliban. all that is happening, isn't there a disconnect that while everyone accuses the army that we are involved with the taliban, and look at what they are doing. look at what happened in this base, the naval base, and look pakistan will want to address this issue against al qaeda and taliban. all that is happening, isn't there a disconnect that while everyone accuses the army that we are involved with the taliban, and look at what they

are doing. look at what happened in this base, the naval base, and look at what has been happening all around. but yet we are being blamed we are with the taliban and the taliban are doing this to the army. they attacked our general headquarters. isn't there some disconnect? isn't there something wrong in this logic? the problem is, maybe, maybe i say people are not talking straight. >> the problem in the logic comes when you discover that osama bin laden is in the middle of pakistan, because clearly to the americans, a lot of them are thinking this is not a coincidence. he's either been harbored there or somebody knew he was there. otherwise it doesn't make sense. the problem with the taliban relationship is it becomes suspicious. >> if this was the case, it doesn't stand with logic. if there was complicity, and he's there for five years, i get directly involved. that means i was complicit. i would like to give a logical -- >> had you been president --

>> let me complete. now, if that was the case, i would like -- i would have wanted to take leverage out of it when i was at the receiving end in the 2007, i should have done something with this osama bin laden card and gained advantage. so obviously it is illogical. it is not the case. >> you mean you would have traded the information that you had bin laden? >> i would have done something to turn the tables in my favor. >> you wouldn't have just handed him over to the americans? >> i don't know. >> wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do? >> i would have used this card to my favor. i wouldn't have left it to the next government. you hand him over to the next government. >> can i just question the ethics of that for a moment? if you're a layman like me and you say you would have used that to your advantage -- >> i'm saying if i was complicit, if i knew, i would have done that. if i knew and i'm harboring and hiding him, i would have done this maybe.

>> if you had known for a fact where bin laden was, would you have handed him over to america? >> let's not get into the details of something which didn't happen. obviously -- >> it might happen again. that's why i'm asking. >> i can't answer you right away. it's not a simple question/answer issue. >> let me make it simple. bin laden is dead. if you go back into power and you become president again, and you discover that a senior member of al qaeda, who is without any doubt committing atrocities is living in another compound, near karachi or somewhere, would you tell the americans? >> i would like to take action. why would i tell the americans? intelligence has always been cooperating.