>> host: in 1996 that was the year you felt like thing started to go south at abc. tell me about that time. >> guest: you want to make me cry again. you are trying to make me cry, nia. no, there were two people at abc that i think began to put the nights in me. one of them was a white woman who was executive producer of my weekend show. the other was a black and who was producer of my weekend show. and it hurt me so to find out that the people that began the doing and of carole simpson were a white woman and a black man. people i had worked 30 years to

get into the jobs they held. i can't tell you how much that hurt. it is like, you owe your job to me because i put my job on the line, and you would do this to me? so, that began. ..

>> she is not feeling well. traveling in from washington every wreaks then start the day after having traveled in. but as soon as the red light k negative come i was fined. they tell me i am alive and ready to go but it was very hurtful that i have fought racism and sexism and here was coming ageism in this all comments about my performance. so they said they wanted to bring along new talent and prepare them for the network. i had done the show for 15 years which is a long time

in tv. but i felt they would not have told peter jennings that. he was doing that over 20 some odd years but it was just to get rid of me. they gave me an offer that i could refuse it was insulting to stay at the network and not do the news and a more. -- jenny moorpark roi said no. i will not make it that easy for you. i will stay here and make you deal with me longer. so i stayed three years longer and put out to pasture not doing a lot but but then a was planning the next phase of my life. what will i do? i moved to boston to be near my grandchildren. >> host: tell us about your family and the work life you had to balance to what it was so difficult.

you wear three hats. my husband was a career man and there were social activities i needed to go to with him. i had to do my career and be the best possible add to ring that. and i had children and a home and i was the one buying the issues when their fee were too big. sometimes if it was an awful juggling act and i wanted to be the best that all of them and i tried but it is tough. women need to know it is tough. you think you can do it all but it is very hard. >> host: when you look at television news today what do see are the change is evident that you pushed for? >> guest: no. no. i don't. you see a lot of women on tv

from the cable networks and everything. when men are doing amazingly well but they are not making good decisions. they are not up their hiring and firing. it is the men better hiring and hire people that are attractive. nobody is speaking out as i a have the opportunity to do as i can but now you are afraid and what to hang on to the job and do not want to rock the boat and they saw somebody that rocked the boat. but nobody cares. >> host: it quickly too young to the list coming on

their twenties and thirties? >> guest: do your best. you will not succeed if you cannot write well. you have to have all the skills together to be able to compete with anyone else. i will is asking and it is hard to shut the door in your face when you have a grave voice in and come back with the best story and have stories and things like that. it is hard to say no to someone who was excellent. i want them to be excellent. >> host: thank you for doing this. a delightful book and delightful conversation. i thank you for being here. >> guest: thank you

>> if you pick up this newspaper, would raitis that you read most days of the week you will find one if not to stories about pork probably a iraq for afghanistan will make it to the front page and maybe even who or somalia or other by paul pakistan are japan, you name it. it will be on the front page. it is safe to say that if you pick up the paper tomorrow morning whether the local paper or the "wall street journal" the headline will not be all is quiet on u.s.-canadian border. in paris it will not be quiet on the german front and it is self-evident why that is the case.

when peace breaks out, and nothing happens. when war breaks out, of what happens. there is no as coming emotion, and to some extent it is reasonable we pay a lot of attention to war and little attention to peace per obviously people go to see movies spend $11.50 or whatever it is to see a movie about world war ii but you will not pay $11.50 to see a movie today about franco-german relationship is all use the is a camera at the border are sheep grazing. that is because it has lost its relevance as a geopolitical boundary line. if we get in our cars

tonight a 30 and head north in a big convoy getting to the u.s.-canadian border, we will find a few customs agents and passport control but you will not find the 82nd airborne. you will not find canadians on the other side. why? because they do not lay awake at night thinking we are about to invade. we don't lie awake thinking they will invade. why is that? is a much more profound observation than the fact the taliban are fighting or another ethnic group going after the taliban since the beginning of time.

of the other stuff, the magical all too rare moments of international history where peace breaks out and nothing happens and countries become so comfortable they demilitarize their relationship and they keep their borders undefended and let down their guard. they eliminate war as a legitimate tool of statecraft. i would like to do three things in the next 30 minutes. to tell you how i went about examining how and when peace breaks out and highlight what we think is the most important conclusion of the study. what would you want to take away and ruminate about the way you move going forward? then end by saying a few

things about president obama and his the engagement strategy because his readiness to talk to the end of me was one of the most distinguishing features of his presidential campaign and reset with russia and trying to negotiate and trying to reach out to syria is unusual foreign policy. i want to offer some thoughts on how the average has gone and where it is likely to head in the months ahead. for starters coming in trying to answer the question when and why, i went back through history to find as many cases as i could wear longstanding rivals found their way to peace. the earliest case and look

at is the foundation of switzerland where what is today the alpine region region, along and a maze of each other what became a swiss confederation, i look at the formation of a iroquois a confederacy which was born in 1450 in a small town that still exist today when the five iroquois a tribes came together they were killing each other literally for centuries from 14531777 of the single iroquois tribe died in battle with another iroquois. 1853 as system that preserve peace among the great powers and up to the present day with cases from latin america, middle east, and

spread the net as widely as possible to get a different cultures at different times times, non stay actors trying to figure out these magical moments occur. let me tell you what i found. i will tell you buy just telling you the story of one particular case. that is the case of the united states and great britain. the case which today we take for granted the a dsm how the u.s. and great britain were ideas, a partner '04 one and world war ii know the special relationships. up from 1700 breaking away from the british empire when the british kindly burn down the white house to the balance of 19th century, britain was enemy number one.

in the uk america was number one. we kept our cruisers that the ready and troops on the border and almost went to war on numerous occasions but everything starts to change 1895 and the precipitating event is a dispute that breaks out from venezuela of the border and you say what does that have to do with anglo-american relations? united states keep in mind to the u.s. is coming and negative a great power and the levying with the growing economic power, the president dispatches a note to london that says this dispute is in the western

hemisphere and is in our backyard and we recommend you take this to neutral arbitration. lowered sells very discusses this with his cabinet sees it as the affront to the british empire and dispatches a note back to washington that says forget about it. at this point* there is talk of war in congress and a sense united states has been ashamed and embarrassed by this and talk of the british empire continuing to tread where it should not be trespassing of american interest and once talk of war is swirling the british cabinet reconvenes and lowered sells very calls in the admiralty and says what do we do? are you ready to go to war

against united states? he walks away and sees a rising america and rising germany. rising japan they're getting uppity in south africa and they go back to the lowered and says we cannot do this. there is no way we can go to war with united states because we do not have enough battleships. we can only expose our positions in the north sea and mediterranean and the adderall says if you cannot fight them, turn them into a friend. and lowered sells very said this is an interesting idea to go back to washington to say we rethought the issue and have decided you are right.

we will take this to a neutral arbitration. and belfour who was the leader give a speech soon after words he says united states has legitimately articulated the monroe doctrine -- doctrine for hegemony we believe and recognize the legitimacy of that claim. of course, americans don't know what is going on. here's the archenemy telling them they are the hegemon of the western hemisphere. and the american government correctly interpreted but the british were doing that they were engaging the enemy and attempting to turn a relationship and to andy and because washington understood what was being said, has a reciprocated. between 1896 and 1898 the

british and americans traded confessions over fishing rights of the barons see over the border american rights to build of panama canal which they were prohibited by doing with every bit -- treaty buy the british. they said go ahead and fortified. then they kick the british out to colonize hawaii and the philippines the british said parade. the only great power in the world to welcome america's arrival. at that play the game switches from the realm of diplomats and cable and i will come back to this it was deliberately secret to in the british government were afraid that if they let

out to the public they were making nice to the enemy they would come after them so they have to do this quiet day. and for the arrival in the pacific and the society start to getting gauged there are novels and magazines the "atlantic monthly" the rhodes scholarship to nurture the next generation of anglo-saxon leaders the chamber of commerce is born and host reagan their dinners and london and in new york and start every dinner by singing them "star spangled banner" and they fly the british and american flags side by side. this deeper societal engagement deepens the roots of the rapprochement of what

was carried out between 1895 and the final stage of the process is a change of the dialogue, discourse, the way that leaders talk about the other. we see teddy roosevelt who was president calling war between britain and the united states a civil war and british counterparts similarly referred tour between the united states and great britain as fratricide, war within the family or against the broad there. of that changed if they are up then in 1902 britain remove the united states from two power standards these two side the royal navy then the last contingent of british regulars leave the canadian

border and then was demilitarized from that time on. wrath baying of knuckles on the window to get the other side to pay attention to your willingness to move their relationship from conflict to cooperation a period of dialogue to put your problems on the table to discuss them and that is the basic story i found for all of these historical cases that i looked at. now let me touch on the second set of issues that what are some of the broader lessons? what do i hope you will two

over after you leave tonight? the first it is in the big debate that takes place about whether engagement is good diplomacy, i found in most cases it is good diplomacy. there are some enemies with whom bush summit should not engage. and those that have convictions making the willingness to compromise out of the question. was chamberlain right to appease hitler? and no. because hitler had demonstrated year after year after year he had a predatory ambition. his neighbors, jews, he is

not someone with whom somebody could say this is whom i think i can do business. should the united states engage a al qaeda? no. because they have made crystal clear they have a set of extremist goals who want to do was higher. with those are generally the extreme. that is a hard case and most others engagement has a chance of working that does not mean it always works or if we talk to russia or iran or burma or tae they will reciprocate but my findings to suggest that longstanding rivalries come to an end when the two sides negotiate not when one side coerces the other into submission.

the sec can take away, if there is a potion of our magical elixir that keeps appearing coming it is the practice of restraint, the willingness of the parties in question to give ground and take two steps back to tie a hand behind the back to withhold power and could take many different forms. with the british air wis backing down between qian and it was a willingness by both parties to dismantle the ports on the frontier and in the case of brazil and argentina and a willingness to cooperate on the nuclear acknowledge read that both are beginning to develop and indonesia and malaysia, indonesia backed away from challenging the foundation of the

federation. it takes different forms but important to send a signal that you mean the other party no harm. another interesting practice that i found more than i have found is the concentrating power of one of the magical maneuvers that help the united states consolidate as a zone of peace was putting the capital in a swamp, at a location that i suffer from. why do i live in washington d.c.? because it is the capital and the only place northerners and southerners could agree. could have been fill your boston or new york or princeton but i had to be someone right in between

north and south not commercial or urban. why is the capital near luxembourg and strasbourg? the same reason for collided switzerland have two capitals for many centuries? the protestants and catholics could that agree if it to be in the protestant section so each got one. than the catholics could not agree whether it should be this city or that city so it moved. to capitals moved around switzerland. but it works. nobody was afraid a stable permanent capital would create a balance of power. strategic restraint withholding power. the third take away this since quite surprising going again, the regime type

democracy does not seem to matter per car went into the project thinking liberal democracy was very good at making peace. partly because we're led to believe by our politicians and scholars democracies are pacific and autocracies are were like i found they could be very reliable partners. the concert of europe was divided between the liberalizing britain and france and the autocratic austria and russia that got along swimmingly. when brazil and argentina embarked on the path than 1979, when indonesia made peace with malaysia it was governed by one of the great if general thugs of the 20th century. but a peacemaker when it comes to southeast asia.

who i think we make a mistake when we choose our enemies and friends slowly -- solely on the basis of a democracy. we may want to lecture, harangue or to all the chinese to let their prisoners go, but i found when it comes to making peace democracies and hypocrisy can get along just fine we should not make the mistake of turning hour back on relationships to make the world a safer place just because we do not like the flavor of their government. the third point* again again, because we're led to believe economic engagement is a lubrication for good diplomatic relations. i found it is about the diplomacy stupid the politics, not economics and only one of the 20 cases

that i looked at it it clear the way for political reconciliation and that was germany. and all the other cases reconciliation clear the way and in the absence of that we can trade, invest until we are blue in the face but it will not have geopolitical consequences. we can give money to serve to bosnians to tell them to have joint ventures but will not build peace. we can give money to palestinians to have dairy farms but they disagree over the border or jerusalem there will not be peace. politics first. the final observation that will lead me into a closing comments of obama, and it

seems to reebok international politics and i found in studying these cases that good policy requires good politics and making peace with an enemy is as difficult domestically as it is diplomatically because with the adversary there always opponents at home ready to unsheathes the sharp knife of those that come after. and those were the rapprochement failed, and the soviet union, nevada and gambia and syria and egypt, with diplomats and

leaders to bring on a diplomatic rapprochement. and leaders have to be very, very careful to be sure they have a domestic support at home because otherwise there's striking a deal but as soon as they are gone there is no domestic constituency to keep the piece, friendship moving forward. let me conclude by saying a few things about the obama engagement and where we go from here. someone in favor of the engagement i support obama's readiness to reach out to the adversary. i support the readiness even to talk to iran that the

regime is as odious as it gets. that is because when peace breaks out it usually does so because the parties come together and find their way out of the impasse not because one side forces the other to back down and obama is right to set aside questions of democracy and not democracy to take the approach of russia is ready to help on iran, afghanistan, nuclear arms control, we should work with them despite the fact that we'd like the way putin and medvedev govern. the second observation is that obama's has done a good job he has made the first

move and waits for the others to reciprocate. the russians are playing ball. it works with cuba and a little liberalization some political prisoners have been let go and that is why obama says the ball is then to run scored let's see if they will reciprocate the gestures of good will that happen put on the table. and being less than successful, one is he has too much on his plate. and has not done a good enough job deciding where to put the efforts to spread himself too thin.

and then he begins to realize the low hanging fruit -- bridges russia and if that works that will be a rio win for strategy of the engagement and then to intellectual and not political enough giving speeches to iranians and the egyptians and only recently began a to realize politics is sturdy and requires getting in the trenches and working the phones and cutting deals and diplomacy has become more realistic but still a bit too much idealistic not a hard-core politics. as i said with politics

obama's the engagement with russia may will fall because the senate refuses to ratify the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. if that happens in the treaty is rejected, it may well be the whole investment and rapprochement with the russians started going backwards and that says a couple things that abominates to do a better job to make sure they knew the legislative track and that probably means more republican by and and why not get james baker or brent

scowcroft another republican to get involved to make it a bipartisan effort and not democratic? finally i think one of the threats overall this daily ups and downs of engagement watching them politically and if we're going to rise to the occasion suited to the difficulties of dealing with the world in which power diffuses to new quarters, we desperately need to get our own house in order. depending on the economic vitality and number two on our political will. both are lagging today and both in part because to live in a country that is more divided than it has been

trading over a century and the may aftermath obama has no current -- choice to kabul together a republicans but let's not be a pollyanna about it will be bloody difficult part of that is because the democratic party lost a good portion of its moderate constituency and shifted to the left and the republican party just picked up a lot of votes but in many cases not centrist but sen further to the right so the republican party went this way the democratic party read that way and then holding out comment taxing in the center, he will appeal to many americans and neither the republican party nor the democratic party

behind him. neither party establishment lives in the center of american politics. obama's therefore is in a difficult position in. my final thought is in a country when the countries are as far apart as they are, it behooves us for $0.72 rise up to our elected officials we will put you in a room and locked the door and not give you food or water. we might but don't come out until you have a consensus for a plan to bring down the deficit to deal with the problems abroad because it is not rising to the location because our wisdom abroad starts at home.

and no less the home front is fixed up to now be able to meet the challenges the country can't face a broad. thank you. [applause] >> if you have questions go to the center aisle. come forward and ask your question. i'd like to know your take on the recent wikileaks release and how it affected relations throughout the world, our diplomatic relations? >> i think the trove of

documents that are now floating around in the public domain represent a serious breach of security. day embarrass the u.s. government because this shouldn't be happening and they embarrass governments around the world because we have a "people" magazine of diplomatic cables who said what two whom, who does not like who own but i do not believe we will look back at this as a watershed because most of what we find in the cables we already do. we have some titillating details but we don't have any bombshells. where the state is knocked

off course. it is a time secretary of state clinton and abominated do a lot of damage repair and they are doing it. they try to clean up the mess but nothing historians will look back at as a grievous blow to american diplomacy. >> is there a way to teach from international relationships this same message you could give the piece would break out from the united states? [laughter] [applause] because about one or two months ago we heard there is a revival of the whig party representing a center group because right now people in

the center have no place to go. that is not just the people in this room, it is the congress people who have no center. perhaps we needed a leader and someone who can define the center and be a statesman as opposed to a politician. i would like your thoughts. >> a very good question and an urgent question. there are two ways to come at it. one is to suggest this might be a moment where the dark horse third-party candidate could actually survive american politics because because, as i said and abbas you agree, of this, mary

mara kent -- many americans and i put myself in this poach that we're in the center of american politics that our political system has peerage to the extreme and we are out there and not quite sure which direction to head and and think about a third party candidate it is time to ride the wave of voters that does not have a home. i am skeptical that will happen because it is so difficult for a third party to get traction and part of the reason is the party system has locked up the financial structure. we live in a world like it or not where campaign finance is the pathway to get elected and it is deeply entrenched in the republican party so it is very hard for a third-party candidate to get his or her or in the

water. the other is to find someone from the republican or democratic party who just calls it quits and who rises above the bio and says i will make it my business to govern and fashion a consensus because the american people deserve no less. i think obama aspired to be that person as a candidate part of that is the message he sent this is not read america are book america it is the united states of america and got into office and found it extremely difficult to realize that potential but i do think we do need extraordinary potential at this time because as i said, the

challenges that we face right now are every bit as severe with the missile gap or whatever as to rise in the occasion see it as an urgent task otherwise we will be in trouble. >> the boundary between the united states and mexico, two countries on the service they service that appear to me very friendly that has tremendous tensions that exist between the drug and immigration issues. anything that might reveal that situation? >> one of the things i found in the research i did not

speak that much about but the cultural commonality and similar social orders helped to deepen peace. the fact the u.s. found a peaceful border with canada before it found a peaceful border with mexico should not be surprising because there is greater similarity north and south and to many of third day's other cases. and you can cross cultural boundaries it is harder to do but i do think the u.s. and mexico have succeeded in reaching a stable piece. our border is guarded because of drugs and immigration and not because we're fearful of the mexico geopolitical or vice versa.

mexicans real about the history of american intervention but no mexican troops are waiting for the american invasion. it will not have been. this trick is to find to help mexico get control and getting back to the previous question day democrats and republicans to get together to fashion a serious immigration bill, some combination of tightening the border control and dealing with immigrants who are already here. but finding that a compromise form now is a casualty of a political system where the two parties continued to move for their

part -- further apart. >> could you talk about the unilateral approach versus the multinational approach? >> any particular country is in mind? >> it was criticism of was initially when we tried to do things under bush with north korea. with the unilateral approach then tried multinational approach and neither one seems to me very effective. what are your views you think would be most effective work generally? >> united states has recovered a certain legitimacy and popularity abroad that to it lost during the first bush and administration but recovered over the second. george w.. and there was a significant

shift between george w. bush first and second term with unilateral versus multilateral and obama has continued multi lateraled tradition to some extent. and negotiating with north korea, i ran, we need a combination of unilateral and multilateral. we made those to be part of the equation with iran, if we have a carrot and day stick we made the international community to stand with us. they are fighting in a way

that they haven't you need the unilateral because at the end of the day to run is scared of the united states. slow in either country the understanding between the governments of iran to deal with their security issues can only come from washington not brussels for moscow or anyone else. that is why you need the multilevel and unilateral working hand in hand. >> talk about the four and five factors that a very important and wondering comment on what is happening in europe and which of those

are especially responsible? and what do expect the story of european integration and the piece of world war ii was a product of the same told of fundamental understanding where they settled their disputes they began to find one another through the coal and steel community coming concessions over border issues. in me came the smaller states of europe can go with joining the union so it is

every bit as profound knitting together a union from previously separate states. i worry more than i ever have since entered this profession and i think the european project has begun to stumble and a way that is perhaps irreversible. i think it is conceivable that ireland reese were a larger could temporarily dropped out i don't think that itself will come apart but what we are seeing is the crisis is from politics. that would be drifting and

the collective spirit of the european enterprise is in jeopardy. and we move from a stronger federal government back to the states and has not made it past no return and deep enough would face serious reversal and i would say the jury is out now as to whether this pause in the european project is just sick and guessing from the next of torrid deeper unions we would begin to see your cycle and reverse. it would be a problem if that happened in the united

states needs a collective europe and the partner but unfortunately it has very little ability to affect the process every nationalization taking place in europe. >> too more questions. >> the process you were talking about typically takes a good deal of time and a lot of hard work for early seem to reface with some serious problems that we don't have time to do with thinking of north korea. how would use handle the situation that is becoming extremely serious in that part of the world? >> you are spot on to refer to the timing issue and with to give based different

dimensions the ability of time, particularly in a country like iran where minute by minute come a day by day you can enrich uranium to weapons-grade. and the time cuts against us at home in the sense that political time is majored in seconds and minutes. if we are lucky the coz of a 24-hour news cycle, internet, boom boom boom. but two pullout days serious episode takes between five for 10 years that is a century of political time. it was sent in 1895 because time moves more slowly. that is why it is so important for obama or whoever is leading the effort to worry about the

domestic landscape because you need to carry political support for something that takes a very long time. on the substance of dealing with north korea and ayn rand, we don't have much choice but to take a two-pronged approach, the threat of containment with north korea and isolation coupled with a willingness to talk and normalize of their willing to get rid of the nuclear program and a verifiable way. with iran, the same would apply and many of you may say why are we talking to this regime? it is a big mistake. the bottom line is if we don't, we know we will not get a diplomatic solution. if we do not give a diplomatic solution there are two potential outcomes. one is the iran that has a

nuclear weapon. that is ugly and unattractive outcome. the second is at an american obama campaign against iran that will probably last several weeks and lead to who knows what? that is also a very bad outcome. that is why i sit and leave the door open to dialogue until the 12th hour because the consequences of diplomatic failure are sufficiently awful to warrant the dialogue. >> i am concerned about the extremes of the two-party system. if i may, i'd like to put you into a time capsule and send you back to the deliberation of the constitution. what changes would you have made. [laughter] limited term limits? the english system of

limited money on election campaigns, would there have been a change that might have avoided this? >> i think the constitution and the structure of the american government was predicated on the different political essays and predicate did upon a the lucrative democracy in which there was a sense that as a matter of course, the interest of the party or the politician and in that sense today is operating in a very different political environment those from the founding fathers.