will be in intimate contact with electrical engineers and mathematicians creating information theory. they all work together and it was together they laid foundations of modern computer science. >> host: jim in oregon. you are on with james gleick. go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: this is jim in ashland. i much enjoyed your book and program that came with it. chaos theory. i used and 80 mhz pc to run a bunch of stuff more quickly but my question is more cosmic. are you familiar with the controversy that stephen hawking had regarding information on black holes or in black holes and what happens to it? the proof that in quantum mechanics that you can't destroy or create information. i would like to know if the

initial bid they have all the information in it that we currently have? >> guest: you left from a little question to the big question. i am going to say this as though tom lehman sergeant want anyone taking this prognostication too seriously. i will say all of the information of the modern world did not exist in the big bank even though the universe developed from the big bang. i love that you brought up stephen hawking black hole paradox because that is a minor episode in my book but a fun episode. part of my book gets to the role of information in contemporary physics where information is playing a bigger and bigger part. one of the many areas where that is true is in the area of black holes. the astrophysics of black holes. one of the issues is what happens to the information that

goes in? there's a paradox there. the black hole information paradox. without going through the whole history i will say stephen hawking made that with some other physicists about where the science would go. in a few years ago he lost that bet and had to pay up. >> host: we are live from miami at the miami book fair international held every november on the campus of miami dade college in downtown miami. our guest, james gleick, who is with us for this last call from portland, oregon. you are on the air. >> caller: hello, mr gleick. i am reading a book now called the clockwork universe by edward bellmake about the birth of the modern science age.

copernicus, kepler, galileo, newton and descartes and i will read your book next. my question is -- has to do with a cultural phenomenon known as the digital divide which i was reading about in the 2,000s. i am wondering if that is still a relevant phenomenon or not, ready access to information, people who have access versus people who don't have access. >> guest: more relevant than ever. it was something we are all aware of but we aren't -- we absolutely need to focus on it. it is because we recognize how crucial information is in our time that it is a commodity, a commodity with value in business and a commodity essential in education. we need to pay attention to. social issues to do with equal

access with its valuable commodity. >> host: another policy issue we heard discussed often is second crunch. to you agree we are running out of sectors? >> guest: spectrum is finite. i don't have enough of a crystal ball to know what the consequences are going to be but it is a matter of huge public policy how to divide spectrum that was allocated to in large chunks to television and radio bands that now need less and less of it for their own original purpose. was still like it for their growing ambitions and to new technologies that didn't exist when the spectrum first needed to be allocated. it is officially quite finite. >> host: the people you write about it "the information," the founders in the turn of the century. in your view who do you think saw what today was going to be

like? who envisioned it? >> guest: that is a great question because in some ways the people who made the biggest contributions were not the ones who we would see as visionaries. who have the clearest picture of the future. it was possible to make great technical contributions, to discover profound mathematics without having a clear understanding how that was going to change the world. claude shannon who created information theory did think the lot about what the future would bring and he thought about it in part because people asked him and people would say you created this theory of information. are we going to be in an information universe and he would say things like all i can say is i think this business of storing information and processing information is going to get to be a lot bigger.

>> host: here is the cover of james gleick's newest book "the information". harbinger 42 tweets i discovered your book that the public library with that fantastic cover, caught my eye. thought we would show that one more time. thank you for being on booktv. booktv's live coverage from miami book fair international continues. we have several more call ins coming the. we will lock you to lesley brody. she has a new book about women muckraking journalist named jessica midford. we will talk to john avalon about newspaper columnists and jim rats and burger about the bay of pigs. and on booktv.org you can also watch web cast of some of the author events going on live at the miami book fair. so we have two separate tracks

going right now. booktv on c-span2 live from the fair and live from the fare on booktv.org showing you different events. booktv.org. you can get the full schedule. it is a beautiful day in miami at the book fair. there's a great crowd on the campus of miami dade college. it was almost hurricaney when we flew in but today it is gorgeous, 85 degrees. a little breeze. if you are in the area come on down. the c-span bus is passing out book bags and booktv hands. take a tour of the bus as well. we would love to see you down here. in about an hour we are going to be back live with our call in program but in the meantime we want to show you this. condoleezza rice wrote the second half of her memoir published this year. the first half was published last year. we did an interview on the first half but the second half is about her work in the george w.

bush administration. she was in conversation with donna, who is the president of the university of miami. she was h h s secretary under president bill clinton. they were in conversation together. this was earlier in the month at the university of miami. here is condoleezza rice. >> it is one thing to learn about history in the classroom and another to abort these lessons up close and personal. one of the twenty-first century's chief architect of american foreign policy, the cobb leaders of the lecture series established by ambassador cobb, to the memory of her husband chuck cobb's fiftieth birthday. might send a birthday present. please join me recognizing soo and chuck for 25 years of providing the university of miami community with the opportunity to host insightful

and provocative leaders from all walks of life. [applause] i also wanted the students to thank them for donating 300 of secretary rice's very big books which were given to the first three hundred students who attended this year's event. [applause] now, university takes no credit for doing this. i want to thank mitch kaplan of books and books. the university met with him recently to discuss launching a new partnership to bring speakers to campus. one week later he called to say we were going to have an opportunity to host secretary rice's first public bond for event. this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship. thank you very much.

[applause] the cobs have sponsored other distinguished speakers. catherine weinberger, ross perot, david stern, david burke. soo and chuck dedicated their careers and energies to serving their country and their community in a variety of ways. between them very formidable diplomatic corps that stands from iceland to jamaica to d.c. to tallahassee and miami. soo served as u.s. ambassador for jamaica from 2001 to 2005 during the same time secretary rice served as national security adviser. governor jeb bush appointed her secretary of the state of florida in 2005 to 2007. shea co-chair the u.s. department of state mandatory seminar for newly appointed ambassadors.

it is interesting twist that she spoke at stanford university where secretary rice is a distinguished member of the faculty and former provost and university of miami school of law. chuck cobb was u.s. ambassador to the republic of iceland during the administration of george h. w. bush and during the reagan administration he served as undersecretary of the u.s. department of commerce where he was responsible for trade development, export promotion and international travel and tourism and was appointed by florida's governor jeb bush and charlie crist to serve statewide board. they surge on the board of directors of the council of american ambassadors. chuck is a double graduate of stanford. we can't claim him as an alumnus but he is a longtime member of chairman of the board of the university of miami board of trustees. please welcome miami diplomatic dynamic duo, the ambassadors

cobb. [applause] >> thank you. dr. rice, ambassador cobb, guests, very pleased to have all of you here. this hole fanged sort of unfold around the interest of my husband and leadership. so when we have been able to have outstanding leaders come through this area we have arranged to have university of miami students and our guests participate and that has been an extraordinary pleasure. this year we hit the jackpot with condoleezza rice. we have a relationship that goes back as you know, i think, dr.

rice was provost at stanford and back at stanford at the woodrow wilson institute. chuck and i spent eight years on campus in stanford not because we couldn't graduate but that is a different story. we have many mutual friends from service in government at stanford and elsewhere and we also had the privilege of service to our country and very consequential times. one of the things i enjoy thinking about his leadership also. i think of dr. rice as the transformational leader. i think of ambassador, as transformational leaders. you might think about and ask whether the common traits.

vision, contextual knowledgeably original understanding the environment, communication and motivational skills. they are challenging but am powering. rock-solid integrity. unusual determination and perseverance and perseverance. i emigrated mirer of dr. rice. not quite as much as gaddafi. i don't have the scrapbook. [applause] i do have an enormous regard for dr. rice and very pleased she is here and do her formal introduction i would like to invite ambassador, to the stage. [applause]

>> good morning, everybody. thank you, my wife for those nice comments. ..

who clearly has all the skills, as i will talk a little more in a moment about. [applause] unfortunately we could not give her away from stanford. we could not give her away from writing the script book. and so, we were so successful in encouraging congresswoman jane harman who was the covers woman from california and also a very charismatic driven, powerful,

wonderful, smartly. so it is quite obvious to my take off from all of this that i really do have this bias. and for that reason it is really an opportunity and a pleasure for me to introduce the most successful woman, and they're really do believe that. so, you have heard from my wife about the skills, and clearly she has all of those, but in my opinion the most important skill that she has is -- and i think all successful leaders have this is the ability to bring people together, to team build, to seek a common ground, and no one is more skilled in this than condoleezza rice. the national security adviser, as you well know, it's her job to bring really diverse personalities together. in her case there was dick cheney, the vice-president, the

secretary of state, and the secretary of defense, really different personalities, really strong personalities but, a lot of tension in the room, as you will read in this book, but she brought a consensus. under her and the president then mates of the most important decisions of this century. because of that credibility to team build. now, she also used that skill as secretary of state and dealt with some really tough problems with palestine and israel on one hand and then it was pakistan and india on another and then day after day, countries that had really diverse and different fundamental differences. again, no one was better in bringing everybody together then dr. condoleezza rice. at age 38 secretary rice was named to the provost as standard to the stanford.

she was the first woman, the first minority, and the young as provost in stanford history. she showed exceptional skills at stanford. since that time universities all over the country are trying to get her to be their president. again, there were as unsuccessful as i was earlier. she is a leader with incredibly diverse skills. she is a concert pianist, sport aficionado, and because of her skills, offered to be the commissioner of the pac 12 and has been considered the commissioner of the nfl and a lot of other sports franchises. she serves on the board of hewlett-packard, chevron, charles schwab, rand corporation , transamerica, and many other boards in corporate and civic organizations. ladies and gentlemen, it is my really distinct pleasure, and i think no higher honor does this university half than to have a

leader with so many talents and experiences. so i present to you the former secretary of state and the national security adviser, condoleezza rice. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. that was beautiful. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you thank you. [applause] [applause] >> madam secretary, welcome. how long have i been inviting you here? >> a few years. >> most of our questions today were submitted by students. let me start with the first one. one of our students ask, how do i get to the secretary of state? >> let me just start by thanking you very much. i have known president shalala as secretary and also as my friend.

think you for having me here at the you. [applause] [applause] i want to thank my good friends, the cobs, the ambassador for their service to the country and for their extraordinary as well. thanks to you, the university of miami students for having me here. well, howdy become secretary of state? all right. you start as a failed piano major. i went to college to be a concert pianist. i started to far studied piano from the ages three and there was never any doubt that is what i would do. in the summer of my sophomore year i went to something called the aston music school, a lot of prodigy's were there. there were 12-year-old suit could play what i could play after only one year. there were 12 and i was 17. i decided i would either end up

teaching 13 year olds or maybe playing at nordstrom's someplace. you know, a fine career, but not really for me. fortunately, i wanted into the course of international politics this taught by a specialist who was madeleine albright's father. he opened up the world of diplomacy and eastern european and of a sudden i knew i wanted to be. so the first of how you get to where i am is you find something that you absolutely love to do. i would say to each and every one of you as students, find your passion. of what job you want, not with career you want, but what you are passionate about. what makes you get up every day and what is the golan. secondly, if you are fortunate your passion and talent will come together. i went on to become a professor at stanford. i met when i was a young professor in a similar a man

named prince scowcroft to have been the national security adviser to president gerald ford and was with -- would become the national security adviser to george h. w. bush. he took an interest in my career, and when president h. toward bush was elected he took me with them. i was fortunate to be the white house soviet specialist at the end of the cold war. much better than that. the second lesson is find people who are interested in you and in your career. help to guide you and open up opportunities. we sometimes say, want to get there on my own. no one gets there absolutely on their own. there are always mentors. there is another important lesson. sometimes we say you have to have all models and mentors to look like you. if i have been waiting for a black woman soviet specialist mentor i would still be waiting. [laughter] so your mentors and role models can come in any color, shape, or

size. just find somebody who really cares about you and cares about your career. the final part of the story is that when in 1990 gorbachev came to the white house, and we were sitting together on the lawn of the white house and marine one, the presidential helicopter, getting ready to take off for california. i thought, i'm really glad i chased by major. and so if you find your passion, if you find people who will support you, if you work hard, and if you don't worry too much about what comes next, incredible opportunities open themselves to you. finally, get involved in politics as some point. find a candidate you like. work for them. ultimately that is so i got to be secretary of state. i worked with george w. bush, and i became secretary of state. the most important right now.

[applause] [applause] >> let's talk a little about the organization of decision making and your role in the national security council. that role was almost painful for me to read. if you were to advise now after your experience and that government particular, president of the united states, would you suggest to them that one characteristic of the members of that team, whether secretary, even the vice-president would get along well with others. >> well, that might eliminate a fair number of people in washington. so i would be careful about that criteria. there is no doubt that we have very strong personalities, but i hope that i give the impression in the book that there were about substance.

these are not personal issues. nonetheless, we got along just fine until the most just full-time. the most stressful times or around the war on terror and around iraq. and so, perhaps the lesson is that in so-called normal times, to the degree that it is ever normal in decision making in washington, you can, it is important to have different voices. you can even do it with some tension, but when things get tough it is easier if people get along. and that, perhaps, as the lesson that i would say to the president's. you can do fine and one with personalities if things are going well. when they get rough it is a lot harder. >> personality. very strong points of view. black and white. the fact that each political

party has a strategy, does that need to be reflected in the foreign policy, or can you just bring people and to consult with that? and pushing you pretty hard and how you put the team together. >> well, it is a really fine line. if you put a team together where people have used that are too similar you get a group thinking, and that is not a good thing. when i was secretary of state i actually had a couple of curmudgeons on my staff who would come in and challenge me, just everything that i wanted to do because i have always thought that if you're constantly in the company of people who say amen to everything that you say, find another company because you don't actually test your assumptions in that way. so i would tend to air in the direction of people who do have strong views, did you express them, but it can also put them aside ultimately and find a way

to work together. and within the political party, but the republican and democratic party they do have people with widely different views. if you were actually advising a president, you cannot anticipate that you would go through tough times. so what characteristics of that foreign policy impacts the foreign policy, lawyers, but not necessarily the kind of substantive qualities that you have. >> that's true. we actually had on our foreign policy team when you think about it, quite an experienced team. vice-president cheney had been secretary of defense and chief of staff. colin powell and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and national security adviser. i have been in the white house before, so we had a lot of expertise. i am to the state not quite sure why sometimes the personalities did not show, and i am not

actually sure, i don't think that it was observable before we got to washington. that is why i think it tested us. but i would say, the foreign-policy team, think about talking to people about internal dynamics. it can get -- the team part as well. strong views. but a strong views are important, you don't want a president who is just turn once of the story. think about the teen dynamic as well. >> a little bit of a lot of america. do you think it makes sense to focus on latin america and the region in developing u.s. policy? given the fact that so many, the countries differ in their stage of development and so many of them, their issues are really global. >> well, one sense in which i did want to involve what america and the caribbean as a region.

i would call even the western hemisphere. there is a kind of natural affinity for trade policy. we do share some problems of the kind of transnational border of trying to deal with trafficking in persons, trafficking in arms, trafficking and drugs until there are reasons. i also think that since the organization of american states has a democratic charter we should have a view of our hemisphere, first and foremost in our neighborhood is being democratic, but you make a very good point. once you get beyond those sort of big categories you really are talking about countries that are very different in how they interact. brazil thinks of itself, of course, as a regional leader. brazil is also one of the most important emerging economies for

the whole global economy. it is one of, as we call them, the bricks, one of the energy economies that has a chance to structure how the international economy that will look going forward. when you think about countries like of course obviously the united states, but when you think even about countries along the pacific rim, latin america, they may connect more to the economies of asia. i was always struck when i would go to something called the summit of the americas, which was relieved of latin america and the caribbean. we would have these discussions. hugo chavez would take off and everyone would sort of close their ears and whatever. but then almost a week or two weeks later we would go to the asia-pacific economic council. there, the pacific rim countries of chile all the way to canada

and all the way out through japan and china and korea, and the conversation was completely different. it was a but global trade, freeing trade, and so i actually always felt the countries had more in common with their asian counterparts in the head with their latin american counterparts. how they perceive themselves. i think it is. because if you look at places like chile, quite developed in many ways, colombia is getting there in terms of development, countries like brazil. on the one hand, leading the global call one of the leaders in the global economy, but with a huge impact on the division, they keep it really more of the developed countryside. if you look at some of the poorest countries in central america, guatemala, for instance, you're talking about places where you cannot even reach the farmers in the high land by highway.

and so their problems are to try to build infrastructure so that they can join the 20th century. forget the 21st century economy. yes. radically different levels of development, but when you think about it you have radically different levels of the old bat within countries. the north of mexico and the interior of the country and you have different levels of development even within countries. ♪ as secretary of state think of cuba differently than as part of the region because of the domestic politics and the relationships? >> they give cuba differently because it is the one country that can't even take a seat at the table. it has a democratically a elected president and unfortunately we have a history with cuba. castro's decision to install soviet nuclear capabilities, threatens the territory of the united states, highly anti-american regime. and so there are important

policy reasons ostensibly that we have a different relationship with cuba. but my hope is that in the larger democratization that is going on across the world that the cubans simply cannot be left behind. it absolutely has to be the case that when fidel castro goes the cuban people get a chance to elect their next government. [applause] [applause] >> that was a setup question. >> the national security adviser and secretary of state are almost fire fighters, give woken up in the middle of the night. someone does something stupid within your organization or around the world. how do you anticipate the future? there is some evidence that while there was the basis for the arabs bring or even others,

the soviet collapse, how do you anticipate the future when you're in those particular rules for both the president but more importantly the country, and how you organize yourself? >> obviously you try to have experts who are keeping an eye on events. in this regard, having embassies with people who really know the place and can get out into the community, one of the things i tried to get foreign service officers to do was not stay in the embassy, not talk to other ford officials, but it out in the country, get a sense for what the conversation is on the street in the country. that, sometimes, will give you a bit of rewarding. secondly, on the arabs bring, i think we knew something was coming. the freedom agenda that we lost about the middle east, i gave -- president bush had given his second inaugural address which she talked about the need

further there to be no man, woman, or child in the middle east. i give a speech at the american university of cairo saying that egypt needed to lead the revolution, and the morning before i give the speech, sank to him, mr. president, get out ahead of this. get reform started before your people are in the street. would you could feel by being in the middle east was the kind of seething anger that was going against authoritarian who were corrupt and authoritarian sewer planning sessions. you could sense that mubarak was increasingly isolated with people who were telling them they're people love them, but on the streets that people did not. so we had the sense that this was coming. would you can never know, the

sport would have been a man, a shopkeeper self emulating indonesia. so you see the kindling gathering, but you don't know when it is going to ignite. the best thing that you can do is expect that it might ignite at any time and tried to get ahead of it. so trying to get our friends in the middle east to reform before the people were in the street was always trying to get ahead of what happened, alternately, in egypt and tunisia and other places. >> talk a little about the collapse of the soviet union in terms of what scholars new. you were right there. >> was. we used to laugh. people would say gorbachev is bound to fall from power. thank you, but when was the issue because the general sense that things are going bad is not enough. people knew that the infrastructure, political, economic, social was weak.

i went to the soviet union for the first time in 1979 to study language. i was there for an extended time. and i was a student of the soviet military and remember thinking, i have this image of the soviet military being 10 feet tall. there remember going into a store to buy it some little just before my family. they were doing the computation of the prices on an abacus. i have not seen an amicus since second grade in birmingham, alabama. i thought, this was such a very developed place. you start to get a sense of something really wrong. i think that the new that the infrastructure was weak. a true believer in marxist ideology that it could triumph over the fact that people were estonian or ukrainian. somebody who believe that you

could reform the soviet union, tried to reform it, and then it collapsed. but i can tell you that still in 1990, the soviet union collapses december 205th 1991. in 1990 there reunifying germany. i don't think anybody thought that the collapse of the soviet union was a year away. >> one of our students wanted to make sure to ask about social media and how the foreign-policy establishment follows social media around the world and whether that part of the intelligence gathering. >> it is now. in fact, when i went to state i took with me someone from the white house was very interested in what was then an emerging kind of social media. people were on internet sites all the time and chat rooms. and so we started to understand better what was going on. i also asked a former student of mine, a gentleman who would

later on go to work for secretary clinton to go and start thinking, did we want to even try to help people to democratize. he created groups of friends who would, for instance, people who would help to overthrow terrorism in colombia who could chat with people in the middle these two were trying to deal with terrorism, so we were starting to use social media. i understand now. social media is an accelerant, not the cost of the trend, but an accelerant. but very interesting is what is happening with social media in china because the regime is doing everything that it can to control the internet. it is terrified of the internet. in fact, packing into servers to try to find that last human

rights advocate. apparently, social media is going wild in china. and the regime is not so -- maybe it is not a bad thing that people have a way to vent. so you remember the story of this young girl that was run over in the streets, and people -- that exploded into the social media in china. i would say to the regime, it is one thing to think that people will just event, but eventually they will vent and want to organize to do something about it. social media, i think, is going to continue to have a huge impact on how revolution, reform, democratization, and so foreign-policy experts in the years ahead are going to have to follow social media. >> another dimension. >> absolutely. i think it will be one of the most important sources of understanding the polls of what is going on.

governments and not irrelevant by any means, but populations are more empowered than they have ever been buses and media. >> i have to ask you about iraq because you put a broader context and a broader justification on their reasons to go into iraq, and you described, i think, as a kind of eminent security risk. and my question is, first, how did you change the corruption of intelligence information after your experience and iraq? clearly there are real questions about how accurate the information was. >> the most important thing that we did was to reorganize the intelligence agencies. by the way, both officials the failure with 9/11 and iraq. in the prior case we have a wall between domestic intelligence

with the fbi and external intelligence with the cra. they cross, we could not talk to one another. >> excuse me. would you explain? many of the students may not understand why we have that gap between the fbi and the cia. >> the gap, the ball, as i like to call it, was therefore very good and legitimate reasons, which was that we did not want our foreign intelligence agency, the cia, being active inside the country and, perhaps, spying, to use the word, on domestic events on american citizens and so forth. the cia was kept as a foreign intelligence agency and the fbi, which operated under rules and laws, think law-and-order, the fbi was the internal intelligence agency.

well, just to give you one example, a few nights before 9/11 the telephone call was made in san diego by one of the men who would ultimately be one of the suicide hijackers to afghanistan. we could not track across the boundary because we did not want the tracking of phone calls inside the united states by foreign government. so what might have like to know what he said a couple of days before 9/11? when we realize that, of course, we had an internal security problem, the attacks on our internal security, we had to sew up that gap so that the cia and what they knew about what was going on outside the country and the fbi and what they newt will was going on inside the country could talk to one another, and that is what the so-called patriot at the you probably read about actually, it closed that same. that was one.

the iraq until this problem was a little bit different. between 15 and 16 different intelligence agencies. the cra has won it cetera. the director of central intelligence was also the head of the cra. we have this strange situation he tested his own intelligence agency more than all of these others that he was supposed to be over. we found that some of the counter evidence about what was going on in iraq, weapons of mass destruction programs probably did not did that airing that might have. recreated the director of national intelligence it was not the director of the cia, a

separate person who helps the president understands when there are disagreements in the intelligence is a c. give more of the total picture of what is going on with intelligence. that was the big reform. >> you have also talked in at least one speech that i know as self-defense, part of a context for making the decision to go into a iraq. i really want to ask you, when you examined the iraq situation and there was a discussion, did you look at other countries as well? if you look at the list of justification you could put those on iran as well. so why iraq rather than iran? and did you look at more than one country?

>> iraq was unique, and it was because we have been to war against saddam the san in 1991. he signed an honor and was systematically violating. he was found to have had been one year from a crude nuclear device. he had used weapons of mass destruction against the iranians and against his own people. the constraints that were put on him were starting to break down, including, by the way, the fact that we were flying so-called no-fly zones to keep his aircraft on the ground. he was shooting at our aircraft registry every day. a kidder robber the president asking, what do we do if he gets a lucky shot. we were really in a state of suspended hostility with iraq, not a state of peace. in 1998 president clinton had actually launched cruise missiles against iraq.

the inspectors were supposed to be keeping his weapons of mass destruction programs under control have left the country. he was different for his having to act. the fact that he was continuing, we believe, to build weapons of mass destruction and, according to the intelligence agencies had reconstituted his chemical weapons, reconstituted his biological weapons, and was on his way to reconstitute his nuclear program, he had tried to assassinate george h. w. bush, shooting at our aircraft, he was considered the biggest threat in the middle east. as bad as it was, there were not end categories like iraq where there are 16 resolutions. >> is that account for the focus on the israeli-palestinian issues.

>> while it isn't a key to peace in the middle east and a different kind of the least, it is a piece to a different kind of middle east. any student of international politics, from the time that i was your age and in college, which admittedly is a long time ago, but from that time many took a course in international politics people thought it was the most volatile region in the world. that is still true today. people have been trying to do something about that for all of this time. the issue is one of the core issues that is to be resolved to get rid of that volatility. every administration. >> every of ministers has struggled. d.c. hope out there? >> i do. at stride -- described the book that the prime minister of israel when i was secretary of

state and the current president of the palestinian authority were pretty close to a deal in 2008. a very good deal put on the table. in political and legal trouble, and so they did not take it up for a variety of reasons, but the reason that i actually wrote about it is i want to see the test is available as cost. time is not on the side of either of them. how do you see russia developing and do you think that they are important will continue to increase. >> i think the russians are in trouble. russia is, the russian economy is 80% dependent on export of

oil, gas, and minerals. that is not a modern economy. i will tell you a little story that shows how much that oil, gas, and minerals is linked up with personal fortunes, political power, and the state. i was at the us trillion foreign ministers house one day and we were having a meeting about energy policy. he was going around asking people about their energy policy. the russians said, well, we understand that our oil and gas deals with technological beyond, but no foreigner will ever on russian oil and gas. we are going to buy the technology for western oil companies. so i have been a director of the chevron corporation. i said, so don't you understand there not tried to sell their technology to make you a better competitor. he said no, that is a really good point. and then he said, are you still

a director of chevron? i was the secretary of state. but in russia the deputy prime minister was also the chairman of gas corp. so states and economy and politics and personal fortunes all linked up together. if paramount a political violence, too. now that mr. pearson has decided he is the once and future president of russia i think the chances that russia is going to break out of that and build on the other strengths that it might have, including a very smart population. those have receded. unfortunately russia will not find greater strength in the international economy. it is pretty much an economy that is dependent on the price of oil. >> back to the arabs spring, what you think the lessons are?

>> the authoritarianism is not stable. if men, women, and children don't have away to chase the circumstances and chaser government peacefully they will do it violently. when we were in romania we learned of something that i know called the to just a moment. the dictator of romania. in 1999 the revolution was going on. he went into a square, he was exerting the romanian people for what he had done for them. all of a sudden one of lady yelled liar. then ten and then a 100 then the thousand. that 100,000 people. all of a sudden he realizes that he better get out of there. instead of delivering his freedom the yen military officer and his wife are executed. that is when the fear breaks

down. year an old lady yells liar or a soldier turns a gun away from the crowd and refuses to fire or a tank is turned away from the crowd. then all that is left within the dictator and his people as anchor. that is what you have in the arab spring now, and that is why authoritarian is and is not stable. >> what do you think about leading from behind as the multilateral coalition. >> i don't mind multilateral coalitions. i'm sorry. leading from behind is an oxymoron. it is. you don't lead from behind. [applause] i actually think they use that phrase. >> let me ask you about a domestic issue. i actually share your view and had conversations with president bush about immigration reform. how serious do you think that issue is for the next

presidential debate that we have? >> it is essential. the secretary of state, we get to go out of the world and see what people inquire. a lot of things. the one thing that is overwhelmingly admired is what i call our great national model. you can come from humble circumstances and do great things. that has led people to come here from generations from around the world to be a part of this. it is why we have asian americans, mexican-americans, german americans, indian americans. it is because people, the most ambitious people have wanted to be a part of this. now, i don't know wind immigrants became the enemy, but if we don't fix this we are going to undo one of the greatest strengths of the united states. the only thing that keeps us is

immigration. and so i am a major proponent of comprehensive immigration reform that first and foremost -- [applause] [applause] -- first and foremost recognizes we have people living in the shadows of we have to deal with that. we are not a country that actually wants people to be afraid to go and take their sick child to a hospital. that is not the kind of country. i worry about the state because the federal government has not asked to study a patchwork know of immigration policies. really what we need is a federal policy that is true to ourselves to mature along is, but also, richard turner the absolute fact that they added states of america is well served by the grid bonds of people.

>> three quick questions to wind. [applause] [applause] next fall you have been invited to be the moderator of a presidential debate. the debates theme is foreign-policy. what is the first question you will ask both candid it's do you believe america has exceptional and unique role to play in the world? is america just some any other country. if america is just any other country, you have no right to as the american people to sustain the sacrifices and to play the role of we have on the international community better than 60 years. so why is america exceptional. [applause] [applause]

>> second question, even though you are not responsible, they can't officially way to a penny more, what keeps you up at night in foreign policy? what are the things that you worry about that we ought to worry about? >> of worry about the list of troubles, iran, pakistan. i think that we don't pay enough attention to what is happening on our southern border. if you live in california or new mexico you know that the drug cartels on a lot of that space between northern mexico and the southern border of the united states. very dangerous. last year there were -- two years ago there were 5,000 kidnapping and murders of officials, mexican officials, probably the last couple of years. very dangerous. what keeps me up but that is the question of whether the united states is going to reaffirm and

somehow to the internal repair that we need to do. i worry that we can't seem to get our entitlements under control. i worry recanted our budget deficit under control. i worry about immigration policy, and the fact that in k-12 education i collected years that cut into whether or not you're going to get a good education. that is not just wrong, it is actually probably going to undo us more quickly than anything the chinese could ever do to us. because if we have people who are unemployable, and there will be unemployable, there will have to live on the bill. it will have no other choice and we will continue to have a situation in which only 30 percent of the people who take the basic skills test in the military can pass it. it will, indeed, pull us apart as the country faster than anything else. if we are not confident enough we will lead. and so