and oversight trudi. that he was freed walking around around in 1933 when nazis to power or were elected to power. they put him into a concentration camp. they tortured him. they demand that he renounced his principles. he refuses. they tortured him almost to death. there was a campaign, especially by german nobel laureate to get in. they wanted him to the peace prize for a few reasons. first was the peace prize to second was the other germany. they did give them the peace prize in year 1936 for 1935 and i think goebbels went to ocs and

refuse to them when i do not to go to oslo. he died in the sanitarium. they gave him better quarters, but he died in 1938 i think and he was a gutsy guy and it is a gutsy decision of the nobel committee because germany was threatening the norwegian government. if you cut the price would be very bad for norway and norway had to stay neutral in the first world war and they're hoping to stay mutualist second if there was to be one. sweden was very cross. sweden spoke to. cooper s. government after was prize, forbade to accept any price in the field agreed to prize as a substitute oboe for the duration of those prices in place. >> host: the soviets did it and i think the chinese started doing it in 2010 i believe.

>> guest: you are dead right. all teske stood out early because aside from being a brave individual himself, the selection belies some of what we might think about is the nobel peace prize because of his race take at that time and europe to name somebody like that. it's interesting because the cup years later as debate on the committee about neville chamberlin. >> host: assert that a 39 price, which that was sent at september 35, the second friday of october, the prius is kind of suspended during the war. probably neville chamberlain would've received it. he was heavily nominated. if you're going to nominate the british signatory to the munich pact, let's dominate the

germans. the nomination of hitler was withdrawn, the chamberlain might very well received price. >> host: i'm going to go back to really the first controversial pick, which was teddy roosevelt. >> guest: they're still upset about the price of tr. it's actually interesting because again, it does happen and the price history that somebody like tr, who is a little more militaristic, supposed on defense, personality >> host: tell me about his nobel. >> guest: i can quote "the new york times" who said, a broad smile surely a lemonade at the face of the globe when this price for peace was given to the most warlike citizen of these united states says "the new york

times." they were upset, but he had mediated a truce in the russo japanese war. in 1805 led to the portsmouth treaty signed in september 1905 in new hampshire. also it is a friend of the arbitration movement. those who wanted to be settled, not by war, but an international court in holland. he was friendly to the cause. but he's also a strong believer in deterrent and in his memoirs he wrote the best thing he did for peace was to send the u.s. battle fleet around the globe yet that didn't set well with some people. but his nobel lecture, which he gives after he resigned the grand tour, world tour is majestic and true. it is some of the best meditations on piece i've ever read, frankly. what a writer tr was. i occasionally forget that. >> host: yak on the, usn

historian when he was engaged. >> guest: he wrestles with what we were talking about. what is peace after all? he says let it not be an excuse for tyranny. >> host: he's also the first -- i think the first real peace through strength figure in the nobel history. general marshall in 1953. actually one that i think you say that at that time in your was a popular figure. there wasn't much debate about that other was an interesting speech, too. >> guest: well, you and i think it's a great contribution to peace was to defeat the nazis. he didn't win for that. he went for the marshall plan as he was the only one not to call it. he called it the european recovery plan.

he called it the marshall plan. the same day winston churchill was honored for her prize. marshall gives the most unusual nobel lecture. probably the nobel lecture the site the nobel lecture. he says that disarmament and demobilization and demilitarization had a disastrous for his country and for other democracies. we were back on our heels for world war ii and back under his again unprepared for korea. he said basically much better than push the mind. soldiers like me have to clean up after people like you. where to send your died because they were properly defended because we had enemies. that's not the kind of thing aims to hearing and also. it's controversy because he was after chief of staff of the army. he gives a very, very out going

to commonsensical speech. >> host: habit go over? he was so sweet powerful figure. >> guest: he was beloved. but i say controversial, what do i mean? i'm a controversial and what is the classes. controversial prize, controversial choice on the left among academics, devotees. people were feared george marshall, who anyway fed and reconstructed europe. he did some of the herbert hoover did after the first story. he was heavily nominated another one at. >> host: 1950, a feature who was quite followed band, ralph bunche was one who stood out. for a prom at the time, noble remembered today, but another interesting figure. can you talk about him?

>> guest: yes, i remember him being on a u.s. postage stamp a couple decades ago. i was glad to see that. bunche was one of the most men be found. he was warned in 1903 or 1904. black kid born in detroit, nixes me to adelaide. he went to a white ayes, jefferson high in l.a. he is a sports star and the validate taurean. basco scholarship to ucla. sports star and validate taurean of ucla, where talking about a young black american enemy teen teens and 20s. the black women fla greased a thousand dollars of cash to put in his pockets. he goes across the country to harvard. he suffers lack person to earn a

phd in political science in america from any university. has a masters from harvard as well. he is a flirtation with the left and high dust that rejects them. becomes a u.n. diplomat and presides over truce negotiations between israel -- the new state of israel and its attackers in 1948, 49 and was the nobel peace prize in 1950. the nobel committee w-whiskey not pandering to the united nations, giving it a boost and very keen on saying that the u.n. should be the arbiter of disputes and bunche was the first nonwhite recipient of the nobel peace prize for those keeping score. >> host: he jumped off of the page is a little bit. one prominent in his day, not all remember but worth getting to know again reflecting on

that. one of the great things that the book does. >> guest: smart cookie. made mistakes are shared, but a smart cookie and all-american. >> host: talked with arafat rabin border. the summit may even be more controversial. i think you know what they from 1873. >> guest: most controversial know what price of any kind given. >> host: can you talk about dr. kissinger and le duc tho? >> guest: in 1973, kissinger, national security adviser and le duc tho then the paris agreement. this is supposed to be a truce of the vietnam war and was immediately exclusive. but the norwegian committee gets the prize to le duc tho. and the fall of 9073 kissinger was a little in various.

>> host: unique solutions and into other nobel winners. just i think make relations with nixon a little bit awkward. worked so hard for peace with honor as we called it in the united states. but kissinger gets it and refuses the prize, which is an insult. in a way kissinger doesn't go to collect dead. and in 1975 icon falls the treaty has not seen, he tries to return the prize. the metal diploma and the money under the regions and also told them essentially the peace prize is not returnable. you earned it from what you did then. it is not contingent on future success. when you win the work you for the time but kissinger says in

his memoir he would've rather won the nobel peace prize for the shuttle diplomacy in the middle of the he was proud of. as i recall he wins the nobel peace prize in 1986. are we so doing telegrams? he telegrams sent guys, i was not proud of my own price, but in proud of yours. >> guest: that's interesting because it created an uproar, especially the kissinger path. >> guest: tom lehrer says it seeks to be possible when henry kissinger wins the nobel peace prize. it's far more shocking that the envoy of the totalitarian and musburger dictatorship on the nobel peace prize, but the program was attacked to the american secretary of state of the foreign minister and liberal democracy regarded that is it that we are. >> host: what is interesting is and what it is sent to vote

because that is the cutest work closely to the actual parameters novell beta many of the others. >> guest: and the preceding year at a time when after years in which vietnam had one of the world and relations and there is real hope, but of course as you also pointed out just a few years later after the fall of saigon, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people are dying in vietnam. it goes to a different kind of peace, where there is a unified feed non. on a peaceful situation at all. you can look at the price that almost everyone can make in the prize. >> host: i was impressed by some to delete diplomat, ca events they. i was in college or graduate school. he said for 12 years in vietnam buries the terrible war. bombs rained down on every city, town, village in south vietnam

and no one budged. no one but sure in that time. it took the coming of peace if you will, the wrong kind of peace descend six or 700,000 out of the south china seas on bits of word or tire or anything that might slow to risk piracy and dehydration. at peace ticky-tacky said. i remember that concentrated my mind a bit when i heard that, but it took peace to send those, almost a million and the south china sea, fleeing in terror. why is that better than war necessarily? >> guest: is one of the interesting thing that does provoke reflections and discussions about peace and what we think of peace and overtime is still debated and argued about anything.

>> guest: host of the 70s was a busy year for the prize. >> guest: stunning, great dane, noble act. russian, whatever you prefer, descend, glorious carrier at the top of the russian scientific key to speak up for human rights, freedom, dignity and mena region committee gets the prize in 1975. soviet communism lasted -- so the communist and empowered us from 1870 to 1991 and there are many heroes in this. political prisoners, activists of different kinds and in the soviet bloc certainly.

and there's only two awards given by the norwegian two people in the anti-soviet cause you might say. sakharov in 1975 in orbit would in 1983. only two wars. the retreat anti-apartheid wars, but the worst sakharov in a word to a lesser oracle and sun were very important and had an effect. >> host: is interesting too because opera stands out as one of the shining prices and also reflects the key discussion with a different view of what we mean by peace because in the same event ski and skate as are some of the anti-apartheid ones you mention, they are essentially not specifically related to the nations. they are with the nation and recognizing really prisoners of

conscience as the term for the better one, simply for the moral stand and forcefulness in views, which has become a popular way which is different than novell originally meant a priest he is. >> host: yes, i wonder what he would have thought. i asked myself the question about what the peace prize should be. the committee should generally follow the will, but that rules out some of the best prices. that would put the prize to the wind, for example. he told me in an interview with at the nobel peace prize, solidarity poland could never have exceeded. there was no wind blowing it to pull in feels enough to win the peace prize there was wind in our sails. >> host: they are very aware of how they sit down to code in oslo. the peace prize is the right time, that a person can really

impact. >> host: yes, it can be a weapon. either from the book robert kagan wrote about the twilight struggle, the sandinistas in that drama. this in 1887 nobel peace prize to oscar arias and they told him privately, we are giving you this award to use as a weapon against reagan because arianna fan was an agreement and he told bob kagan. so this can be a work with power. some people think that if he timor as freedom, independence. as a product on the burmese dictatorship? no, but i'm than she is well-known. >> host: target the prize propels her to a global presence

that she is still 21 years later benefiting from. >> guest: she is famous before and she is a famous actor. same with the dalai lama who received the nobel peace prize in 1989. what is the comfort that? not much, but people know what what kind of few people know dalai lama personally and is not solely responsible for that, but it's hoped i'm sure. >> host: has gone under the skin of the chinese and stayed there after the. >> guest: >> host: there's a lot of people to talk about, but i want to go a little bit to the last decade because interestingly, some of the most controversial novell -- there is for you a good day to night he the definition of peace changes

again over the last 10 years for some of the prices, particularly talk about the last decade worth of nobel because he spent a lot of time. we can say barack obama to vn. talk about the bush years. >> host: 2001, right after 9/11, the war was announced in october. the price goes to the united nations and secretary-general kofi i'm in. as you know, centennial of the nobel prize 1991 to may 2001 to honor the u.n. they were also saying they were munching demerit can and its new war against terror to have one, don't you dare go alone. everything is go to the u.n. as a message about peace prize. >> host: you know that? >> guest: the chairman was pretty explicit when he gave the

prize ceremony. he is very explicit the next year when the price goes to jimmy karen are. when the chairman announced the price to carter he said it's not just a personal word from mr. carter, but i say kick in the lake to the american administration and all who followed up i am a kick in the vague as an expression be learned at the norwegian ways save up in the face or poke in the eye. so that was carter. 2003, the athenian stephen wise lawyer. 2004, environmentalists. >> host: let's talk about 2004 for a second come with a bat without core. the first environmentalists. the notebook screen. controversial a little bit in the sense that bringing environmentalists concept mps. contravention of any race. >> guest: that's right.

environmentalism is on the rise. as a matter of fact, i don't believe it ever been a black one. it was meant to undergoing of africa. very interesting figures. choose a political dissident. the woman, formidable woman of thailand came over to the united states to study the same program as barack obama senior from kenya. that's right. there have been other quasi-environment novellus. what he did for norman for the come of the great economists. the 1949 the word to john voight who was the first leader of the fao. with those initials right? vb 2004 was the first explosively green contemporary sense of word. 05, the international energy

agency, mohamed alper rady. people wonder, is this another kick in the leg? it was. seems pretty clear. 2006, mohammed younis is the micro-lender. privacy off beaten path nobel peace prize. >> host: that was one of the things president clinton lobbied very, very hard. he had a lot of institutional support out there. >> guest: he was always advocated peace prize. i think the novell chairman says, no bill clinton can get off of us. we've done it. privately, clinton is one of the few top democrat not to be a nobel peace lawyer. they've given it to carter, gore and obama. i'm trying to think of relatives that have one the peace prize. i don't think so.

>> host: not in tierney as these to call her. i'm trying to think about -- what is her name? part of this sounding -- the wife of one of the earlier -- >> host: are rethinking about the miracle, one of the first economic prizes? >> guest: that's right. browse sub 10 worked under the project when he was a young scholar. >> host: go onto al gore because that's definitely one of the most concert or shall. >> guest: just has a piece of trivia come the subtitle of my book is 79798 think the most

controversial price, the most famous could be a bit of a fudge because it could be tied with or maybe a little surpassed by the oscar. i'm not sure how you measure this on a worldwide basis. i think we're probably about tied. one man and one year, 2007 with both the words. that was al gore. it will surely never happen again. i said if you loose the president the dutch are hard way, as some compensation of arguably the two most famous president in a single year. he says that the nobel peace prize certainly has come as a kind of bond following the extraordinary episode in 2000. yes, global warming campaign was at its apogee in 2007. if they do look a little bus could the climate gate and might

have been lucky to win, but what if they did in 2007. >> host: in the history of the nobel when you look at these controversial launches and we'll talk about president obama just a minute, but you think that there has been a real shift in how they think of the peace prize in oslo and the last decade versus the first hundred years? or are some of these just sort of within the tradition of the price going back and forth? >> guest: there some evolution. i think it's subject to certain trendiness as vulnerable to fashion, what is hot now, what is cool now that global warming is very cool. no joke intended, in 2007. and the 2008 award is a little before tradition was given to a finish troubleshooter. the u.n. diplomat and i was sorry.

to some people said the committee should beware of celebrity words, celebrity sessions. there's been a number of celebrities in oslo in recent years, obama theme may be the biggest. the committee likes to say there's many paths to these and so it is the man and given to humanitarian. mother teresa, micro-lenders, global warming campaigners, arafat, different paths of peace. and they almost always have a case. i think that global warming of word of intergovernmental panel on climate change, the word is a little far afield for the nobel peace price, especially for the will but i'm not sure is dispensable, but it's their word. the fiber regions on the can and he determined the award and the rest of the searches spectators are at >> host: when did you learn about the obama price?

>> host: probably something not in the book this directly. i think it's a little oblique in the book. someone in norway, very familiar with all this said to me camino life they gave him the price? you must remember now barack obama is now in a dogfight. maybe that's not the right word given recent events before the presidency. just as the 90s praxair heights. you know coming to great-niece jennifer effect globe. you know why they gave him the word? they just wanted him to come to iso. he's the world's great rockstar kind of biggest celebrity. how do we bring the u.s. president, president obama to

give him to bask in its glory and the committee chairman to boost them in your? i hear this. the one fellow said this. i'm thinking to myself, this is ridiculous. i hear from a second the region and in ninth and 15th in a 25th. i'm in norway and i discover that whether it is true or not, everyone thinks it. everyone thinks it. i don't know. i think that obama is a person actor in the region committees on her. i think they view him as sharing a worldview in the political or philosophical soulmate, fellow social democrat. george w. bush was the president out of the nightmares. barack obama is the president. they say if the nobel committee could design the president from scratching the turnout a lot like barack obama. c. was a bit of a natural. it was a way of saying, from their point of view, saying ding

the witch is dead here bright and george w. bush is no longer in the office. he's a new crime of placing a new day. .. that's exactly right. he county use a work -- he said it is a war that is winding down. he defended the afghan war quite

strongly and he also said that security of europe have been supported by the blooded american soldier. things like that george martial like things. this one was more hawkish, that's true. >> host: we're coming close to the end, is peace a good idea? did you come away from the book thinking that peace prize makes sense that if it went away tomorrow -- [inaudible] >> guest: it's an important question and i force myself to answer in the yards ward of my -- afterward in my book. i hope there's information in the book to allow readers' to make up their own minds. i want to provide enough fact so people make up their own mind.

i was in the sculpture park, i was buying a book from a vender because i have the reporter's hat on, i asked him about what he thought about the peace prize. he answered as a nor weeingen citizens, he said we put norway on the map price for peace and so many other prizes for so many other things. it is a wonderful thing. and if someone -- [inaudible] 1.5 million which nobel prize isn't worth today. what is peace who deserves to be crowned a champion of peace, u the world's foremost. we all have our own. opinions and someone has to decide. i might think we can do better, in the gift of the five nor

weeingens. >> i think you're generous in the process. it seems clear when you disagree strongly with the choice, you seem to respect the process and the fact that discussion is going on over here and sometimes it goes off the rails. >> guest: yes. i think balance is worthwhile. the need to continue it or ditch it, and -- i would continue it. >> host: we haven't got as much as i would have liked, but i want to finish by asking, when you look out there with what you -- who might be out there in the future of the prize winners or should they more than they are going to be or not? >> guest: refer to clinton noacial initiative as noble base. they given it to the president and former vice presidents and

presidents regionally. we don't need to give him a price prize to get him. i think it would be a wonderful thing if it were give to cuban figures democracy activist, freedom activist and prisoners somebody like oscar. i think it'll be a cold day you know where when we give the noble peace prize to a cuban figure. the offer against all hope sometimes called the cuban -- justifiable bitterness, i think, the cuban dictatorship were right-wing instead of left-wing we would have won two or three. i think that's true. i think the noble peace prize to a cuban dictatorship would rock it. it's been there since the '50s it would be a big deal.

they could give it to the ladies in white. the institutions, the women who have stick their necks out by holding candle light vigils and publicly praying for their loved ones in prison. it would be an awfully good thing if they gave a price to a cuban. i wouldn't hold any breathe on it. >> host: we're out of time. do you want to throw out any other last things? >> guest: i think not. i think not. maybe end on a touch -- what a great thing if they followed through on that. they gave it to a chinese freedom figure in 2010 after sixty years of passing them over. they bit the bullet and gave it to a guy who is sitting in a cell today. >> host: thank you for the great discussion. it's been a pleasure. >> guest: like wise. thank you.

we're at the senate on break we're featuring some of book tv's weekend programs on prime time. tuesday night a look at the presidency. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern with michael duffy and nancy gibbs. the look into the club through hoover and obama. eel nor clift and explain the president issue electorial system. at 9:50 p.m. in the book "almost president." he profiles twelve men who have lost the run but who have had a great impact on american history. book tv on prime time on c-span2. you're watching c-span2. the latest non-fiction authorses

and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules and website on c-span.org. you can join in on social media sites. in a few moments victor which cha on the impossible state looking at north korea's dynasty. they talk about exxonmobil later on. and then we'll reair the book on the noble peace prize. several things to tell you about tomorrow. and the transition of control to the afghan government. that's at 9:30 eastern. at 10:00 vice president joe biden and his wife speak at the national education association annual meeting. that's on c-span 3. and then on c-span at 11 a.m.

british prime minister david cament ron testifies at the european debt crisis and the british economy. >> next on afterwards victor cha on his bock. it's a history of the kim dynasty and one of the most secretive nations in the world. he talks talks with scott ?ieter on the -- ?ieder on the counsel of foreign relations. it has part memoir, part history, and part, i guess, what i call international relations. it's a sketch book on north korea. what were you looking to accomplish by writing the books

and what sort of impacts do you hope? >> i'm glad you didn't say pound try. i wanted to write the book, when i left the government in 2007, i really had no desire to write a book about north korea. i'd been dealing with the issue for three years. involved in the negotiations, between everything, you know, really close up and i didn't have a desire to write it then. but five years later, in a situation that north korea was in, it seemed like an opportunity to write a little bit about my experiences there, a bit about the history, and about the u.s. policy to a more general audience, i think this is the sort of issue i think people don't know a lot about north korea and the history. they see headlines about international leaders and all the sorts of thicks. i thought it would be good to

write a book that people could look to as sort of a expensive assessment -- comprehensive assessment, the history, the family, the economics, the politics, the human rights situation, the nuclear problem. that. they could look to every time they had a question on what was going on with north korea. so it's not a -- i wouldn't call it a scholarly book. it does have footnotes and is written to a more generalized. it might be interesting to learn about the country on the far side of the planet. >> host: the book has a point of view point of view knot korea's

future different from the history i. >> i think any history has an opinion in it. and i think in this case, the parts of the u.s. policy, i mean, certainly they were informed by feeling with the north koreans in the bush administration. >> i thought to give it in the overall view that every u.s. administration going back to ronald reagan has tried to deal with the problem. ronalden region had the over initiative. george h. w. bush did. clinton did. bush did and barack obama did. and so, -- how handledded the situation and in but i think there are things in there would be surprised about in terms of

what president bush sought in terms of the diplomacy with north korea which is not normal something he associate with president bush's views on north korea. it was a natural thing. i thought i could add something on this perhaps we've written would not able to -- >> host: you don't necessarily take a perspective -- a review of successes and failures of other administrations and doing -- what are the i guess the basic in the book is that north korea is the the impossible state because insight is a power to overthrow it and the cost of changing. i want to ask you about both of those. in particular, in starting with power struggle, why do you think that has been the case in north

korea? , i mean, especially from the comparative politics perspective, it makes north korea a hot wire as compared to what we saw in the former sowf yet union. >> guest: that observation is accurate, i think. when quay look at the regime in the arab spring, all of which had leaders a lot longer than the former repeatedly december ceased -- deceased north korean leader. north korea continues to survive. that alone is knob within the system is powered to overthrow it. also because, very strict controls that exist in the country it's a society in which the the strong state would be an understatement. this is about the strongest state in terms of the control it has object -- it has on the society and on political

freedoms and the way people think, for that reason, it's difficult to imagine that there could be a group within the society that could speak out, that could challenge and party congress happen in north korea. that's why it lasted for this long because in spite of the lot of the economic problems, it lasted this long. that is because no one i within the system is capable of changing it. >> host: there are forces for change going on inside knot korea. the information close to' galtarian. we're not a place where there's an organized opposition. how long do you think it's going take for us to see the evolution of politickings in north korea

to a point where it's possible? >> guest: it's a good question. scientists are supposedble to able to when these sorts of things happen. when we reach tipping point. i don't think we can. i don't think we can say with any degree of accuracy what the tipping point in terms what is a society is ready to act up, and simply be follow by the rules of the current political system. in the case of north korea, in the book i talk a lot about the element that i think is real in this picture, which is a growing market in the country, really starting from the fan anymore in the 1990s. the people basically to sell whatever they could find for food. that started the market in the system that never had markets

before. and that has been going on for fifteen years. i think what we can say is that there is this element there was not there in the past that has created more of an dependence of mind in the people of north korea and not being solely reliant on the government. it can reach point where the system will tip, it's hard to say. >> host: do you think the state is adapting to the changes? >> guest: part of the way they're adapting is trying to crack down on the unofficial markets, some of the official markets. there have been efforts that were formed when you might call a formed in north korea on the economic cooperation project with the affluent south korea, but things have largely been aimed at bringing currency in to help the regime, not so much to create real market reform in the

country. and so i think that what we're seeing now if we do see efforts of economic engagement with the outside world, the north creern loip is doing this because they see currency because they are seeking necessarily to create a better life for their people. >> host: in what ways do you think pockets of protest could emerge? where do you think it's going to be a case where anything that happens is going to be -- out do you see any possibility for the elites tolerating certain forms of dissent? >> guest: well, right now it's hard to imagine that, and, you know, the question as to whether you can, you know, at one point, we will see either toleration of the decent or the emergence as dissent. as social scientist, we can't predict that. we can point to preconditions that exist.

that could lead to that. i think certainly the market mentality is certainly one of these things. but it's very hard to say. notnot a lot of every day that this regime is tolerant of dissent. there's not a lot of evidence they have tried to listen to what the content what every protest is taking place in north korea. it goes without saying that this is a country there's -- it's very hard to get information on what is happening inside the country. when we talk about the sent of protest, we hear about dotes, stories about things that might happen in the military unite or in the city. we don't know, really. and -- yet, i think, when the day comes where it opens up or however it opens up, if it

collapses, an you see an instance like germany. you learn a lot about what sort of political dissent existed within the country. it's hard to find that and site that today >> host: do you see the regime -- do you think it is flexible? what come later on? >> guest: i think it is if you pose that spectrum, i think it is more on the brit talent of the spectrum. managed to -- the reason it has been able to is because of the second factor that we talked about at the outset of the conversation it's not manage

model not because of anything internal in the system because of what's happens outside in north korea. and that is the dynamic where nobody really wants to put in the effort to change it or to solve the problem, and there's one in particular that wants to ensure there's are no big economic changes or unstable occurrences within the country. >> host: and that's, i guess the second part of is your observation about north korea as a state. nobody cares about the cost of changings it. and thing is quite striking when you look at history how human rights concerns have -- subject

to that same international activism despite the fact that, you know, arguably this is conditions just as bad certainly for large portions of the population. how is that this is the case? what makes north korea immune to that sort of focus. >> guest: i think when we say international commune city. we have to be clear about what we mean. we mean the developed west. there are certain issues the developed west has taken up in terms of human rights. and you mentioned some of them. let me be clear, taken up the causes. there are others sudan, the taken up great extent by the international community. north korea is not one of the issues. i think two reasons. the first is through very successful efforts by the north

korea regime to ensure that this remains a namely and faceless policy issue. and not a personal story a personification of a story that the average american, if you will, will somehow be influenced by our take up a cause for. many of the north korea defects the border with china are set back by the chinese with the curtain strong -- so there's nobody who could associate a name or a face with this terrible human rights situation in forth korea. just public. by the example south korea during the military dictatorships had this person in the name of kim who won the noble peace prize became president of the south korea.

the democratic act vifnl in south korea. you have you have these ermts that can be identified with the problem. they did good with not allowing it to happen. the chinese have been complies it'd with it. i think that is just has captured the imagination major personality in the left. i know, it might sound a bit crazy, i guess it's true. somebody like richard gear takes up china policy in darfur. it gives a issue that you don't mt. case of north korea we

haven't had a individual that doze that. one of the things we're seeing more of and there's stories of the in the book, americans are earning more about the stories of some of these defectors that are getting out of north korea. there have been several books that are been written recently about detectors who left who managed to escape telling their story opinions i think that certainly helps. by north korea has been, you know, on the drive to becoming a state. and i think that's particularly interesting when you look at iraq, you're in the bush

administration for part of the time that this, you know, issue was playing out, and, you know, it turns out that, you know, we decided to attack iraq wrowt recounting the whole history are why the bush administration went into iraq. that was in the area of responsibility, so i'm not really capable of commenting on that. but thing the case of north korea, there are two, i think two issues. the puzzle is why iraq and not why iraq, instead of north korea, but if in iraq with not

also in north korea. you know, i think there are two answers. the first is, that you have china. all right. and china sets right on the border with north korea. the last thing the united states or china wants is some sort of confrontation or on the peninsula that would somehow cause the two to butt heads as they did in 1953. i think any time there is thought given to some sort of military action, this is constantly at the top not even top, even half way up the escalation later, it is a concern that every u.s. president, i think, has had to think about seriously. so i think that certainly one of the reasons the china factor. and the other is that we -- the united states went into iraq or

afghanistan because it became the top foreign policy issue on which the administration saw a resolution, a final resolution. now, we can debate whether it was the right or the wrong thing, many americans think it was the wrong thing. many americans think that nothing was resolve there had. and, you know, that's clotly different question. i think the point for korea is that, i don't really think that the north korea issue has risen to that level of priority for an administration. it has been a crisis that you wanted to sort of solve at least in the sense of preventing it from becoming a bigger crisis through diplomacy, but the united states historically when it has sought to solve a problem, it will be wanting to use both forth -- force and diplomacy to solve the problem. in the case of north korea, it is just not registered like that. that is not specific to any administration. we've had crisis with north

korea for successive administrations and every administration has made the same calculation. when we reach a crisis with north korea, are we willing to go all out to the end to solve this thing? or do we want a solution that will at least park it momentarily put it on diplomatic track, freeze it, cap it, and move into the other issues that concern it. whether it's the domestic economic situation, or iraq or afghanistan or syria, or the middle east peace process. these tends to be the more important issues traditionally in u.s. foreign policy. >> host: the ore issues that makes iraq different from knot korea is the u.s.-korea alliance. how do you see the dynamics of the alliance playing into our ability to address the top concerns that the u.s. as related to the nuclear program? >> guest: i think when you look at the situation on the

peninsula the alliance with south korea is clearly more policy than we have toward north korea, south korea is a key ally for the united states today is and major partner a lot of international initiatives around the world. big trading partner, all these sorts of things made south korea extremely important to the united states in terms of position in asia. i think there has been a tension in the u.s.-south creern relationship when it comes to north korea. we have different governments and a democracy in south korea. some of which tend to be more progressive we seek more engagement with north korea. we're willing to follower a tougher path with regard to the north. for the united states it's a question of siefnging up with whichever government it is there as the time as they deal with

the latest north korea crisis. for example, i was in the bush administration. we had a south korea -- behavior in order to full till the vision of trying to seek long-term reconciliation with the country in the north. and the bush administration was not as e mom mored with that particular strategy. i think currently you have an obama administration and that tend to be very much on the same page when it comes to north korea. both of them having been burned by north korea provocations really on the mind to hold tight, hold firm and require that the north meet certain preconditions before we have another round of diplomacy. so, you know, you know, i've always said that 75% of our

north korea policy is the south korea policy. and in the sense of we need to stay synced up with the ally and with japan also. the other major ally in nation whatever we're dealing with the north korea problem. >> host: another aspects of the book that you talk about is president bush on personal interest in the human rights situation in north korea. and you mention, i think, the kim jong having been a major influence on president bush's thinking. he the author of that book in the white house and had other refugeeses in the white house, the air perns of the ab diewct keys and he took, you know, a kind of -- approach but actually my impression was tat human rights envoy that was appointed really, was not a major part of the picture in terms of the

policy. >> guest: right. >> host: we have the obama administration, we haven't seen any refugeeses in the oval office. we have seen human rights envoy that went to north korea, and, you know, talked with the north koreans, raised human rights with the northern koreas, even though it was probably a relatively short conversation. where do you see the merits and demerits future of those those approaches. >> guest: i think it's great that the obama administration's human rights on robert king has been able to make two trips to north korea. i mean, i think that's great. the more that we can open a dialogue with the sorts of issues with the north, the better. you know, i think part what he was doing well was to try to negotiate a humanitarian

assistance package with regards to food. the fact that i was there i think was very important. as you know, the diagnose with the north koreas on the human rightses is ridiculous diagnose. you can tell them you need to improve their human rights situation. their response will be, we've had the conversation at the official level. the response will be you the united states have human rights problems too. i mean, that is not a comparable discussion. and so, i think what president bush wanted to do was he wanted to make this an issue that people know about, and he wanted to -- as he put it, he wanted to do something, he wanted the presidency, but the time he left the office, he wanted to do something that would help to measure the -- of north creern people. i think there are two things in particular that he did. the first was that he helped to

create the first resettlement program for north korean refew agrees in the united states. none existed prior to this. there's a big program in south korea that exists, and that would be to an extent expected but another country outside of south korea and a country like the united states to say, we are going to take north korea was a big step the administration didn't try to toot the horn publicly. lock at us. it was a very big important step that i think sort an example out there and put a marker in the ground saying with the united states is not talking about human rights and privilege in north korea, it's trying to do something. the second thing, as you mentioned, was that he brought attention to the issue by bringing in people who's books

he's read. stories he's known intimate details that he knew very well about the folks and talked to them about the situation. and then, gave press statements saying he met with the people and wanted to see the human rights situation improve in north korea. giving names and faces to the sort of problem, helps to give it a broader -- go through the experiences when the defectors came into the oval office. walking them in, watching them respond, watching him respond, it was truly memorable experiences. and so, in the end, i think these things obviously did not solve the human rights problem in north korea. they're not opening up the prison camps, they're not allowing the u.n. commissioner into the country. all the things are not happening. but when you are limited in

terms of what you can do, i mean, everybody respects sovereignty. you're not going to go crashing into the country, these, i think, were tangible and concrete steps that tried to put this on the radar screen and create more international attention because that is, you know, that creating that sort of knowledge base and that sort of advocacy and environment is the first step to address a problem like this. >> host: now the book also -- i guess goes through and ill straits some of the decisions that north korea made in terms of building the own economy. it's streaking, as you note in the book, it is the more powerful part of the peninsula compared to south korea far long time until the '70s. and then you talk about north korea's elicit activities. and this was also an area of

focused during the bush administration we don't hear that much about these days. and so i'm wondering, do you think that these activities are continuing, are we succeeding in squeezing north korea in terms of customers for some of the military equipment and missile sales, you know, do we see, still, activity by north korea in terms of trying to counterfeit cigarettes or u.s. must be money or sell drugs abroad or do you think it's stands? >> guest: it is a fascinating story. i mean, the notion that here in the country basically one-third of the economy is based on elicit activities. as you mentioned, counterfeiting drugs, counterfeiting cigaretting counter getting the u.s. currency. they counterfeit the u.s. $100 bill. it is known in the profession, if you will, as the supernote

because northern koreaings manage to acquire the printing prez, the ink, and the paper that is used for the production in $100 billions. the difference is they are brand new where as the one the u.s. treasury uses are old. and so the imperfections that you see in a treasury note, you don't see in a north korea note. that's why it's called the supernote and these -- this is a part of the economy, and so during the bush administration, efforts were taken to try to stop this. but serious of sanctions were aimed at trying to target the accounts of companies were that were known to be involved in illegal activities. and i think the reason we don't hear more about it today, is because these activities have been fairly successful, and that

the north koreans probably do not feel they can do the same things they used to do for many years when it came to making money through the sort of activity. >> host: it's actually that the international community and the u.s. are getting better at eliminating those markets for north korea for those kinds of activities. >> guest: i think so. i think that's why we're not hearing much more about it today. but i -- i also think that for many of the financial institutions, they have become much more we are i are of handling northern korea accounts and money. it has caused north koreas themselves to think about whether they want to be seen as being the financially liability asset that every bank president doesn't want to see in their institution. >> host: and one of the other

cases, that's is related to that that you had direct experience with, was the bank of delta asia situation where the u.s. treasury issued an advisory about the bank and the possibility that it was engaging in money laundering or handling some of the counterfeit notes. how do you see the -- of course, that our o curred at the point in time when it looked like there was going to be progress and negotiation and everything spelled out. how do you see -- do you think that was the case with that that it stalled the diplomacy? and as we look today at more satellite launches nuclear test by north korea. it seems like a lot of people are calling for, you know, reexamination of the financial

area. is it reply cability. did it work from your perspective, is it rep lick able today? >> guest: the first thing i point out in the iron i are and in the description you gave. on the one hand, when the u.s. government pursued this financial sanction in 2005, 2006, it was widely criticized as something that was both ineffective and hurting the diplomacy. and yet today, as you said, there are people that are clam moring for it as a way to sanction north korea because they see it as a powerful tool in terms of trying to influence north creern behavior. in 2005, this particular action was -- institutions to be aware of doing doing businesses

because of accounts in it related to north korea were and believed to be involved in money laundering. this the end, was a law enforcement action, it was something i think the u.s. government had to do. they were obligated to take action with regard to the financial institution. as many people involve the note, the effect of that it had a ripple effect. it was actually against at very small bank in china that then caused every other bank regulator and president and financial institution around the world to say, wait a second, if the u.s. is not dealing with bank because they're concerned about northern korea accounts maybe we should look at them here. we had the major ripple effect that had a real impact on a

north korea. i think it had a big impact on north korea. was it meant as an action to submarine the diplomacy that was takes place? i don't think so. like i said, it was a law enforcement action. it was something that was happening on the parallel track with the diplomacy. all of u.s. participating in the diplomacy were participating in the decision making process on the particular action. so at the end, it was something that had to be done. and it did cause a delay in the negotiations, but as we saw later, the negotiations eventually came back online and it lead to two very important agreements. one of which refroze the north korean nuclear program. it lead to the dismanage the l

of the nuclear pieces at young gun, it's safe to say today that the program that based nuclear program is no longer functional and i think that was one of the accomplishments that the united states made in terms of diplomacy when it came to stopping north korea's nuclear program. we have a whole new, as you know, a whole new program or programs that there is concern about not just the plutonian program but the iranian program. in terms of, you know, of the accomplishments that were made through the new actions, as the time these new actions were quite effective at getting north korea to give up at least pieces of the program. >> host: do you -- is that time passed? >> guest: it's a hard question to answer. i'm obviously not as close to it as i have been in the past.

i don't know. i don't know for example, the north koreas have adjusted, i apresume they have to what they saw in the action in 2005. so i think on the one hand, the north koreas are adjusting and trying to find work arounds so they're not subject to the same sorts of sanctions. on the other hand, when the united states pursued this, i mean, it was an advisory to u.s. financial institution. it wasn't something that was supported by the u.n., supported by u.n. security counsel. on the other hand today, after the first nuclear test against the obama administration in may, 2009, you now have security counsel resolutions that give authority for pursuing the sorts of financial sanctions response i think on the one hand, the north koreans have probably tried hard to find work arounds so they could avoid being subject to the same sorts of the

sanctions. on the other hand, the united states now has the international authority to pursue these things in a way they did not under the bush administration. >> host: one other question on this, you talked about, you know, the assumption that the diplomacy as part of that, we gave back the money that was being held under the law enforcement action that had occurred. i'm sure the north koreans looked at that as exoneration for what they had done, how do you view the fact that the northern koreas got their money back. >> guest: i think the may be lesson they learned, it's evident in the fact we don't hear much about the activities that the they were undertaking. the main lesson they learned from that whole episode was they can't continue to do business this way. they can't don't try to counter

fight other countries currencies or to sell fake drugs or fake cigarettes, they can't do that anymore. and so, i think, that was the main lesson they learned, and the fact they came back to the diplomacy and back to negotiations in earnest, to freeze their programs and dismantle them, to me, it was a function of it was a function of this sort of course of diplomacy. i guess it was the concern about their financial reputation and everything that came with that that brought them and lead them to make the agreements. they certainly got things in return. they got heavy fuel log. energy assistance, they got new sets of political discussions with the united states. they got things in return for it. that's the nature of diplomacy but i think the driving force

behind that, and i know there were some who disagree with this a driving force behind that, what were the sanctions that really put a bite on them? >> of course, they still, you know, driving for a nuclear even despite the apparent agreements that had been made that were designed to deal with the plew plutonian. let me go back and ask about north korea programs for europe reform. they're cash hungry. maybe we don't see any immediate evidence that the leadership is committed to reform the chinese are always there suggesting the north koreans should follow their path. what is the way to cultivate an environment where north korea can move, you know, in a reform direction?

, you know, at this point, it's obvious they're looking for cash. is there a way of drawing them into a positive path rather than pursuing the negative activities we've been talking about? >> guest: i think the positive path that has been on the table, really, i think for success of the administration and i know there's always discussion about the extent to the clinton administration was different from the bush administration during the obama administration in terms how they deal with them. i go through the history of these in the book. in the end, the package may have been different, there's a positive thing that has been on offer. as you know well within which is that in return forgiving up the nuclear programs, the united states international community would provide security guarantees, provide economic assistance, energy assistance, it would provide political normal decision, money, it would provide a regional security

environment in which north korea would feel safe and secure, all the things in return for giving up their nuclear weapons. but that has not worked. it has failed. it has failed for every administration going back to george h. w. bush. and i think with the obama administration, we have really reached the end of the rope in terms of this, because i think many would argue that the obama administration, at least in term of the initial attentions, was probably the most toward-leaning administration to come into office when it come to the north korea problem. it is now in a position from a hard lined bush administration took and even that the clinton administration took at times during the two terms. that's the positive path, they don't seem want to to take it. what can be done in the interim? i think the most important thing that can be done is get more

information into knot korea. more information in terms behalf is going on in the outside world, in terms of the markettuation, in terms of the internet, in terms of cell phone. this is the only way to really make roads to seeing change in the country. but from the perspective of a leadership, you know, economic reform is a double edged sward, on the one hand, they need economic reform, they need, money, food, on the other hand, when regimes like this open up, it releases all sorts of political forces, and inevitably lead to a loss much political control even possibly the collapse of regime. that's not a bargain that the leadership particularly the new leadership that is inexpensed and come into power and prize is

political control. that was the last thing they want to consider at this moment. so i'm not very optimistic on the perspectives for reform at this time. >> host: but the way you frame is t is a u.s. way of framing basically a deal which the nuclear issue is resolved in exchange for reform path. -- quid pro quo. it's about the question of essentially you follow us, and you can find a sustainable path. i think that's basically the argument. the question i have based on what we have seen in china, north korea has necessarily even seemed to be willing to the dip the tow in the water. what would a northern korea -- how would we know if we, you know, began to see a northern

creern leadership moving in that direction. would a northern korean deng xiaoping exceed? >> guest: i have many friends that are chinese or so lars. when i talk to the friends, they are optimistic about north korea the prospective for them. i never understand why. when you ask them, they say t clear, they studied china and they have seen china come from where it came in the cultural revolution and the great leap forward to be the country it is today. they think if a big country like china as complex as complicated it is that certainly northern korea can do that. again, i think there are two big differences here. the first is that china had deng xiaoping, and as you said, deng xiaoping was a comarsmatic leader, larger than life

figure. there is no deng xiaoping. an inexpensed 29-year-old who is running the country now. he is no deng xiaoping. that's the first problem. the second problem is, you know, the chinese said to get rich is glorious. and making money was okay. even if it meant giving up a degree in political control. and for the current north korean leadership there is nothing more important than political control. and that is -- that looks to be the case for the last leadership i think there are hope that's young fellow kim the new leader of north korea who spent a part of his life in sweat land in secondary school. some people are hopeful he might be deng xiaoping. again, given the recent crisis,

and the missile test and the failed deal that the obama administration tried to reach with north korea, i don't think there's a lot of hope right now he shows signs being a future deng xiaoping. maybe there is a military general somewhere in north korea that is unhappy with the current situation that is unhappy with a young leadership that is making bad decisions. that has a different view on things. you know, maybe there is a south korean guy in north cree. we don't know. right now, the prospects don't look good for that sort of reform or that leadership. >> host: some people point to kim's uncling as one possible former certainly he said international experience. it's hard to judge, necessarily, you know, whether he move in the direction of reform. let's say that somebody, you

know, maybe him or someone else emerge to play a role but within the same system, how do you think that the u.s. government would be able to responsible to that circumstance? >> guest:ic they certainly welcome somebody like that. but, you know, the obvious problem, i mean, first i think the u.s. government welcomes somebody like that. someone like a senior figure who was interested in reform and interested in taking north korea to a better place. if were there someone like generals we see in beer ma today in north korea that are looking to make a big turn in terms of their own system in the way the world. i think the united states would welcome that. the 800 pound gorilla in the room, it still remains the nuclear issue. i think this is where it combs

down to the core where the chinese and the u.s. differ because for the chinese they want reform or want to promote reform, as you said, but they're willing to say in order to try to promote reform, we should doing do things like give a peace treaty ending the korean war in normalized relations as presteps, if you will, to trying to promote reform. i think the problem with the united states is that is not possible. and every administration going back to george bush made pretty clear that the number one priority is the nuclear program and the united states welcomes reform, absolutely in north korea. it must come with the denuclear decision. we alliances in the region.

-- let alone the united states would be in a countenance normal losing relations. full political relations with a country that remins a nuclear weapon state completely outside of the npt regime. it would basic destroy the nonproliferation regime. it would have a dramatic effect on the alliances in the rouge. this is the rue the cube that is difficult to match up. it's a big problem getting a big deal with north korea. >> host: let me ask you about that. in book you spend a lot of teem about new issues related to deterrence of the nuclear. and lot of people thought if north korea conducted a test it would result in a paradigm shift. there was something about

china's reaction in particular that surprised you, how do you, you know, how did you see the response to that playing out and how did did the response that you were involved with, you know, in the bush administration. what should we draw from that for instance in the con text of a possible additional nuclear test by north korea in the coming weeks or months. >> the short term it was a game change netter sents that we moved to a new level of unity in terms of punishing the north for the sorts of action. in a sense that we had u.n. security counsels for the first time in which china and russia were to sign into these an anonymously condemn north korea and sanction north korea for the actions. in the short term, i think it

was a game changer. since then, every time the north koreas have done something egregious, for the most part, the chinese and the russians certainly when it comes to nuclear tests. but in the longer term in retrospect, that was about the only real change. it didn't create the game-changing mentality in the way the chinese deal with north korea. i think there was a lot of debate in china, as to whether they should drop this ally the legacy of the cold war and really help to end this regime. that clearly does not happen it anything, the chinese have drawn closer to north korea over the past few years both economically in terms of supporting the new leadership. ..

and do people want that, or did he want to go down to potentially very bad impact of north korea where you try to solve the problem? very clear what every government wants to maintain. >> that brings us to the question of education from the word seems to be a big gap between the u.s. vision and the

cheney mission. and also involves the future. my impression was that you were pretty bullish about the prospect of achieving the expectation. you also tell in santa cruz for the challenges that would emerge. you know, at this point, how likely do you think it is that korea will be able to achieve unification and how do you see that christ says playing out in terms basically in a context are trained to influence to continue to rise. >> your question is right. i don't think the united states and south korea on the one hand at the same degree of unification. the united states has said explicitly in a joint statement at the fast two presidents, with the south korean counterparts said the u.s. aspiration is for

a single career for human peace. that is the natural order things in the international relations. and the chinese stone. the chinese still don't want to see unification. they just don't. that is becoming clearer and clearer in the past couple of years. there really is a conflict of interest between the two sides when it comes to the. >> in terms of the future in unification, it's impossible to say how it happened, just to talented or do under which german unification could happen. the way focus on this high was ready and willing to take on the unification. i think 10 years ago that was not the case. 10 years ago i think the general

consensus was unification was too difficult, much harder than that to germany's, too dangerous and should be sent and that should be pushed off as far as came can into the future. two, three generations of the will. basically now my problem. nobody wanted it to be their problem. as i talk about in the book, the attitude on that is slowly changing no. in part because the weapon situation with the tree is getting worse and worse. the human rights situation is getting worse and worse. i think while no one wants to push north korea over the edge, and there is a growing feeling that it is coming and we must be prepared i think seeing a change of attitude inside korea and places like japan, with the north korean threat is the biggest i'd shall correct in japan today. i'm on the one hand japanese terrorists can turn to a

reunified research and as nationalism and when korea, d.c. the current situation is quite dangerous and potentially very unstable. and their attitudes are changing on this, too. so i think we look and talk about the things we need to watch because no one can predict unification. no one can say exactly when it's going to happen, but the question is, are you prepared for? that's the operative question for a the government worries before no one wanted to talk about it at all. it's much more openness and willingness to talk about this now. >> i also want to ask you just to close. after kim jong il to idc and the korea as you know it is over. so far we see a fair amount of

nudity. i guess the question is, how durable is the impossible state? >> guest: well, it all depends on how you define north korea. i think north korea as we know it mfn is the talk about in the book where you have a gun on test leadership with immense challenges in terms of me taken his own position in the system that is also dealing with the crumbling economy and make you a food problem. and at the same time, the society is increasingly influenced by american mentality, like it was not the last time it a leadership transition in 1994, the first later died in the first theater came into place. in that sense, it's not like the north korea of the past.

and sure it not collapsed or has not changed since the debt of kim jong il, but we're only talking a few months. the new machine has only been in power a few months. in the broader scope of history, they spend many transitional regimes that have lasted none coming years before something natures have been in terms of change. so i think the verdict is still out on this. i don't think we can simply assume everything will go smoothly and they will be able to muddle through forever because prior to the death of kim jong il and december 2011 from the u.s. any expert, including you, scott would be the most important of major change in the country, everyone would've agreed the second death of the north korean leader. so i think we have to respect what we got before and i think

we'll have to watch very carefully whether it's going to happen because i think the future of this regime is not at all certain and the ramifications if they were to have been would be huge for the united states and others in the region and the way that will matter for the average american and that's why you want to write this book. >> thanks. i think we had a very good conversation and appreciate the chance to further explore some of the issues in the book. >> thanks very much.

>> at one time in 1967 this is called the bloodiest 47 acres in america.

>> on "washington journal" tuesday, discussion on the 20-ton health care law >> steve calls to both, "private empire: exxonmobil and hte american power" spent an hour on

the tv factor was speaking made dina cappiello come energy reporter for the associated press. post a thanks so for joining with "after words" today in graduations on the achievement. i first of all really enjoyed the book. it felt like a novel. i mean, it really bad like nonfiction and places for which i'm sure a writer you value some of that feeling as well. i know is a reporter who'd done with exxonmobil a good chunk of her career at difficult it was to probe this company. let's kind of start there. why exxonmobil? how did you come to this subject quite i know you've lived previously in your career, but why this company and how did it differ from some of your other subjects like bin laden quiet

just go to me it was an interesting journey because as you point out i started out as a business reporter on wall street when i was very young and then i went abroad and were born international subjects. after 9/11 i wrote about the origins of 9/11 attacks and the covert policy in afghanistan. after that was over i thought i want to keep writing about america and the world after 9/11, the sort of asymmetric strange group in that we have is a country, to understand that the attacks are about, what a relationship was with the middle east do not let me to the book as it intended to be about saudi arabia and modernization in how complicated it was for the generation of oil boomers that belonged to to become of age in the 70s when it was just a wash of all i had to walk away by identities in the world and one of them and now move to florida and so forth.

and so when a spanish at the project i really wanted to write about loyal and american power in the post-9/11 context. so i started out acts of the didn't begin as a book about exxonmobil. it began about oil and geopolitics. i wanted to essentially take the prize, did book by dan yergin, that inspired me a long time ago in a gated. i sort of thought of it is a great work of nonfiction about the era of oil that was the correct expansion and discovery. what i want to do is write a book about global oil in the era of the limits and constraints and climates and the rest of it is so i started out on that kind of open framework that does six, eight minutes into the research and patch myself, i need this subject here. i need a company. once i came to that conclusion, then for an america not in it

that exxonmobil was the only choice. i realized that i was getting into when they're forced upon me in my thinking is the subject because i didn't know how close they were an difficult to report on. i also didn't understand that much about their distinctive internal culture. a lot of the three and a half years that remain were about discovering what exxonmobil really was. >> host: during the course of this are fighting comment tp deepwater to writing. to that iran company? >> guest: i have mixed feelings. i choked, there must be a word in german that disguised the journalists do when other people suffer but you could mandate to your book. i thought well, the catastrophe of an environmental disaster of that scale, even that wasn't exxonmobil's responsibility to provide a contextual book and commit which is a sort of origin

story for modern exxonmobil. they tell themselves it was scared straight and reform themselves of who they are, traces to the reform. so i thought well, the deepwater horizon accident could be a bookend. i once even a specific pattern make the book more specific, i did consider a dual narrative of exxonmobil and i do regret deepwater horizon was maybe i should've done that. looking back it would've would have been too much reporting since i hadn't concentrated on one corporation. >> host: starting the book out with valdez and to be honest, the deepwater horizon, if a person who really delved in two fish transcripts of the exxon valdez incident, did you see any

parallel? as root cordray didn't coupler valdez. i did cover deepwater horizon in your description of valdez, i did see some -- on the same site bp took a page out of the playbook. did you see the coverage of bp? >> guest: do could probably list even more than my mind comes with a few that come to mind there were warning signs that exxon was not operating any consistent manner manner and a way to would give you the highest reassurance that such a catastrophe accident did not take place. in the decade before the valdez exxon cut 80,000 out of 180,000 employees reorganized their entire safety department and environmental department.

obviously the pack with a drinking problem that had dui arrest was still in this job can make it more than $100,000 the year in 1989. that's not the exxonmobil you would expect today. there is a series of warning signs that culminated. the same is true of bp. i don't know what she would say, but i had bp's record as a weak operator on the texas city plant, osha record, the fact that they basically had a culture in a strategy that emphasized the financial engineering at the extent of operating discipline was pretty well known in the industry unassertive came to the conclusion after talking with people for three or four years that if you call the people in the oil industry and deepwater horizon said the following thing that's happened, who do you think was operating the strong

majority for bp at that point? so that was fair. the second parallel with the preparation for actually making a disaster. in both cases or paper airplane scene we can handle this new reality with they were not able to do so. and then the public relations narrative i'm learning how to deal with all of the communities and traumas. i think probably bp had the benefit of 20 years of learned about corporate crisis management at exxon. in those days 89, the whole philosophy of how to communicate and immediately go tell people you make things right lesson is well developed as a strategy in exxon today. anyway. postcode no, i agree. i think the aftermath strikes me more than what happened before both of the disasters. i was a reporter in deepwater horizon. bp had gobbled a any kind of

expert to save her life. i think the control that emanates for this perk controlling access to people and apparently duclos trot in the defense of the word. and you also tackle numerous environmental issues from global warming to obviously the tanker to leaky underground storage tanks, dmt, which i covered in my early career at upstate new york, all have connections to the company because it's integrated print cradle-to-grave.

how did you -- how did you pick out the company that goes back to standard oil days, the treasure trove -- as a reporter is difficult. how did you pick out the attic goes for this book? >> guest: yeah, i started out with a map. when fish is exxonmobil is a subject of the diplomat and i just basically asked myself as a reporter, what kind of world is this? why are they fair? and then i became interested in traveling across the map because as you pointed out earlier, they were not excited that i was doing this book. they didn't volunteer to be rid about inquiries in a professional way, but they didn't really cooperate very much. i think maybe they would say relative to some projects they cooperated more than usual. from the perspective of the

ambition of the book, while it was helpful is pretty limited. one time started with the map. integer field with a operator, started to understand the role the world can a sense of themselves as an independent saffron and operating on the kind of weather warning about the reserve replacement challenges, learning about life, adequate and state and evolved as part of the portfolio and so on. and then i came back to the united states in, well, i have a pretty good first draft done of how they operate abroad, but i need to concentrate on the washing and strategy. so then i turned to the tools he used as a reporter to go outside in the united states, which is losses and disclosures. so i filed a freedom of information act for the overseas word.

to get at the american subject they basically the data at a map this out. what are they lobbying about? i said where they lobbying on salé? in december 2 night was really dictated that basically said okay there's got to be sent in here. just to finish on the lawsuits, they get sued over everyone. it's a great tool if reporting to look at civil litigation because in those cases, records and testimony are produced even if exxonmobil's policies never and if you can to testify. so is looking for a case is structural stories that would point adventuring in the corporation and when i found was in maryland were really searching the litigation records started with an ppe and found my way down and finally realize there is a huge trial record around what it is one of the

largest gasoline in an area that depended on fresh groundwater supply, a particular dangerous bill and environmental sense. it had gone to trial in the trial is over and there's this massive record of testimony with documents produced. and it was just a gift. i went straight into the retailing and addition of exxonmobil in the way i could never have done through interviewing. so opportunistic with the short answer for how you choose these subjects. you keep looking on the map and suddenly see the story. >> what is interesting is how proud they are in terms of geography and object matter. the last thing i think is the same over and over again, which is also comports with the public perception of exxon, which is this company that is rigid, all-powerful, did she do want to

mess it to put it colloquially. so anything you came across surprise you are kind of fit outside of that narrative? because it seems to me how the story is kind of come back to that in different ways. each one has a different take on it, but in some of its power, this image of the company to really comports with what everybody kind of in the cut fields. >> guest: they are who they are. the reason it is true, the same kind of decision-making in the same kind of culture and insularity, rigidity that they might stay focused consistency is presented in indonesia and suburban maryland and washington not assist because they have constructed in a global systemic global policies that are so unified in so codified and so

distributed down all of their channels of operation that i think more than any corporation of ever encountered as a journalist, everyone who works there gets up in the morning and it's ready enough of the same playbook. some is like a military operation or a sports team is exceptionally well organized around the same playbook. i think they're kind of self-conscious about the military metaphor. during usual among corporations that everyone is at the top grew up together. it featured the top 100 publicly traded corporations in the united states and shows the top 40 jobs achieved if those corporations are not good people work on the would find significant number of people from a competing company latterly come of it in their career as an executive from another industry as a marketing specialist and came in with reforming ideas. most are informed at the top with some where everybody comes up from college graduate schools

if you are selected for management tracking can be grouped together over 30 or 40 years. it's like the marine corps. you know, marine corps general by having a successful career at ibm and then decide you want to stars on your shoulders. you grew up together and share common in view of the world. while you observe as a reader of the book, which is that there is a lawsuit in venezuela for civil war in indonesia, the stories ended the same way. and there's a reason for that. faster system. that's who they are. >> host: as a person is carried energy, this surprises me. you get into hydraulic fracturing which is all over the news, which douglas arafat cannot public land and correct me if i'm wrong, the shoe on the mcveigh case of the corporate

philosophy gave them a blind spot when it came to a drug fracturing and more surprising because you make an amazing point actually a member that rex teller's sin is young engineer to come may actually does using the technique. and so, do you think about one case in a striking case that corporate philosophy that manage the rest and make sure we make a certain return of the week you hindered them from having into what is now this huge economic opportunity in this country with natural gas? >> guest: they were slow, but their offense and then they were decisive, so they get to places late and then they buy their way in. that's the pattern. so they've ever had a great reputation. i'm sure they have some wind and they probably have a story they tell themselves about their successes and exploration and

they have some. but by and large, their strength is financial and operating strength. they have more passion than anyone else, and generally if they feel to discover something for themselves, they've been trying to develop an actual strategy as gas emerged after 2005 at 2006 increase they looked at the real opportunity and they were going out and doing the land gains by increases in putting it together when passion that time. their skill for them to be a player with the xt 12010. what is interesting to me and now there's the largest producer of unconventional -- >> guest: you can become the largest of him as anything. i wonder what she'd think about this because i think of climate

as the challenge of climate as legislation, carbon pricing, as an analogous strategic challenge they face in an earlier generation, where they don't do resist to see their investments than nothing gained with a pretty aggressive strategy. you know, phrack and it's not just a business challenge, not just a g l. echo challenge. it's also a political challenge because there's some tracking tech geeks and environmental consequences come at the unknown are you going to reduce earthquake who previously have them. if exxonmobil becomes the poster child of the corporate, very stiff and profit driving approach these challenges, then the mr. cheaply has a problem

over time. can they actually adapt themselves to the trust building and political coalition building to prove durable. our way or the highway who answered to figure themselves in some respect and make good to figure themselves in some respect and make good to figure themselves in some respect and make good a sufferer. >> host: or they align themselves with the other come names. just go do want to pursue and doing it their way in taking no punches and making excuses for it, which brings me -- had a conversation with alan jeffries. chief spokesman for exxonmobil. i asked him about the book and i want to get his reaction from you, which i think you find very

exxonmobil ask but i'm paraphrasing here and this is essentially how we see it is the community may not be a popular, fashionable conservative approach, but we think these are good qualities of a company of this type, so basically it's a tally area will take it. so that obviously does not surprise you. they actually have read it and you probably know through this book. what is your response to that? >> guest: i appreciate dealing with in a professional way they basically about media, journalists, political oppositions, environmental groups, they basically stay in their channel and not what he's doing. we are who we are. that's essentially their

strategic positioning. sometimes we are who we are feels a little bit like a sensitive tracking. can you really be -- have the strength of which are considerable. their safety driven, focused on operating excellence. i've are the good reputations. if you and i with the codec caters to move wanted someone to develop our oil everyone at the project to come in on time, on budget and to get paid early, you know, we definitely entertain the powerpoint presentation because they have a record of project management. where they get into trouble is free to extrapolate these kind of operating systems, this rigidity into political affairs, you know, the human factor, things that are -- they're made of this community, made up of social change. they're on record as a social entity on the promotion of

women, diversity, responding to the kind of world we live in. it's not great. he can say that these conservative values are out of fashion and we think that they are powerful. you know, that's fine if you are talking about crossing your t.'s on safety in the workplace. the community succeed but the strategy in a world where they are so close to the changing social makeup of say, who is the educated workforce in the united states anymore? is when the nets a more diverse. if you work at exxonmobil and go home to your family thinks i'm dinner and half of your cousins are in disdain the area, that's not 30 years either. something's got to get pricing. i'm not sure that they think that though. >> let's go to that because it's one of my questions, too. it seems to me that we are who

we are and take it or leave it. we don't really care what anyone else thinks about that. has that backfired on them. that could've been a force to cultivate more distressed and distaste and make them public enemy number one points in their history. >> guest: is a great question and a complicated one. michael as a reporter is to understand as best they could and think about what it's like to be so unpopular. as a matter? their view, their default view doesn't matter. we are who we are. in truth i think there are consequences. artist talent recruitment and retention in the real world and the arab spring generation. you can't get away with being disdain by everyone and the whole scientific edge. scientists are ordinary untrue when we people. they are able to adapt to the

career at exxonmobil, but not if it feels like an opinion changing place. you know, if you only have one way of living in the world and problems and risk management are more and more diverse, you know you can afford to go into communities that are to have a presumption. it shows that the jury trials or if yes, they can appeal these verdicts and eventually get the nod to zero. but you really want to go into every cherry and basically know that you have to overcome a presumption that you're evil? i do think there's consequences. the problem from their give, let's think away from this box. one of the thing they did is there one golden age that we could model for more winning

strategy? and there is no. so the basic question if we are who we are, is there really a way to communicate those change anybody's mind? is not just putting lipstick on the cake in the pr business? it may be straightforward and have a strategy that says we are who we are again and again and hope that allows enough people to come into occasional protests to be literatures. >> guest: arbeiter, john say i hy ert upapplent writer and because apple was now more valuable than exxonbil. and i sawsissya aso -sed 'sco >>stte ipod -- >> host: what a question of a

spirit to ing the full circle it's kind of ort. of iss npe cithl exxon and you think of spread other compans? 's ryooleoe cake uei ban coat ih d atro49th present. exxon et cetera was on the list. there was in the pve on ter s.elsnxi ym exobavnto. eagoexobnd wal-mart. microsoft is always in the mix. he took 50 years further, which one is more likely to still be nd nm opl wa ionichyy ecoo a trg

coteifnt and similar apple is to exxonmobil. i walked away thinking, what a country. e uned stes prucedae d exnm use e cfo bt thl thin b i think create and ask serious job candidates if they've ever done out and ho e aner wld b s. inieanysehi adviders -- on the one hand they're very different and on the other hand there similars thbo ae om. ge iporiby stjoesteanto cuer experience, every element of the design of the boatwere not partners.

ey dtien theld heans ot ot foed do control,de not the end itself. so is fascinating. the other point of god exxonmobil is comingin o, bee ureeg cmy hag companies. there's amax, bp. and yes, in the industrialized in0st hsre t i america -- exxonmobil as our state oil company. there's a much more coherent than anything govemedo th jrevee e ma e oeo yely namrcawoul veat will come in eight

of us in opsition to the state. i mean, rex tl anals ggy a liar as i ate the circus it says on generously to his government that is peculiar. now thequivant in fane al iec' eres hted toead tu mng sense of world view and mayb even mess with totalitywoodwork aranarmod the french ventbroa o t rer ls cs. eyw,tin h tiofgen and the last ironies were skeptical of concentrate power. so here and exxonmobil is a constitution witcncerated fofuy country.

>> host: one of the hings that can set than it's interesting what you said about the influence onhto saeylln'ntty ban yhee insme aswith direct lines during the remaining days and cool in helps them for he geolitalcnl. isttxierut tis in wrong. i have the patient under. eoe mrt rgov etiea avi.ser ri d'tlltthe you get oil from the senate to

put it in the bathtub with water supply h ala ony es ttlans whers economic. at exxonmobil has carried the message for a long time it goes back to ryon n llai e oucunin i al wh ontt bbi eedto yet that is not the message you're hearing from politicians. it is almost resource national approach to u. domtic gy odio emaston o >>st i kof ki to me and i guess the explanation is how can this all-powerful hv toe aymrhre

hetshoobil et orks? how do you eage in it as you say? >> guest: i think there is th influence of the leaps in te ed tt n ced tve te dcagn intifus nd government media into conversation about how the global oil markets actually worked. most politicians don't have time or interest to study and to and mpti inie eta nee d eroudrod o gl markets are integrated with nationalism so it can be relevant is not what it e,eegy deent blir erlkan , u'neth eolewhn collection and understands.

tony blair said something like him you wouldn't want the other poticians of the world cause no wngnbthulnkhe c ieounow, both parties are trying to kind of get a handle and show that they are idtifid theyav itlne prices isrg de e,a th the laziest is frustrating because it's so divorce from the actual sject tter. chng emosttana ubjt th tin qufoer deens canging. basically while it is true that being a net exporter for a net thplo k t gyi s e riec ebos ic .

n'tthe yel u,thic ba pric that is not true oftemor alpi. erbe sevoon rdgl iraga ett e the. soth udss have onshore natural gas that's cheap for a long period of time, that could make a big difference in the economy for faino hn ne anoth ina e importer for a net exporter may no matter in some of the way politicians talk about it, it does matter to our balnce ofadts peoarly give t w a metrst iftoftfoer independence for what they call nationalistic language, there will be advantages.

pociofib.t aanta ne h te t rekibont o s g the way live a mend for a chater. xon has kind of shocked alternativefrgoo eyanpantee nes sey t tharo trard h you been that excellent point, which is in my frustration which is hopeople mixhe electricity butldtehnkr erpl i h book where we reinvent toxin to the ear of telling greenspan and alan greenspan is on the and sp. inly n nd,ic t rm om ts t

headline is big oil is behind that, given the animosity towards kind of renewable -- 70 renewables require. you e anevid o h hee ert ng t ucmeosha e icone loan. >> guest: the american petroleum is a trade group in coicnshihaetthersot izveppnind tial tesmein eh khe deng es a anas exxonmobil is there a corporation that canursue whatever business they want. the question is as a try o waatubes nt f s t teivf esof ogeddcln idnd w we? if you look at it, we'vbeen talking about how everybody in the countrshares aninterest in the lowest steeg

ibis wth stbleiront. atte iema t lowest cost energy, t show us way to achieve achieve environmental goals. if you talk about a rpid shift from styhift from he exive ne o neesu ere odso d the reason that is the mt compelling is climate. if you believe as i , if i97% i ntint monndgrcoc felta y h to an wose or term process for endgame. whisonl'chrwant to convince h sicethsind cteertos so

pernicious because there is a residue of doubt in the public about the validity oclimate science and tha. wheehenttertfu paig now there adults and entitled to their opinion, but th campaign is clearly influential. anerngt hekhat usou ae-- o woinr h, t as if exxon invented that strategy and accent was a come to me that it really was in the business of playing the cetidu, bu h pre oa nt oh beaches of the sound totters after the spell d they're being attacked by a crizodvlptaxonmobil hirediets wn

sce illlreer th years. and that tactic now seems rampant in our political culture as a reporr that pays ch iat ee ya nye nw i in areas that are almost rocksolid. i made, there's politicians on the floor al out th agtwsmnd sha. eoquon tos neanist p what attracts regulations. i mean, do you look at exxon tracker that an be like he potow thin agee s nisaon o t't a t lan. retiartrying to address. >> guest: no, i think they

have responsibity and they really were a distctiv whhetoorr optio ie ed esn e industrialized world on economic grounds, some their lives as the science reallybate o o poheosndue erwri ouhapeyo w emifn reasons. exxonmobil is very unusual in my judgment on the aggressions they'vgot to the science part ai. coicasncis, at of doubt about what was emerging as mainstream science. ta mo pntri'm ari ro a ncplpoy

rs droec o progress as an industrialized democracy depends on an honest puic gnt bout cence andthe tia leol meorepu,e e public trying to act in good faith on w to believe about what, we'll end up damaging our ci st nthooke r e imon neleortea buen golm change and volunteer because i'm a climate junkie, it really seems thisssh l t i veen alawa tetihaulsift occurred, which obviously exxon enjoys. those are my words to limit

greeouse gas emissions by i , hafaa co do is what really kind of have been shaken in their oots. >> guesti think it was a syathrtohpvitiare production in the world, which was filled and environmental damage in epe of oil into ter ingiend ro lero iastain were they eited the vaidity when it comes to spills and air ortoldusabdsfr jut mmwt car

cruising speed on the environmental issues that arose in the first through fou decades nwoetete tel,e ra ofsielor yt t wso r. the agreement personally as a trained rsonal engineer and a very juband eein hf saattugndjus nm'sou t prosecute. most corporate chief executives would not have acted as aggressively as he didome up with us who he was. wa theecc cohaan the cost of modest carbon pricing legislation, right? ligature cash flow and

ili retianapto las. pr regimes that imposcosts on you for making the oil industry sustainable in a political environment. why notjust t i dtew ed aiwe outhstthol onwaoo great would break up the economic progress and so forth but there was avel exobadt kif i d rs iu' co iprice on carbon coming. anthis really could be existential. but the oil industryecause of pr tha ntuhich is a lurefr da new rw or euanpa the.

they moved with much moe depth itog osno f tein too aou aplmet t e i a be, re hng t non-washington when we talk about gasoline prices is relating gasoline prices and how well went thelgt d lahaca otor icoapo w lyn iht on why aren't we hearing no or when it comes to gas? soonn gnm we beed ra gst'serus question. the reason we don't hear more as a fact polical arguments for campaign season about as prices are not serious arguments and there's no reason to bring a seous licyuestn inde

imanhis li a pssm us p. the company utilities regulated by a public standard in every af.ethbltad thitelicwhis mpntndtad cae iror profitable companis required it to be accountable and theap noxoilastee is lcoy sced uc and dece so forth. nobody's going to regulate them in the publicitr w s silartincti a mmgsc worker

devoted to pump and you've got no choice. you got to put in whatever prices they are and you can understand why you hav no othac en.y a co tois ttr t isnooinre free-market function within the public interest of oversight basically ansome environmental agenes. thecit ali il nm rni h problem because their popularity of prices from the fact that the anding misstep in all these pumps are people areagy to iusrs si oymean >>t: mthin in the hope that sealed it only way they're visible because otherwise people don't derstand the whole oil process. people are watching exxonmobil drill holes in the groun thggn k h a

brand-name. >> guest: it bored me to descri generic the end ofthcor t edatwold g of ougn like upon. no one is saying to pontus evo, but dupont is a huge industrial portion. >> ht: one ofhr inyuae n ifee he us anrpo lk frg py coherent one that exxon has the u.s. energy policy that politicians have struggled with ataut en ote arifind h ll t tepre ey don't want to go there because once you go there, people start to say hey, i don't

want to do that. everything s u ic o!t reuters cechnt n be lyot biolor do that, which is a consequence of any kind of market and also a carbonta.

>> tehrto government in the world this not want to make gasoline as

cheap as possible. so they don't have to da h pu a. we t tdu thoue an make it more expensive? >>st: en ut o w tre s rce ol krket that has been recycled. hier oascome k b io iete heardsfoth

crash toheoom exxonmobil was one of those. budt the debate to write them on the congress bh's x brks toi mps eed ho eou pts t e hypocrisy? >> i eel that i don't know th appeals with the oil gane opposed toallows

therma t. m tis reasonable public policy but to say subsidies only for the oil industry? i don't know that is coect. [laughter] boidheuntepltifr owt ilss but how do restructure the energy policy? i think theyold en py o ol dr global warming as

moving as rapidly as possible. t tpasos n persuasive. a orbha san a edbl l anknhiay ca.een / ogo e nadian section is interesting. it is very clear prior to the keyone cxx sifrdt .s oa iht sands and energy intensive to extract greenhouse gas emisont ed

r the bok but tg to the heart. obama rejects the pipeline. environmentalist or outrage. he knows it is as as serious as it was? >>guest: ty don't know what to do wh the politics. in their book iil b ti -inae nnoecr gn howl politics mission with climate change regulation, tarsia and, will s,goall ke kenepp meng

trying to attack the problem. wo't they could enactst a universal rfo a ch, w. soy d eee st q.e challenge it because it is available. they made it an example. eyedvrtt y akyar oit kth eoving. from canada's perspective, i sit iagat

idfit f w mp ee punished for apaig on a keystone is not built, i think it will be, either obama will reverse the judgment or the rodney administration will build it. that is my prediction. enad et in intatbgo te deal. >> it will happen either way >> of less canada changes its policy shaouy i yee eron nglas ouuck >>guest: thank you very much. >>isd ee.

why this book about the peace prize? id.ig asaod hid re bj its give to the overview of th 20th 19hr tirfoit ei

e war coctldrab-israeli war, obama, almos everything. thenheres thstt haer bu teinein e' sbe makes you confront the biggest questionscneina d e n esyo de or eiere artr >>: ak. juicy subject.

cove. t over time anybody can find time to like or hate to. >> was there th incident of hiythac pii winning? before barack obama won the election. it was suggested 2002 with un20. ck

and then the incumbent president is the peace laureate. mes forget. >>host: thesold ck dournut edel t gi mon ht t? a gngkn m. li.eg t thinesia figures >>t: liargy and enthusiasm. em neer a em mar.uip ably a genius. presided over 90 facilities. heas cled thewthst he must have been one of the

most plific correspondence. thousands per year. he wrote in the town of the recipient he was brilliant. complicated. optimist. dark dark said nick 35at.imes. th- mi u i outhmost significant but that is the most famous. dyteert fliedhze ar put it it

seems not to be true. he was quite prou of his achievements. with infraructre, the coy oualhe it mde w d ovelr tece hve dhave been different with the first r. he die 18961 f ey--ouil e te95 five prices -- i can shut up. i have been on a monoloe. aneoo sat ho.

acpie nta to look at it. >>guest: that like the u.s. constitution. it is a living document, the bustle the film with our oughts. t abli tfi izics chemistry, physiolo gy orbison, literature cel- o sweden liere, peace. wtie

the it economic science in memoryaled nel cot burm iappy not to heel tiviz nns,aso he wants them to be reported for work done tichmefceding year.al htty we haak but. >>ho: i did that do the math but no more than one dozen ih tcie

ho. >>guest: that is truet n the norwegian feel at the heart of the peace prize there is a specl quality from norway pro. >> nob hahis pi d ivtm very coopolitan buswedish. hest arlntbut a patriot. le ctt of five. he does not say they must be thn beinata

is itd j .. rnna geom nr one. i fain client could say they enacted the legislature wh enacted the committee so the nobel peace prize is a reflection of the norwegian peple d thr reec >>: dola >>t:hereon buerie regulatecountry.

called the pgrs at ho there is the tenon eerw llg da ndnond northern, a fishing village-- the show [ltenot seennnory? swn and the 20th century was a bit of a power. norwayate s

geit interest. anacgendsss on the un with budget th red cross and particular. but they seem to have a soft spot light doctors without borders. i mol ronzas allow a country to be

somebody. plus smearo check power. >>host:e er p? aomt d r? roy er hoyut thinking our ideas. ine atyrh ybaled what did y learn about the process?

itn totu? e tom especiallespeciall why the apartheid later. he wasaid zulu chief and day dedicated christian. a strong but they beat man. >> siwn w th rofpl htepsageude somewhere brave.

and my time itcould have been a slur. if you are called a pacifist. ifosad n m d s ce,m. but li. ffew different actions. peace is very slippery s abanee whs not the re absence of war. is wa the worst thing in naanoue de

no p altogether is a mixed bag. what is clearly good will were clearlyad there was a ca. evenaat noanatthd the story. and there was a committee member who resigned after at. t mb rftdo n pral the two of the were happy to appardfon

ni w added his way iserngauxa ewou. ey tried to see their views. dgrenthce what does that mean? at have spend their prim whoe buts beginning. scon cote

pe g a stirringasme eend address. [ltendome rn l unn,e is,and he said t prizerom thvimmradt it fis advocacy of the nuclear test ban that was signed by other lawrs. what do ou do withh

muybetepe n st: talabout the other winners with the notion of peace how idiocy the concept with the nsa to talk about peace? it went beyond the diyuthries ze or have inalwope