understand, i think, in all this that when one talks about these concerns, one is not talking about all muslims. on the contrary, there are, i mean, speaking from the point of view of britain, there are very many muslims who have come as immigrants to britain precisely because they wanted to sign up to british and western values. they wanted to live in freedom. they wanted to prosper, they wanted to have good jobs. but they wanted to live in freedom because freedom's very important to them. ..

that muslims, where muslims are enjoying western freedom that must be pulled back and they must be made to conform to a very very narrow authoritarian conservative interpretation of islam. the view that the west must be brought to heel for this vision, this interpretation of islam is also dominant and that is what i call islamism. there are people that say what you mean is islam and i understand what they mean. i use it for a particular reason because it's in order to allow for the fact that there are muslims who are not extreme who do want to sign up to western values and we must acknowledge that and there are muslims who

don't. those who don't buy call and others call islamists because they are trying to impose their doctrine and views on people that are not muslim and trying to impose the most hidebound antifreedom interpretation of the religion at its most narrow on muslims. so i called those people islamists. they are no threat to us. they say the whole time what their intention is, to re-create the whole islamic caliphate and the old muslim empire, to go beyond that and to conquer britain, to conquer america. they are very explicit and to impose sharia, the rule of islamic law upon anywhere that muslims live. those are islamists and some of them are violent. some of them equip themselves with weapons of war and terrorism. some of them are not violent

that believe they can conquer the west to a kind of cultural takeover. we should also be extremely worried by them. they are all islamists. some are violent and some are not violent. on the other hand there are lots of muslims who love america and we must keep those in our minds. there is a difference between those who interpret the religion in a way that threatens us and those who belong and subscribe to islam who are muslims who are themselves threatened by these islamists and we must keep those two things i think in our minds at the same time. that is what i tried to do when i wrote my book. that was about what i perceive to be the case which was the way in which to my grade horror and fear the british ruling class was giving in to islamism, to this attempt to takeover, this

attempt to undermine britain and the encroachment of islamic values in britain and the british basically saying let's go along with this. i was extremely careful as i think we must be to acknowledge there are many muslims who find this equally frightening and want nothing to do with it. >> you can watch this and other programs on line at booktv.org. former secretary of state george shultz sat down with booktv to talk about his new book "issues on my mind." in the book he weighs in on such topics as nuclear weapons the economy energy development in the war on drugs. this hour-long interview was recorded that the cooper institution on the campus of the university of -- >> george shultz what are you doing for a living these days?

>> i'm trying to live up to my four great-grandchildren who to me represent the future and i look at them and i say to myself, what can i do to make the world better for these kids? >> as a distinguished fellow at the hoover institution what do you do? >> i work on the problem of nuclear weapons. and how to get better control of them and eventually eliminate them. i work on economic issues. there's a great economics group here. i work on energy subjects, working a great deal on that and i have also have been trying to reflect a little bit in all of my experiences to see if if there's anything that couldn't be learned from them. i actually wrote a book to try to do that. >> host: in in the book is called issues on my mind. secretary shultz what is the

main issue on your mind today? >> guest: the main issue is that the world that the united states had a great deal to do with constructing after world war ii in effect we constructed a security and economic commons that's that served us and served everybody well. that commons is being torn apart right now, and we have to understand what is happening. and we have to be ready to interact in a constructive way. to build a more cohort world then this developed chaotic world. so, i reflect on my experiences in the book that you held up on the different ways in which we need to go about it. we have some real opportunities in front of us. we have some issues. a lot of the things i proposed and talk about that are so

controversial nobody even wants to hear you talk about. i enjoy that so i do it. >> host: how would you say the world is security weiss today as opposed to when you were secretary of state in the 1980s? >> guest: very different. in the 1980s when i was secretary of state we had the main threat of the soviet union and their nuclear arsenal and our nuclear arsenal and how to contain not and maybe you remember from those days. the nuclear cloud was always somewhere there. well i think that has diminished a great deal in terms of russia u.s. although it's still there. but the threat is more of a greater disbursement of nuclear weapons, of the proliferation of them, sometimes in the hands that are not deterrable and in

other ways the world is kind of falling apart and this is very disturbing i think. >> host: rogue states, iran, potential nuclear power. how should it be handled? >> guest: well, we have said it's unacceptable. i remember, and i use this in my book, when i was a boot in the u.s. marine corps. you joined the marines and you think you have joined the marines and to happen. it's only when you survive boot camp when you become a marine. i remember the day the sergeant handed me my rifle. he said take good care of this rifle. this is your best friend and remember one thing. never point this rifle at anybody unless you were willing to pull the trigger. no empty threats. now i told that story to president reagan upon occasion

and he loved it because we said to ourselves we have to be very careful what we say so people will realize that when we say something it's going to have consequences. it does and if it's not going to have consequences we don't say it. so what the administration as might i don't know but they basically said it's unacceptable for iran to get nuclear weapons, that the option is not a think secretary kerry testified it's not containment. the object is prevention. so i don't know what their strategy is but it had or have some toughness or it's not going to succeed. >> host: secretary shultz what about the superpowers that have nuclear weapons, russia, the u.s., china? should there be more talks for less weapons? should they be dismantled? >> guest: a very positive

thing has taken place. there have been a lot i think that one more recent was, about three years ago i guess president obama convened a meeting in washington. 40 heads of government came and the object was to see how everybody involved can do a better job of controlling fissile material. fissile material is what it takes to make a bomb. that is the hard part, getting the fissile material and that was followed up with another 12 years later. there's another one scheduled in amsterdam and more and more heads of government are involved in that and trying to really get ahold of that program. i think that's a very constructive thing. a recent thing that i have written along with the people i have been working with, henry kissinger, bill perry and sam nun, we say let that morph into

a kind of a global nuclear enterprise and get all of these i will say more constructive nonrogue states together to keep working at these different kinds of things that need to be done. there are some between us and russia that need to be done but there are some others. >> host: what about when it comes to rogue states? in the 80s you were part of the administration that strategically bombed libya. what about bombing iran, at least its nuclear facility? >> guest: well just how do we go about that and how difficult it is and how successful it can be. i am no part of any intelligence except to say this probably. it's difficult. the israelis are more worried about it than anybody because iran every other day says they want to eliminate israel, wipe

it out. if they had a nuclear weapon on the end of a ballistic missile that could do it. and so i think we have learned from when somebody like that makes a statement you should take it seriously and believe them. so i think that we have to think about forceful means but i am not informed enough to say. >> host: in "issues on my mind" you right when it comes to terrorism in this country must think hard about the moral stakes involved. if we truly believe in our democratic values and our way of life, we must be willing to defend them. passive measures are unlikely to suffice. means of more active defense and deterrence must be considered and given the necessary political support. >> guest: well you say if you have a law enforcement coach you say okay let the terrorist acts

happen. then we find out who did it and we try them in a u.s. court and make them guilty and their endless appeals and they go to jail. well, what does that that accomplish? a certain deterrence but in the meantime the terrorist act has taken place. and a terrorist acts in the like 9/11 can kill a lot of people. so if you know something is coming at you, why not stop it? in other words, prevention. i think when i first said that in 1984 it was very controversial but after 9/11 people said of course we should be trying to stop that from happening. and so i think this doctrine of trying to prevent things is very important and it has become common that we do it a great deal in this country. i think there have been lots of

terrorist acts that did not happen because we found out about them through intelligence and prevented them. >> host: we are talking with former secretary of state, former secretary of labor, former secretary of treasury george shultz about his new book "issues on my mind." mr. secretary what was your favorite job you ever had? >> guest: well you say job. job imply something that you have to do in order to get somebody and if you say that i never had a job in my life. i have always done things that i have found rewarding and interesting. if i want up doing something that wasn't like that i would find something else to do. in government, it's a great privilege and opportunity to serve. i had a succession of jobs and all of them had their tough moments but all of them or reporting starting with my two and a half years overseas in the united states marine corps in world war ii.

there i was. i was fighting for my country and in the end we were victorious. i didn't have much to do with it but i was one person out there. i served in eisenhower administration as council of economic advisers. it was a great privilege. i remember going down to my office. it was in this, the big office building right next to the white house. it used to be called the old state-building. anyway, i had an office with a window that looked out on the south lawn of the white house. i remember my father who died not too long after that, but he came and i took into my office and he saw this view and he said son, you were right. so it was great to work there and when you are working in the white house complex you have a view of the whole government. i learned a lot about how you put the statistics together that

we talk about all the time so that was a great experience. then i was secretary of labor. i knew the subject matter very well and they knew the department will because i had done some things in both the kennedy and johnson administrations they gave me that exposure. but i didn't know anything about washington and politics politics and the press and all of that. so i had a good taste of knowledge from which to learn about these things, and i was fortunate in persuading a man named joe loftis to come and be the press person. joe had worked for for for "the new york times" for i don't know, decades and he was the premier reporter anywhere and he was really good. everybody read his stories. he really knew the subject. and he said he would sign on but he had conditions.

i said okay joe, what are your conditions? he said well first of all i'm going to be the spokesman, i have to know what's going on. i have to be able to walk in and i don't want to be blindsided. if i'm blindsided then i am over. i said of course, you can go anywhere you want. anybody would be glad to have you there, you know that. what else? he said don't lie. i said come on joe, don't lie. he said he would be surprised what happens to people. they come down here and they get under pressure. misleading is as bad as lying. so you have got to be straight and i said okay i will be straight. what else? he said never have a press conference unless you've have some news. i said well, don't reporters like to schmooze around? he said you don't understand.

reporters are the guys who are trying to make a living and the way you make a living is to get a news story with your name on it and he gets on the front page of your paper. you call a news conference and say this is my story. he comes and you don't have any news? what is he going to do? yes going to start asking questions to try to make you say something stupid and that's the news. he had a whole bunch of things like that. so i learned a lot about the press from joe. and while sometimes people write things you don't like on the whole, you have a constructive attitude and you help them get the facts straight. you are going to be much better off. then there was a guy named bryce harlow in the white house who was the political counselor in the congressional relations guy and he took me under his wing to a certain extent, and he had

rules. he said never make a promise unless he can deliver on it. if it turns out it's hard to deliver, try all the harder. because people only deal with you if they have pressed you and they trust you if you do what you say you're going to do. and his word was trust is the coin of the realm. so i always try to remember that. in the labor department i had some -- my first big battle in the congress and i learned something about that so it was a great learning thing. then i went from there to the director of the budget and there you have the whole government under you. that was great. and i became secretary of the treasury. it was a time when we redid the international monetary system.

lots of dealings with people all over the world and i learned a lot about how to do something internationally. so that was great experience for me. it was fun. i enjoyed the people. some are still good friends today. but of course when i was secretary of state for tectonic place of the world changed. when ronald reagan and i took office the cold war was as cold as it could get. when we left it was all over but the shouting so that was a huge thing to be involved in and watch unfold. >> host: mr. secretary and your book, "issues on my mind" you have got some rules for leadership and a couple of those you have already expounded on, the bryce harlow rule and the joe loftis rule. but your first rule is to be a participant. >> guest: oh yeah.

well that is what democracy is all about. early on when i was working in the primaries ronald reagan gave me a tie. on the tie it says democracy is not a spectator sport. so be part of it and be part of politics but be willing to serve and be a participant. >> host: rule number five, confidence is the name of the game. >> guest: well it's a great start to be competent. if you are not confident you are going to be in big trouble. i had a tough experience with that though. i told you when i went to washington as secretary of labor i was kind of innocent of politics and i had a bunch of political appointees lots to fill and i realized that you are trained to work with a diverse constituency, so i said i need the best management guide in

this industrial relations labor relations deal. everybody told me was a guy named jim hudson who was at lockheed. i talked to him and we got him. i said well we have got to have a real labor guy. not an employer who advises unions for someone who negotiates contracts. their real union guy so we found a guy to do that. you have to get give someone who really knows manpower training so we got that. you've got to get somebody who has worked in the area of how to deal with discrimination in the workplace. so a lawyer who knows the labor market. anyway i get a lot of these people and president-elect nixon thought it would show progress in his administration so he said why don't you bring them to the pier hotel and we will have a meeting. you can take them down and

introduce them to the press. so we have a meeting and we'll go down to the press and i introduce him. they ask him all kinds of questions so it's pretty obvious that jim hudson was a real pro-and he knew what he was doing. some guy in the back of the room holds his hand up and says mr. hudson are you a democrat or a republican? in my innocence i never even asked him. he said i am a democrat. next i remember arnie weber who was dazzling and he was just the same guy holds his hand up and says are you a democrat? the last guy was our nominee to be head of the bureau of labor statistics and he was a statistician statistician. arthur byrnes who was very close to president nixon was, someone that he wanted and i wanted so fisa finally we got a republican. the same guy as the question and he stands there like a cow

chewing its cud and then he finally says well i guess you would have to say i am a -- [inaudible] anyway i get back to my hotel room and the phone is ringing off the hook and the republicans on the labor committee are saying didn't you know there was an election? so i said look i cleared these names with the white house and cleared them with the ranking republican. jobless was their favorite republican but anyway i will give them credit because all of the guys did terrific here they were confident and even some of the people who objected called me and said you know we like the guys. jim hudson succeeded me as secretary of labor and later became our ambassador to japan. arnie weber became the first mmo sdn he was a brilliant president of northwest university and so on. so if i had ruled all these people out because they were registered democrats i wouldn't

have had the confidence. i'm not saying, should have asked the question and done something about it but anyway if you have competent people around you you are going to do much better than if you don't. the first job is to obtain and get people who are confident in those slots. >> host: that leads to rule number six in the george shultz book, finally get the people in your team responsibility and reward them for exercise. >> host: >> guest: you want to be a was say here is what we are trying to achieve. this is our objective and in your part this is what you are supposed to be doing. and he has you and i will work on it together but this is your responsibility. and i want to administer on the basis of no surprises, that if something happens that is that i

want to know about it right away. if something happens that surprisingly good i would like to know about that too because we can learn from those things. but you have got to give people leadership and objectives and hold them accountable. accountability is very important in an economic system or a governmental system. in my book i have some pictures of sports but the american people love sports and i think one of the reasons is the sense of accountability. there you are standing on the grain. you have the putter. there is the ball. there is the cup. you hit the ball and when the ball stops rolling the result is unambiguous. full accountability. that is the picture of tom

watson lee trevino president reagan and walter was a referee. ronald reagan and i had a new year's eve golf game every year and one year leave trevino and tom watson showed up. it was her golfing team. it was quite a day. they were fun. >> host: george george shultz ad "issues on my mind" you write about your time the secretary of treasury. why did you resign? >> guest: well, the atmosphere became rather discouraging even though i had a lot of really good experiences. one day i am sitting in my office and the director of internal revenue, the commissioner comes to see me. his name was johnny walters. and he said i just had a visit from john dean the president's counselor and he hands me this list of 50 or so names of people to do a full field investigation

of their tax returns. that was a very unpleasant process. what do i do? well you don't do it. what do i tell john dean? tell him he report to me. if he has a problem he can come to me. it was interesting later on in the nixon tapes i heard him discussing, this was john dean and they basically said who the hell does blue eyes think he is not doing what we want but they never had me there to put it to me because if i resigned refusing to do something improper that the internal revenue service that wouldn't be a very good story for them. anyway i inherited the administration of wage and price controls which either pros but it wasn't my domain. incidentally the two people running it rumsfeld and dick cheney. anyway we were in the process of trying to get rid of them and

against my advice president nixon reimpose them. i said to the presidents your call. you are the president. i think it's a mistake and you should get yourself a new secretary of the treasury. so i resigned. on a sort of policy issues. >> host: mr. secretary -- >> guest: that also illustrates something i think in these jobs. they are very rewarding and you have a chance to deal with real major things. often you can really make a difference. so you tend to enjoy it. but you can't want the job too much. that is you have to be true to yourself and i felt if i stayed under the circumstances of this

practical decision i would not be being true to myself. so you can't want the job too much. >> host: mr. secretary did you have a good relationship over what kind of a relationship did you have with president nixon? >> guest: i had a very good relationship with them. we did a lot of really constructive things together. one of the first things i did as secretary of labor was in philadelphia in this guild construction trades there were no locks at all. yet there were blacks around who were skilled. so we decided, i decided and i'm not sure who was working for me in this area, that we should make this up. we devise something called the philadelphia plan and told them you have got to have some

hiring. you have got to find people who are capable people but nevertheless get more people there and you must have an objective. you must have the type table and get going so we were trying to manage this process. as you can imagine it was very controversial. i was new at secretary of labor and i thought it was controversial. i was called to testify in the senate and someone was saying you are trying to impose a quota system. i said i'm trying to replace one. i'm trying to get rid of one. what do you mean? the "is zero. it's been very effective. so we went back and forth. then in the senate, went to the gallery to watch and the republican leader gave me his tally sheet and it's reprinted in the book. we won by 10 votes. it was very bipartisan vote for and against but it was dramatic.

it was my first battle and i felt good about it because i felt i was in a sense morally on the right side of the issue. one of the senators who voted with me was ted kennedy and we became in an odd way good friends and respected each other. we held different views on a lot of things but we got along well. that was helpful to me later when i was secretary of state. he was a good colleague. >> host: are you still in touch with don rumsfeld and dick cheney? >> guest: yeah. in london i had the privilege of being the leader with jim baker of the american delegation and he showed up there and his wife. they are good friends and so we had a chance to see him. he is amazing. i said you are looking great. he said i'm feeling fine. i had three very hard years. he had a heart replacement and

so on but now he is looking great and feeling great. so catching up with these people. >> host: what about secretary rumsfeld? >> guest: i don't see a lot of him but i'm in touch with him. he has a new book coming out and i wrote a little blurb for it. you know he has done this, no unknowns in no knowns, very clever phraseology. it's a good and interesting book. >> host: mr. secretary what was your relationship with margaret thatcher? >> guest: i had a really good relationship with margaret. often we argued about things and she is a pretty fierce arguer. she doesn't like lapdogs. people who say oh yes margaret, yes margaret. so we would go add it. our underlying way of thinking

about things was very similar so a lot was constructed by the reagan thatcher relationship and i was glad to be a part of it. and i was glad to go to her funeral because i have been close to her both before i was in office and after i was in office. we still had times when we were together. so i was glad to have a chance to go and pay my respects. because i think it's a fair statement that between market thatcher and ronald reagan, their leadership change the world. the arc of history was changed. >> host: page 245 and "issues on my mind" you you write that in my view the most striking trend now is something else. it's the growing dynamism, cohesion and cooperation of like-minded nations to share an important sense of positive

goals. >> guest: well that is what i think the u.s. leadership we managed to do after world war ii you remember there were some really great statesman and the truman administration and this was carried on but these people look back and what did they see? they saw two world wars. the first one settled and vindictive terms helping to lead to the second. the second world war, 70 million people were killed and untold others displaced. they saw the great depression. they saw the protectionism and the currency manipulation that helped to aggravate it. they saw the holocaust. they said to themselves, what a crummy world. and we are part of it whether we like it or not. so they set out to construct

something better and they saw the soviet union with its aggressive force to deal with. they developed ideas like containment, institutional structures. the bretton woods system in economics, the trading effort to construct a success model, to construct a trading set up an security measures were made. over a period of time each successive administration added contributions. they constructed a security and economic comments and that is what i'm referring to. people contributed to it and there was u.s. leadership without a doubt and i think it's fair to say that without u.s. leadership constructive things are seldom handled. that doesn't mean that people do what we want. but it means that when the u.s.

is there with ideas and effective participant at helps to get things moving. i have seen that personally on many occasions. so that has been a great achievement. i can remember in the early 1980s i was in china and had a meeting with deng xiaoping and he said now china is ready for the two openings. i said what are the two openings? he said first of all we open for movement of people within china and opening within china. what is the second one? the second one is an opening with china to the outside world. and i am lucky that there is a reasonably coherent world to open up to. he understood that very well. so that is what i was referring to an this is being torn apart in many ways.

it's changing. >> host: how should we view china? >> guest: well it's a big country with a lot of talented people. it has had a remarkable economic renaissance. it has very large problems to contend with but it's a measure relatively new in modern times anyway, an actor on the scene. so i think we better have development close working relationship, and ability to talk through problems with them and that is the way we need to go about it. >> host: do we have that ability now? or do we have that relationship now? >> guest: i hope so but i'm not part of things. i have been out of office for 25 years, but i was part of a little group that henry kissinger organized that has

meetings, some in china and some here, just seven or eight of us. about a year ago we were in china and the man who is now the president, he spent time. we had a lot of discussion. the next day we spent about an hour and a half with the new premier. and i thought and i checked this out with henry kissinger and others in our delegation. i said you know they are giving us a message. they want to have a collaborative relationship with the united states. that doesn't mean we don't have problems, but it means that we can talk about the problems. maybe we agree to disagree on some and maybe we find ways of dealing with them. i know when i was in office, my first meeting with the chinese, i said and they liked the idea, deng xiaoping and mike

counterpart said you put on the table everything you want to talk about and i will put on the table everything i want to talk about. let's make an agenda out of that. and let's agree, i will come to china once a year at least. you come to the u.s. once a year at least and probably three or four places where we both come to a meeting of some kind. let's set aside three hours or so just for us to work through this agenda. and that's served us well. we identified some opportunities. we saw problems of which we didn't and couldn't deal with but on the whole, and we developed shove or not see -- where fu could say to me you are

trying to get a -- and we can handle that but if you come around like this maybe that could work. so that is the way to do things. if you can develop a reasonable trusting relationship with the other party. so i think we will undoubtedly have our big disagreements with china. right now the cyberareas very tense in my judgment. but the way to do it is to sit down and talk to each other, be realistic, be strong, have an agenda. don't go in without an agenda and be ready to engage. >> host: did you ever want to be secretary of the military? >> guest: oh that's a tough job. i was never asked to do that and

i really didn't think about it very much but i know having been close to it it's a very hard job i guess if i had been offered it i would have taken it. if the president ask you to do something, i think you have an obligation to do it. plus i consider myself still to be a marine so i'm still in the military forces. as secretary of state i have a lot of dealings with the military and i said to my counterpart cap weinberger one time, i said katz according to the statute the national security council consists of four people, the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. he says in the statute each is entitled to military advice. caps that i'm here and i'm willing to talk to you. i sit cap said cap you don't wear the uniform. i want to talk to the guys in

uniform. after that i found out that the then chairman of the joint chiefs was liked golf and i have been a member of the augusta national golf club. i invited him down for the weekend so we got to know each other. but it's important to have direct military advice when you are trying to conduct diplomacy or when there is something happening. >> host: george shultz did you have a direct line to president reagan? >> guest: we had a system where he and i had two private meetings a week. and obviously whatever you wanted to talk about that was first and i always brought an agenda to talk about. we had sort of an understanding. we never tried to make a decision in those days because though should be argued out in a broader content.

i would say here's this problem. you can see on the horizon and we don't know just where it's going but this is the way we are thinking about it here in this is what we are trying to do about it. what do you think? then we go back and forth. and you know he was a union leader at one point. he loved to talk about bargaining, negotiation. i had my experiences in that arena so we swapped stories back and forth and i got to have a really good understanding of how we went about things and how we thought about things so i felt that was important. i am representing him and people sometimes that will put about your foreign-policy? i always said i don't have one. reagan has got one. my job is to help formulate it and carry it at all. he is the guy that got elected,

not me. >> host: from what you have observed has the role of secretary of state changed since you were there in the 80s? >> guest: well it looks to me as though there isn't the same kind of relationships that i had with president nixon or that jim baker had with george bush. because i don't know exactly the reason. i saw for example the other day that the national security adviser went to moscow to meet with cute and and started arranging that relationship. if i was secretary of state i would not tolerate that. that is my job. and the national security adviser is a staff person and a principle. i remember when colin powell had

the job of the national security adviser. he understood it and he came around to me and he said i'm a member of your staff. obviously the president is my main guy that my job is to staff the council. so i think that is beginning to get out of kilter and in my book i have quite a lot to say about the structure of governance and how it's going i think in the wrong direction. >> host: secretary shultz at couple more issues on your mind. number one, demographics. you are worried about demographics. >> guest: i am not worried about it. i'm observant of it and i have seen the demographics of the world have changed and are continuing to change rapidly. the developed countries basically have low fertility, rising longevity. they have older societies which has an impact on your outlook

and your capabilities. the russians have it demographic catastrophe on their hands. they are very low fertility. longevity has managed only in the 60s. women live 12 years longer than men. a lot of people emigrating. they have huge problems in the caucasus to deal with. a lot of people on one side and hardly anybody on the other. but the demographics underlying this are devastating. china has in some ways the most interesting demographics because around 30 years ago fertility dropped like a stone. that meant for a quarter of a century china has had a growing labor force and a declining number of people that the labor force had to support.

now those cohorts in the population are moving all of and the situation is about to change where suddenly you are going to have a declining labor force and a rising number, this time older people, that the labor force has to support. it's a big change. meanwhile you have north africa middle east countries. fertility has come down some but it's still very high and longevity is at that place so these are very young societies. somehow many of them have gotten organized in such a way that young people don't have much to do. and in this information and communication age which i talk about in the book, nowadays the people in charge did not anymore

have a monopoly on information or ability to organize. that is entirely changed. so when the middle east we see the arab awakening and a spark, it's only a spark but it is this the spark. this little guy in tunisia, all he wanted to do was start a little business selling fruits and vegetables. the regulators wanted to get a bribe from him. he said how do you expect me to make a living? work does a lot for you. work gives you dignity. work, you get some income from work and you feel i deserve that. i did something and i got paid for it. i deserved it, so i think in that turmoil we are seeing in the middle east and north africa, it's not going to settle down until somehow people have

something to do that is constructive. i know that many other kinds of issues are tearing away at it but that is a fundamental one. you can see it when you take a look at the demography. >> host: tied into that you mentioned another shoot you talk about is technology and the use of technology. >> guest: well as i was saying, i don't think people quite appreciate the depth and the meaning of the information and communication revolution. it has changed the process of governance. it is particularly hard on autocratic governments that have been there a while but in democratic governments people are accustomed to paying attention to what people want but nevertheless it's new. it shortens the distance between the people who are governing and the people being governed. and it is changing. people anywhere can find out

basic information. they can also communicate with each other with cell phones and organize. so we are seeing that all over the place. of course it's been prominent in the middle east that the russians have been struggling with it and the chinese struggle with it. it's a phenomenon that is -- >> host: the final issue, domestic international, the drug war. what should be done about drugs in the u.s.? >> guest: first of all you have to be willing to discuss the issue. it can't be a taboo issue. right? do you agree? are you willing to talk about at? >> host: i'm just listening. >> guest: for a long time nobody would discuss it. we have had the war on drugs and i remember in the nixon

administration we were worried rightfully about the damage that drugs do to an individual and to a society. so i'm very much of the view that we need to figure out how to deal with that problem. there was the idea for a counselor in the white house. one of the things to do would be to fix fix it so drugs are justt here. soviet this program of him in the two of russia ready to camp david and i have a presentation to make so i'm studying my notes. he says to me shultz, don't you realize we just had the biggest drug bust in history? i said congratulations. but we have broken the french connection and that was the problem at the time.

he pulls them off -- -- himself up and he says shultz as long as they're sick big demand for drugs in this country there will be a supply. i looked at him and i said moynihan there is hope for you. this effort to keep drugs out is a complete failure. and the problem of drugs in the united states is relatively great compared to many other like-minded countries. so we ought to at least discuss this and see what other people are doing. i think there's a lot to be said for decriminalizing youth and small-scale possession. that is possession and use. if you do that, you don't get thrown in jail if you go to treatment a treatment center and try to get some help.

you also keep the jails from being full of people who are caught smoking marijuana or something. you throw people in jail and all you do is make criminals out of them. that is where they learned he amazingly. you are you're even getting drugs in jail. so, we should take a different approach, because it's so vitally important to try to persuade people not to take these drugs because they are so bad for them. and it's bad for society. and you can do things. look at what we have done in this country with cigarettes. there are still people who smoke them but much, much less than before because we have had a fact-based campaign, not just advertising but a campaign to persuade people not to smoke. i remember the days when they had the advertisements. i would walk a mile for a camel and a pretty girl sing blow some

my way, the smoke and all those kinds of things. well now, if you see somebody smoking i think they are -- you think there something wrong with him. don't they understand they're killing themselves? the whole atmosphere has changed. that can happen. all kinds of things can be done. we are spending gigantic amounts of money on this war and one of the real souls of that is huge violence in other countries. in mexico over the last five or six years some 50 or 60,000 people have been killed. that is more than our wars in afghanistan and iraq. so, there are huge costs. >> host: mr. secretary -- >> guest: we think it's a mexican problem. where does the money come from? united states. where do the guns come from? the united states of these drug

lords often have better equipment and are better organized than the government. the government seems to be struggling with it. we need to say we have to do something about it. one time in office when i was in office nancy reagan had her just say no program. she went to the united nations. she was invited to give a speech on the subject and i went with her. she said very directly, solutions to this problem start right here with doing something about people taking drugs. it was a beautiful statement she made. >> host: in your book you include a letter from nancy reagan to you. >> guest: yes, well there is also a nice picture of nancy and me at the u.n. consulting. but at any rate, she got a lot of pressure from the drug -- not

to say what she said but just like her husband, if that is what she thought, that was what she was going to say and she did and the impact on the world was just the opposite of what she thought it would be. people responded saying hooray it's so refreshing to hear you understand that. >> host: are you still in touch with mrs. reagan? >> guest: i talked her just the other day and i gave her a port on the thatcher funeral. >> host: two final questions. you mentioned earlier mr. secretary your father. >> guest: i thought you said earlier there were two final questions. >> host: those run issues. these are two final. where were you born and where did you grow up? >> guest: i was born in new york city and my parents moved us to new jersey.

my parents were just wonderful people. my father grew up on a farm in indiana and somehow got himself to a university, the first member of his family to go to college and he was interested in history. he got a scholarship to columbia and got it ph.d. in history and wrote a book with a famous historian. and then he was at to start a school by the new york stock exchange to train people in the ways of stock exchange. he started that school called the new york stock exchange institute and developed it into quite a fine institution. and he would take me in those days people worked on saturday mornings. now nobody works on saturdays anymore. but he would take me into new york when i was a kid and afterwards i know there's a place called the dmv sandwich

shop. i can taste it today. they were the best sandwiches and then we would go to football game at columbia or if there was an interesting lecture or something we would go and he would take me to all of these things. he played catch with me and leslie with baseball and football. it was wonderful. my mother was just a wonderful person. she said very high standards. she had great taste. so i was very fortunate to have loving, talented wonderful parents. i have got pictures of them all around everywhere. >> host: here at the hoover institution at stanford university another former secretary of state is located here, condoleezza rice. what would you think of secretary rice ran for president? ..

>> thank people said why don't you run for the school board? so i did. the voters and their wisdom