>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin russia's ambassador the united nations, vitaly churkin. >> we would encourage russia and the united states work very closely, sergei lavrov and john kerry talking almost everyday on the phone, two dozen meetings, et cetera, et cetera, most on syria. so there are some ingredient which is make us theme it can be a success. but obviously obstacles are enormous and there are some players who don't want to see any settlement at all, who want syria to disintegrate, who want syria to become a hub of international terrorism. so it's -- we are working, trying to overcome tough obstacles. >> rose: we conclude with a conversation about the future of turkey with james jeffrey, dexter fill kins, elmira bayrasli and benjamin harvey. >> erdogan has basically

prosecuted, arrested or otherwise marginalized huge numbers of the turkish elite and that's -- so what's happening now that that the vanguard, the sort of turkish vanguard that has done this led by erdogan is starting to crackup itself and that's basically it's split into two lanes so i think what's so -- what's troubling to me is that turkey has been a very stable place and a democratic place for the last -- erdogan has brought a measure of stability to that country it hasn't seen before and i think that's coming to an end. >> rose: a look at two important countries: russia and turkey. when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> sophisticated filtration of information and manipulation of

public opinion preceded the invasion in iraq. luckily, this time we managed to avoid an international escalation of the syrian conflict. >> rose: vitaly churkin is here. he is russia's ambassador to the united nations. russia's playing an increasingly prominent role on the world stage, along with the united states, it brokered the ongoing geneva 2 conference which aims to tend syrian civil war. the country's also a key player in nuclear negotiations with iran. closer to home, president vladimir putin recently bailed out ukraine's embattled government, a move seen as an attempt to increase moscow's influence. the eyes of the world are on russia as it prepares to host the winter olympics in sochi next month. as concerns mount over terror threats, president obama has offered the kremlin full security assistance. for those reasons, i'm pleased to have vitaly churkin back at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. good to be back. >> rose: let's start first at the g-2 conference. it seems to be a dispute among some people over the objective

of the conference. and certainly what it means for president bashar al-assad. where is russia on this question? >> well, the objective of the skfrns to end the crisis in syria. to end the fighting, to end the killing and for that objective to be attainable, almost a year and a half ago they negotiated the so-called geneva communique. now it's regarded as the basis of the negotiations. but it's a very complex document. the main idea of the document is that the two parties should get together and discuss transition to a future syria where everybody would be comfortable with -- comfort to believe live. all ethnic and religious groups which exist in that country. so this is where we're coming from. as to specific issues, they need to be negotiated between the syrian parties. and this particular matter of the future of president assad is certainly very complex and delicate and a thorny issue.

the government is adamant that they should stay, the opposition is adamant that he should go. i think it's a very wise tactic which lakhdar brahimi is trying to carry through. >> rose: the u.n. -- >> the u.n. representative for the talks in his contacts with the parties which have started today in geneva to try to find common ground on some issues first. maybe those are going to be humanitarian issues, exchange of prisoners, access to areas where humanitarian assistance has not come for a long time. then after they find common ground on some of those issues they will keep discussing other matters, including forming a transitional body with representatives of both sides and then hopefully they will have a clear understanding of where things will go in order to end conflict. >> rose: america said "we see only one opposition, a

transition government borne by mutual consent. that means bashar al-assad will not be part of that that transition government." >> well, this is the understanding of the united states. the first part of the statement, is of course, absolutely accurate because it's a quote from the geneva communique i referred to. the rest of it is not something which is said in the geneva communique about bashar al-assad. that issue was not directly addressed by the geneva communique and obviously there is major difference between the two parties on that matter. so, in order to have a realistic chnce to move things forward, as i say, we believe that we need to tackle matters first where conceivably agreement can be reached between the government and the opposition. >> rose: president assad said in a recent interview that the purpose of the conference should be to discuss ways to fight terrorism and that it's totally unrealistic to think he'd share power with the exiled opposition >> you know, both the government and the opposition groups made some pretty tough opening shots as they were going into that conference. the opposition was saying that the first thing to be done to make sure that assad will go.

the government responded-- including president assad-- by very strong statements to the contrary so this is something i suppose which could have been anticipated. but now the challenge is to try to make sure that they will find things to talk about and to agree on with the mediation of lakhdar brahimi. >> rose: there's also the introduction of these photographs of torture and killing supposedly taken by someone who documented it and then there's some official organizations that says they have verified them. what is -- does your government have a position on this? >> we have no idea, of course. we heard the news and it was rather strange that the announcement was made in a rather precipitous way on the eve of the conference. obviously there was a political agenda behind it trying to create a certain atmosphere for

the conference. maybe even to derail the conference. fortunately that has not happened. but, you know, over the three years of the conflict there's been a lot of manipulation of information and a lot of propaganda, disinformation. so this matter should be first of all very seriously investigated. >> rose: exactly. these very serious allegations. >> absolutely. >> rose: of torture and death. >> that's for sure. >> rose: with these awful photographs. >> these are awful photographs. >> rose: so if they are true. if, in fact, these were crimes against -- committed by the syrian government, what's the conclusion therefore? >> well, we are all in the security council all those countries who are part patrioting in this effort to settle the crisis in syria, we're all -- we all believe there should be no immunity and, in fact, the geneva communique does address that. that when the parties into enter into the political settlement of the crisis that there must be also effort to punish all those who may have been involved in committing that as crimes in the

course of the conflict. it's clear that on both sides some horrific things happened. of course, lately various terrorist groups operating in syria have been particularly notorious in committing mass executions, murder, et cetera, et cetera. >> rose: beheadings. >> so all those things need to be investigated, that's for sure. >> rose: and they're simply unacceptable on the part of anybody involved in the syrian effort >> absolutely. >> rose: and you ought to find the facts and make sure that people -- >> you're absolutely right. no immunity. >> rose: and also whomever might have used gas. >> gas, we have long discussions on the security council. there was a mission put together by the secretary general of the united nations and the last discussion they had was with the security council on december 16 after the final report of this mission and we believe that we proved quite conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt that those were opposition groups that that committed that -- >> rose: on august 21?

>> on august 24? >> and on march 19. >> rose: united states believes conclusively that the syrian weapons -- >> actually, they didn't argue against the argument which is we presented. the united states made the statement without substantiating it by anything. >> rose: you're not saying the united states government does not believe the syrian government did it? are you? >> i think -- well, you have may have read the famous articles by seymour hirsch investigateing this whole thing. i don't know what the united states government believes or not. i know that -- they say that it was the syrian government but they don't give any proof of their allegations. >> rose: but if they say that i would assume they believe it. >> well, you know, it's a complicated world. you know that. it's a complicated world. lately those people who claimed initially that it was the syrian government quite blizbly lost any conviction in that. so let me replete repeat would

prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the opposition did it but that the syrian government could not have done it. on august 21 in particular because simply the few days preceding august 21 they were not mixing sarin. if you don't mix sarin you cannot use it. >> rose: sarin gas. >> sarin gas. it's very volatile substance. so you have to prepare it a few days before you use it. so it was a six-page statement i made on the site of our mission, you can read it and i think it proves quite conclusively that they couldn't have done it. incidentally, on march 19 they were the ones who immediately demanded investigation. and u.k., france, and the united states were the ones who presented that on taking place. the first serious use of chemical weapons. if you look at this entire tragic story, if you believe that it was the syrian government, there's so many contradictions, inexplicable things. if you come to the conclusion

that it was the opposition, everything becomes obvious and clear what actually has happened. red lines. the opposition wanted the red lines to be crossed. >> rose: they ended up that russia stepped forward and said "we can make a deal here, we can get those chemical weapons somehow out of syria." >> yes. >> rose: where are we on that? and that has syrian government done everything it can and has it made the timetable and done all that it can to get the chemical weapons out of syria? >> i think everybody, including the joint mission which we have between the united nations and the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons who are conduct the actual program, they are generally satisfied with the cooperation of the syrian government. the syrian government provided the necessary information. the syrian government put the entire operation in place. the entire international operation is now in place as well. the american vessel on which the actual destruction of chemicals is going to take place is on the way to its location which it has not reached yet. so i think that things are moving ahead.

and -- >> rose: and by what date will all the chemical weapons be moved? >> they are supposed to be destroyed by mid-2014. by july 1 of this year. >> rose: okay, let me go back to the pictures for one second and be clear that i understand because of how firm you are about the gas and there's a basic difference between your government and the united states on that and you and secretary kerry. there is also this: if, in fact, it turns out that those awful crimes of which the photographs represent were committed by the syrian government will that affect your support of the assad government? will you stop supporting them you found out that that government committed those crimes against its people? >> no immunity to those who committed crimes. it needs to be investigated. if those crimes have been committed we need to know who exactly committed those crimes. you know, you mentioned the crimes which were committed by the opposition. somehow it did not deter many countries supporting the opposition. >> rose: no, no, no, that's well

interesting you say that. because it depends on what part -- the opposition has so many faces. >> yes, exactly. >> rose: your government is very upset about part of the opposition, too. on the others you have less concern about, right? i mean, some are much more radical, jihadist. from outside. >> some are terrorists organizations, absolutely. terrorist organizations we are very concerned. that's why we said they should not be invited to the geneva 2 conference and they weren't. but other parts of the opposition we have dealt with, we're prepared to deal with. the man representing the national coalition who came to phenomenon geneva, we're engaging the opposition. we're trying to engage the opposition all along in order to bring the two parties together. >> rose: you are russia's ambassador to the united nations. your secretary general said "we're inviting the iranians." then they took back the invitation. what happened? >> you know, that i believe --

i'm saying it very personally, i think secretary general was misled by some people and they were not necessarily the iranians. >> rose: he might have been iranians? >> the iranians, he was not very happy with the iranians but the iranians were not the only people who may have misled him. >> rose: who are these people? >> well, those who are putting pressure on the secretary general not to invite iran. >> rose: it the united states? >> this is -- i think this is behind us and this is not such a big deal, frankly, because in diplomacy things happen. things happen. so i wouldn't exaggerate it -- >> rose: i'm just asking. >> i wouldn't exaggerate the importance of this episode. what is important is what the secretary general actually his spokesperson said about the participation of iran. it was a very cleverly written statement. it says the secretary general does not expect iran to participate in the one-day event. which means the secretary

general kept open the door for iran's participation in the political process. >> what has to happen for iran to part state do they have to agree to certain conditions of the conference? >> well, that was -- i think the whole thing was completely artificial. completely artificial. because, you know, there is a written invitation the text of which was agreed between the united states, russia and the united nations, a written invitation referring to the geneva communique which the secretary general sent all the participants of the conference. if you accept the invitation, by itchcation you accept the conditions this which are there so iranians were prepared. >> rose: but when when they asked did they accept the conditions they refused to say so. >> no -- >> rose: wait, you're saying it's implied yet when asked if they agreed they said no! >> no, they did not say no. >> rose: they were they said they were prepared to cover those conditions. all other conditions interpret it completely differently from

what is said in the geneva communique but they were not required to swear on blood that they were not going to depart from the geneva communique. that requirement was only made exclusively of iranians. >> rose: secretary kerry suggested they have troops on the ground in syria and therefore. >> the united states was reluctant about iran but i have reason to believe that the iranians need to part nate this process. it's very encouraging in the interview which was shown on television it was indicated that iranians are prepared to participate in this political process which i think serve interested in happening. >> rose: they have a vested interest in what happens. so i want to go to the nuclear negotiations in just a moment. the finance minister of france mr. fabs you said -- >> the foreign minister.

>> rose: sorry, i said the finance minister. if, in fact, this conference fails it will accentuate a crisis. >> which sdmfrns on syria? >> rose: yes. >> well, of course if the conference fails then crisis probably is going to deepen even further. >> rose: they said if it fails it will be a real crisis is exactly what they said. >> you know, i cannot comment on the foreign minister of france but i think there is a real crisis. there is a crisis enough but of course if the conference were to fail we'll have to start looking for some other approach to the entire problem. >> rose: most people-than-or talk to, analysts but not participants believe it will not be successful. do you believe it will be successful and what will have to happen to declare it a success he? >> well, there is a chance, there is a chance. >> rose: a chance? >> i cannot trait chance. the task is very daunting.

it's very daunting. we all agree it will take time, that it will require continued commitment from all those who can contribute positively. we're encouraged that russia and the united states worked very closely. sergei lavrov and john kerry talking almost everyday on the phone, they have like two dozen meetings, et cetera, et cetera, most of them on syria. so there are some ingredients which make us hope that it can be a success but obviously the obstacles are enormous and there are some players who don't want to see this settlement at all. who want syria to disintegrate, who want syria to become the hub of international terrorism. so yeah so it's trying to overcome serious examples. it's a good example which you eluded to briefly is the deal on the nuclear program of iran. the united states and iran has had a history of 40 years of animosity but in a certain --

cooperation progress was made. >> on that agreement -- it's 35 plus 1 which includes russia from the security council and the 1 is germany. so those negotiations have produced this agreement. that means the united states and russia see this exactly same? >> well, you know, we continue to -- all of us, the united states has its own perspective but the important thing is that this mechanism of six has been working very well. they produce joint possession, they were able to talk with the iranians in order to bring those common positions across and to have the iranians accept those common positions and as a result this agreement was concluded in november and now they are going to move ahead to the definitive and final agreement. >> rose: help me understand then. we've had several interesting statements coming out. first of all, president rouhani is at davos and basically reiterated once again that iran does not want nuclear bombs and at the same time reiterated that

iran wants the opportunity to create the peaceful use of nuclear energy, correct? >> exactly. >> rose: mr. zarif, however, says that it is not true that iran has agreed to dismantle centrifuges, has agreed to reduce to 5% the amount of enriched uranium. he said "we never agreed to that." so you're here and you can tell me whether they agree that or not. >> you know, i watched the interview of minister zarif very carefully and i think it's being sensationalized in the united states in a negative way when in fact it was a positive statement. >> rose: how is it sensationalized? >> let me explain. he complained about some terms which are being used by the united states in order to discredit you which are not actually used in the document. but he said at the same time let's not engage in that. let's not engage in that argument. let us implement the agreement to reach. this is what he said. >> rose: but how can you

implement an agreement you've reached if you differ over the agreement you reach? >> no, no, the difference is on both sides, of course. they try to embellish their achievement. so the american officials sometimes use term which is the iranians i understand are not happy about because they're not happy because those terms were included in the agreement. mover there was an expert discussion on how to implement the agreement which was successfully concluded an on january 20 they started implementing on the agreement. so the thing is not to engage the empty discussion and arguments about who is -- because who is going to do what is absolutely clear. now thing is to implement it and then to move on to the second stage of negotiations and to agree on deive ifive the solutions to this problem. >> rose: at what point will they begin to reduce the sanctions? >> it's there are the agreement. they are already reducing some unilateral sanctions. so carefully, carefully described in the agreement many

minuscule detail. so the thing to do is to implement the things which have been agreed and have been reflected in that agreement. >> rose: everything we have talked about this evening there is a difference among the parties as to what the deal is! at every thing! about photographs, about what the agreement says, about what assad has done. >> rose: >> surely. this particular case with iran, well, first of all there is a document i think geneva last november clear enough. and then there is a technical document which was additionally negotiated by experts with the iranians specifying step by step minute by minute centrifuge by centrifuge what exactly they need to do and how. so there's completely -- >> rose: then tell me in your words, are they required to dismantle centrifuges? >> let me put it this way. if the word "dismantle" is not used in the agreement they are not required to dismantle. they are required to diffuse some of the uranium which they

enriched to 20%. everything is in the agreement. so they need to do what is written in the agreement. >> rose: so they do not have it enriched at 20% after this agreement. >> i don't remember the exact terms. but let me reiterate. everything is spelled out in incredible detail. it's actually very rare that agreement of this sort is written inside detail. everything is clear. a road map is there. the parties need to implement it. incidentally, also, there is going to be a special commission between the six and i.a.e.a., and iran and i.a.e.a. which is going to observe the implementation. so it's not something where you rely on the iranians or trusting the iranians. the whole thing is going to be observed by i.a.e.a. and special budget for i.a.e.a. to carry out this task. >> rose: the olympics are going to take place in sochi. are you concerned about security? >> of course. >> rose: and are you open to

america's offer of -- to aist? >> well, first of all i don't think -- i don't know if "assist" is a proper word. we have been cooperating with -- >> rose: cooperation. >> cooperation with american experts on anti-terrorism. there have been extensive discussions. not just the americans. the british have been sharing their experience and others. so i think spokesman of the white house said yesterday or the day before yesterday any major event these days require's serious efforts to ensure there are no terrorist attacks and the olympic games are are an important event. >> rose: you referred to jay carney. and i've been talking about this in the morning for a number of programs. my impression is that the concern has ratcheted up -- of security at these -- and the secureness of the facility and we have some people who are suggesting that they intend to

commit terrorist acts. >> because there are people whop are always intending to commit terrorist acts. in london they put anti-aircraft on the roof. i'm not saying things should be left to chance. and all the measures have taken by russia and including our corporation with others in making sure nothing goes wrong at the sochi olympics. >> one of the people that they had to talk about, dokku umarov, is he arrive if >> there have been reports that he has been killed but that has not been confirmed yet. >> so you take seriously this and you assure those olympians that they will be secure and their families who come to these games will be secure and that the russian government will kooplt with everyone to make sure that happens. >> we have cooperating with everybody, we are taking all effort which is can be taken in order to make that secure

olympics. >> rose: let me talk about edward snowden for a moment. he's in your country. president putin said he's perfectly free to go even to the olympics if that's what he wants to do. what's your understanding of this charge by mike rogers that somehow your government was involved early with him and that there were meetings -- >> it's a fantasy. anybody can have his own might mare or dream, i don't know what the gentleman -- where he's coming from but it's not true. it's simply not true. >> rose: and as far as you know-- and you would know-- mr. snowden did not give anything in terms of the kinds of files that he brought with him to any official in the russian government. >> president putin said that repeatedly, that we're not working with edward snowden. >> rose: but he hasn't given you any of his files. >> for intelligence information,

ask mr. snowden. he's been giving various things to all sorts of people. the media said they published 1% of what they gave him. >> rose: "the guardian" said that. only 1% of what he gave them. >> exactly. so it's a question you should ask him. >> rose: but are you aware of whether he has these documents and secrets with him in russia? >> i have no idea. i don't know. >> rose: i can't imagine that your government wouldn't want to know that. >> i don't know. i don't know. maybe we know enough already. >> rose: one of the big issue for russians, the ukraine. here's the conventional wisdom: the united states -- russia did not want to see ukraine sort of move towards the european union and so therefore it spent a ton of money to rescue its economy and its energy supply in order to prevent that. correct? >> no, not really. no. ukraine, of course, is very

important to us. much more important than to the united states or to european union. it was -- >> rose: because it used to be part of russia? >> because it's a part of our history -- common history which is over 1,000 years history. this is why.>;z>> rose: that's g point. is it your wish and president putin's wish and prime minister medvedev's wish to restore the soviet union? >> (laughs) no, it's not. it's not. we are realists. we believe that economic integration is important in our part of the world, like it's important for other parts of the world, so why not for our part of the world. so we've created this customs union. we think ukraine will benefit if they were to work on integration with russia and the customs union. we believe-- and it's very important to understand that-- that the future anyway is common economic space between the european union and russia and the customs union before things. but we believe that under the current circumstances-- and

we're very clear about that-- we're saying that it's of course the decision which ukraine needs to make on their own. it's their sovereign decision. but this association agreement which was offered by the european union would have catastrophic consequences for the economy of ukraine and that could have negative impact on russian economy because of the way economists are integrated. but it was their sovereign decision to make. at the last moment the ukrainian authorities may too b too late. they realize what they were offered by the european union is something which would bring about collapse of their economy so we changed their mine. as you pointed out correctly, we gave it credit to the ukraine i don't knows. >> rose: most people don't believe they'll ever be able to pay it back. >> well, it's a big country. we hope they will. >> rose: (laughs) i'm sure you do. so here we have russia and the united states.

because of this relationship between mr. lavrov and secretary kerry, minister lavrov and secretary kerry, secretary kerry being very active. mr. lavrov having interest as well. cooperating, does this signal somehow a new era in cooperation between russia and the united states? >> it might be. i hope it will develop into that. >> rose: it that has point? >> i hope so. >> rose: what stands in the way of that have? >> well, we'll still have some different interests. we'll still have things on where we have different attitudes. we still have not nearly enough economic relations that we need to have as two very large economies so there are plenty of things which need to be done. >> rose: what would russia like to see from the united states? more trade. more what else?

more trade and being more serious about taking into account the interests of each other. i think that the europeans have understood in their bid to drag ukraine into this association that they were reckless. they were putting something that was extremely sensitive both for ukraine and russia. i personally do not see that from the united states these days. i think that the united states unfortunately is acting in a very pro havingive the manner with regard to ukraine. >> rose: somehow that? what's provocative about what the united states has done? >> well, in trying to put pressure on the government. basically inciting violent acts -- >> rose: demonstrations in the streets in kiev are because of the united states government? >> no, not because of the united states government, but when the government tries to take measures in order to prevent people from destroying downtown kiev and the united states says riot police should be withdrawn

from downtown kiev, knew could be viewed. like threatening sanctions -- like to place sanctions on government officials or like completely disregarding the acts of those people who are trying to destabilize the situation in ukraine this is a very disconcerting policy. first of all, it's a policy which seems to be regarding very lately the interest of the ukrainian people. >> rose: what is your government's position about gays in russia? >> no discrimination. we do not discriminate anybody. we do not differentiate -- >> rose: but do you have laws that are not enforced? >> we have a law about which there has been a lot of sort of talk banning gay propaganda among minors and pedophilia. >> rose: why do you associate those two things? gay rights and pedophilia? >> those may be different things

but those are things we see in some countries. >> rose: that's what president putin said. >> exactly, yes. so we're worry about this. >> rose: but pedigreal? >> but this is not about gay rights. there is no discrimination in russia. there is no discrimination of gays on any other basis and there is no difference between us and the united states on human rights. we believe that human rights should be -- >> rose: a significant people -- a number of -- i mean, the conventional wisdom is otherwise. as you know, the president has even spoken to this. the president of the united states has -- president obama has spoken to the idea in saying -- and that was one of the reasons he appointed people to lead the delegations as his representative. >> the conventional wisdom in the united states is not often the conventional wisdom. it's very you have been unconventional wisdom. >> rose: so you're saying president obama misunderstands the relations between what president putin believes about gay rights? >> well, i don't know what exactly understanding of president obama is.

but clearly this is an issue can has been inflated artificially for whatever political purposes. >> rose: tell me what's not true that's what i want to know. >> that there is any discrimination of gays in russia. or danger for gays in russia, this is not true. and there are no laws that are unenforced which is a point some people make. >> there are laws. tactually, the question of enforced or not, there are laws against propaganda of unorthodox sexual orientation among minors. there is a law. there is one law which is there on the books. i don't know if it has ever been applied, probably not. but there is such law, yes. which was adopted, i think, last spring by our parliament. but it has not created any discrimination for anybody. >> rose: how do you define "propaganda"? >> you know it when you see it, to remember this famous expression. >> rose: potter stuart about pornography. >> yes.

>> rose: i can't define it but i know it when i see it is what he said. so as you look at things today, russia is excited about this this new -- the olympics. it's said that president putin has invested a lot in it. some see numbers up between $50 and $100 billion. >> well, with we're not spending your money so why are you so worried about it? we have this expression that it's inappropriate to try to count money in other person's pocket. >> rose: (laughs) >> how much money have you spent? how much money have you spent? >> rose: i didn't even ask that! my point was you spent a lot of money because these olympics are important to you. >> we spent a lot of money because we wanted to hold olympic games. every four years there is a winter olympics. >> rose: are you going? >> unfortunately not, too much work in new york. >> rose: thank you for coming. good to see you again. >> thank you, good to see you. >> rose: vitaly churkin is vush that's ambassador to the united nations. back in a moment. stay with us.

>> rose: we focus on turkey. p.m. erdogan's government is being accused of cooperation, several ministers have resigned and the cabinet has been reshuffled. erdogan has called it a coup attempt by the judiciary and it is wisely believed that a reclusive preacher riding in exile in the poconos in pennsylvania. they have joined forces over the last decade as a series of trials reduced the political influence of the military. many accuse the government of using the trials to curb the opposition. joining me from washington, james jeff i have the former u.s. ambassador to turkey and iraq. here in new york, dexter filkins of the "new yorker" magazine. elmira bayrasli is a follow at the world policy institute. from istanbul is benjamin harvey, the bloomberg bureau chief in turkey. i am pleased to have each of them here. ambassador, tell me what you think is happening at the moment in turkey and what does it mean? >> first of all, what we're seeing is as you said a power

struggle between the faction which is part of erdogan's ruling a.k. party and prime minister erdogan himself. many of the other institutions that have had a sort of independent or separate existence in a pluralistic system have been accommodated or otherwise shunted aside by prime minister erdogan. he's got probably a majority of the population behind him and he's doing his best to continue to expand his power which is normal in any democratic system or any other system. the other people feel threatened and they are reacting against this unveil these corruption scandal which is almost certainly more or less correct. they're being exploited politically. >> rose: you've also said the revolution always eats its children. how does that fit in this

context. >> we're in for the end of a struggle that began with erdogan erdogan represents a new wave in turkish politics and they took on -- he represents the middle-class, the lower middle-class, the entrepreneurs, freedom the heartland in turkey and they have been struggling for now more than a decade with the secular elite to has been entrenched in turkish society for more than 80 years that was basically put in power by mustafa kamal, also known as ataturk. and that's been an extraordinary struggle and erdogan has gone after -- has basically prosecuted, arrested or otherwise marginalized huge numbers of the turkish elite. and that's -- so what's

happening now is that the vanguard, the sort of turkish vanguard that has done this led by erdogan is starting to crack up itself and that's basically split into sort of two wings. so i think what's so -- what's troubling to me is that turkey has been a very stable place and a democratic place for the last -- erdogan has brought a measure of stability and economic breath to that country it hasn't seen before and i think that's coming to an end. >> rose: has he changed, is my question, because of power? has power in some way in a sense he's now going to run for president. >> i don't think erdogan has ever changed and i don't think he's ever brought change to turkey. i think we're now seeing the man -- >> rose: he was what he was? >> he's the manifestations of it and the things that made erdogan great are the things that are undoing him right now. >> rose: which is? >> which is he is very mercurial he's very hot tempered and he ends to take this -- he's have a neighborhood in istanbul where

he played soccer and he very much sees himself -- he calls himself a black turk. he -- as dexter pointed out they came up from the heart land in the grass roots that opposed the secular elites and took back turkey for the turkish people and who he calls the black turks. but what he's done is he's done this with this brandishment and he's willing to sacrifice the stability that he has put north turkey for the last 11 years. politically and more importantly economically which is the bigger risk in turkey today. >> rose: put together now some for me, benjamin, some sense of the trials that turkey's been having. what does that mean? >> yes. well, this prosecutor has now been removed from the case which is part of a massive purge of the judiciary and the police,

the numbers up now in the thousands of police officers, prosecutors who have been removed from their posts. but yes as far as the generals being put on trial, the government is now in this very uncomfortable situation where they have backed these trials, they've supported them, they've said that they -- the judiciary is independent and now that the judiciary is going after them they're have to rethey a bit, they the judiciary is corrupted and that they need toe do a massive purge about then a reform of the judiciary. >> i got a chance to look closely at some of these cases about a year and a half ago. i sat in the courtroom and read file after file and what i discovered is that the -- these prosecutions of the elites, of the turkish military, of university rectors of newspaper editors, the owners of televisions, the editors as far

as i can see, it was fabricated, exaggerated, ridiculous in some cases, absolutely preposterous. so these are the means by which erdogan and his government have used to destroy the old guard now what we're seeing is that it's coming back to bite him. the same prosecutors who were turned loose on the military are turning back and going after erdogan. >> rose: and what's the threat toer sfwhan >> i think threat is grave. he came to power with -- by an alliance ifethullah gulen. that's one of the largest and most unknown in the world. it's second toe the muslim brotherhood. it's an islamic order but it's

by and large it's very -- it's very restrained, very moderate. it's also very secretive. >> rose: it also has a lot of schools throughout turkey. >> they have schools throughout the world. >> rose: they have 140 schools here in the united states. >> they have 2,000 schools around the world and it's an extremely powerful organization and very, very secretive and they have -- they built an alliance with erdogan more than ten years ago in order to come to power and that's what's coming apart. that's what we're witnessing right now. >> rose: and they split over what? >> well, a couple of things but i think this is a classic fight over power. this is a knife fight in a phone booth. >> rose: ambassador, add what you think about the conflicts that now the prime minister finds themselves engaged in and how does he emerge out of this? >> as you've already heard, the underlying problem is be it the

military in the old elite be it erdogan and his coalition, be it now ifethullah g ushglen's people within the judiciary and police, all are trying to exploit their positions in society to establish control over the entire society in a system that is not only officially but also in fact democratic. erdogan's claim-- and he just did this in brussels meeting with e.u. leaders-- is that the majority idea of whoever the people elect should call the shots applies to him thus he's going after the police and the judicial figures who have uncovered this corruption scandal which almost certainly does have a lot of evidence behind it. nonetheless it's being politically utilized and exploited by gulen. erdogan needs to become president of a politically more powerful presidency.

that requires a constitutional change and the next year it requires him to win crucial municipal elections in ankara, istanbul and elsewhere. this is a big agenda. he's lost an ally and he's in some trouble, at least to expand his power. >> rose: power rather than change has, in fact, been the defining common denominator as you've gone from decade to decade. >> yes, absolutely. you're seeing the manifestations of that now. the power struggle you're seeing now where erdogan is actually willing to risk the very thing that has kept anymore power and has actually garnered him even more power. erdogan won by 34% of the majority vote in 2007 that went up to 47%. in the last elections in 2011, he won by 49.8%. nearly 50% of the turkish population voted for tayyip erdogan.

i was in a small town in the anatolian heartland and it's part of one of these -- what they call the anatolian tigers. these towns in the middle of the heartland that have really come up and supported entrepreneurs and contributed to turkey's economic gabe gain. in this town which is a very -- it's got an air force base there there's a lot of military presence there. it's very secular. but i was talking to people at the polling stations about who they were going to vote for and i came across one gentleman and he said to me "i'm going to vote for tayyip erdogan." and he said "but it's not because i like tayyip erdogan, it's because i don't like an unstable turkey. and i remember you are the any the 1970s and i remember turkey in the 1980s" and he said "we cannot go back to that again. tayyip erdogan brings stability." what we saw in his reaction to

the park and his reaction again on december 17 when all of these corruption charges came up against shim that he is willing to unstable ties economy of turkey. >> rose: the interest of power. >> in the interest of power he has lobbed all sorts of accusations against something called the interest rate lobby and now people have read into that whether that means -- that he's talking about the jews or talking about the banks, but whatever he's talking about, that is very unsettling to investors who have come into turkey precisely because they believe that erdogan has bought stability into the country. >> rose: and now the opposite is happening. there's also this relationship ambassador with america, with the united states. the president and the prime minister were said to have been a good relationship. and yet now you hear the prime minister occasionally blaming outside forces for some of the turmoil in turkey.

>> that's exactly what's happening and the outside force he picks on the most is the united states. there are several reasons for that in the low standing that america has among turks in general. erdogan can exploit this. he's worked closely with us in the past but i don't think that he's particularly warm towards the united states. it's a transactional relationship. nonetheless, america and turkey had a lot of common interests. erdogan felt we should have been more aggressive in going after the assad regime using military force over the chemical weapons issue and several other points. but nonetheless the united states and turkey share a lot of common interests in the region and it's important we keep this relationship as steady as we can. >> rose: >> i think the ambassador might disagree with me a little on this point but i kneel precisely

for that reason for the last four or five years erdogan kind of got a pass from the united states on these prosecutions that he was doing. >> rose: cracking down on journalistic freedoms. >> there's more jail w jails in turkey than in china and iran and i felt from the white house it generally got a pass. >> rose: where is business now and people who have benefited and promoted the idea of turkey as an emerging economy that has at one time a very healthy growth rate. >> if you look at the markets over the past month you can see the market has been brutal. if you look at any major turkish asset class, bonds or stock market or the currency it's been the worst or one of the worst performing in the world. so it's definitely had an affect there and you have to understand this in the context of turkey being a country that was going to be dispro force natalie

affected by the removal of -- by the tapering of u.s. monetary stimulus. this is a country that ones one of the world's biggest account deficits and so by -- because of that when the u.s. is talking about cutting down stimulus, turkey was always going to be vulnerable to that. so you have this political crisis on top of that and as i said the reaction has been brutal in the markets. >> rose: talk to me if you will about this goal for oil deal and the role of the hawk bank, if i'm saying that correctly. >> yes, it's a state run lender and it was the bank that was authorized to do transactions with oil so basically what happened is the iranian got had an account. turkey would buy oil and gas from iran and it would pay in liras to that account. and then what would flap there is hawk bank would distribute those payments and because they were blocked off from the international financial system from transferring dollars or foreign currencies they would buy physical gold from turkey and ship that back into iran.

what we're seeing now that one of the men at the center of this scandal, especially at the center of the bribery allegations is an iranian who is now in jail. hawk bank's c.e.o. is now in jail and the bank itself had no role in this and so far there's no evidence to say the bank itself is in debt. >> rose: what will be decisive in terms of where turkey goes and what you'll be looking at as an indication. >> well, it's all coming to a head right now. i think the corruption charges and allegations have been made by erdogan's government by and large are pretty credible. and probably if i follow them there's a good chance they'll lead back to erdogan's family. and i time if the prosecutors follow those leads it will get pretty nasty. >> in the longer term there are local elections in march and

this will be the litmus test for erdogan himself. there was a pole that was done just a few weeks ago to that showed that his support has dropped the to 40% from 50% and the c.h.p., the opposition party, the people's republic party, has gained in the polls. if they're able to take the key cities that the ambassador was talking about-- istanbul, ankara bur a-- that is going to be an indication on where erdogan stands and where the a.k.p. needs to go. he is really coming down hard now. he's introduced very draconian internet laws. he's trying to seine store media even more. there was a report today that no one in the media could -- can no longer report on any of the graft or corruption charges any longer. turkey niece for a big roller coaster over the next couple

months. we'll see what happens in march and the culmination will be in august when the presidency is up and turkey will for the first time actually elect their president directly. >> rose: benjamin, what are you looking senate >> i think we watch the economy. i think as elmira said, erdogan and a.k.p. get legitimacy from their sound management of the economy and that seems to be unraveling now and that could have an impact on elections because turks, like people everywhere, vote with their wallets as much as everything else. >> rose: ambassador? >> first of all my three schregs hit the collective nail on the head. two points. on the economy it's important that erdogan and his people understand-- and some do-- that their economic success over the past decade, as benjamin pointed out based upon integration into the international economy, trade to cover their current account losses and the ability to attract capital and to innovate.

that all is based upon stabilities we've talked about but also rule of law and predictability. that's being called into question and as we've just heard that can have an impact. the final thing we need to watch is if erdogan runs into a difficult patch with elections, with the corruption charges, with the economy, how is he going to react? to what degree will he try to seriously change the democratic constitutional system? that's the big question here tonight. >> rose: ambassador, thank you. ambassador james jeffrey in washington, thank you elmira, thank you, dexter, benjamin, thank you very much from istanbul via phone. >> thank you very much. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought to you in part by -- >> the street.com. founded by jim cramer, the street.com is an independent source for stock market analysis. cramer's action alerts plus service is home to his multimillion dollar portfolio. you can learn more at the street.com/nbr. stocks tumble. the dow falls to a 5 week low as china, the global growth engine sputters. is this time start of the correction so many have been calling for? strong quarter. microsoft surprises investors with better than expected results. but is its bread and butter product, windows, going stale? on the front lines, some of the world's biggest drugmakers want to change the way cancer is treated. and they're investing bigmo