>> rose: welcome to the program am we begin this evening with the former deputy secretary of defense ashton carter. >> we are necessary to the solution of many world problems. but we're not sufficient any more. part of that, that doesn't have to do with the diminution in our power relative to others, it has to do with the way the world works. how widespread technology is. how widespread social media are the. the ability of people everywhere to participate more. and that means that our power and our influence are conveyed in a different way. and so when you're looking at a situation we're obviously looking at iraq, afghanistan and so forth, the way you approach them in today as the united states is i think to recognize that we are a necessary but usually not sufficient force

to affect the policy objective we're seeking. >> rose: and we conclude this evening with the minister of tourism from france, fleur pellerin. >> we have great entrepreneurs. even in france. we have great talents. we need to be more proud about that. we need to focus on the promotion of these people because they are the the gold mine of our economy and of our society for the future. so we need to work on the irritants on things that are not all right, which exist as in every other country. >> rose: carter and pellerin when we continuement funding for charl yee rose is provided by the following:.

>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: ashton carter is here, he served as deputy secretary of defense from october 2011 to december 2013. in that role he oversaw an annual budget of more than $600 billion and managed 2.4 million civilian and military personnel.

his academic background may surprise you. he studied medieval history at yale and earned a doctorate in theoretical fisks at oxford where he was a rodes scholar. i'm pleased to him to talk about the pentagon, american defense policy, its middle east and asia as we look to the future. >> welcome. >> thanks. good to be here. >> rose: is surprising that you with your background ended up in national security? wchx. >> i came into it through the physics side. i'm a physicist and there was in the generation older than i a ethos that goes back to the manhattan project. and they said that if you were a physicist and you had that knowledge, that you had some responsibility to advance humankind with your knowledge. so that was a little germ that was planted in my professors and so forth. and that's what got me into the national security business. >> rose: an where do you go

now? >> i am enjoying right now the luxury of sleeping through the night and being with my wife and my dog. and reconnecting with technology, with learning, and with business and things i've done in my previous career. i have a career or two left in me charlie so i'm going to take my time. >> is it a nice time to think about that. >> once in a lifetime. >> to enable that an learn some new things. >> to sit back and reflect a little bit on the world because you know, even, you're the deputy secretary of defense, you may say you have access to all this information and you do. you and the secretary of defense have access to more information than anybody else but it's all in the sphere of defense and national security. and five years is a long time in our world so for me it's wonderful particularly in technology to be catching up on some areas that i just

didn't have time to keep track of when i was in office. >> if the idea of how we fight wars and how we have influence as a world power changing rapidly? >> i think it is. united states in particular i think we're used to a situation in which our voice and our influence on a situation is decisive. and-- . >> rose: and essential. >> always-- i would argue still essential. we are necessary to the solution of many world problems. but we're not sufficient any more. part of that, that doesn't have to do with the diminution in our power relative to others. it has to do with the way the world works am how widespread technology is. how widespread social media are. the ability of people everywhere to participate more. and that means that our power and our influence are conveyed in a different way.

and so when you're looking at a situation obviously looking at iraq today, syria, av dan-- afghanistan and so forth, the way you approach them in today as the united states is i think to recognize that we are a necessary but usually not sufficient force to affect the policy objective we're seeking. and so we have to work with others. and we have to work with other parts of society. we've learned a lot in the last years at war in iraq and afghanistan about working in coalitions, working with civilian populations, working with nongovernmental organizations, working with allies an partners and so forth. >> rose: having served in this administration is there an obama doctrine? >> i obviously can't speak for the obama administration now so i don't want to do that. i think that something that is very important, was very important to me and still is very important to me and i think to the president and the company as a whole is to recognize that we had over

the last decade a necessary and for us in the defense department very almost single minded preoccupation with the wars in iraq and afghanistan and with building our counterterrorism capability after 9/11. and that's all been essential to do. was essential for us in the defense department. now's a time to look up and look around and get out of that foxhole, if you like, and look in at the problems and opportunities that are going to define america's future that takes you to other parts of the world like the asia-pacific. it takes you to new kinds of domains like cyberthat are changing the way force can be applied but also peaceful measures can be applied. and so we are, i think, at a pivotal time strategically speaking for this country. >> rose: but i thought that the idea of the pivot to asia took place several years ago, at least it was

he nunc waited-- enunciated as a guiding principles of this government. >> i agree. and i think that this is a very important principles of the obama presidency. and it is one of those things that i think you need to look at in a-- in a long-term way. about half of the population of the country lives in the asia-pacific. half the population of the world, half the economic activity is there. and and great change os kur, most obviously the arise of china, the military emergence of japan. the essential, a bit slower rise of china and all this is good. and will contribute to the prosperity of americans going forward. but the interesting thing about the asia-pacific region is this, there, it is a region where there are still deep animositis. you see these between the

koreans, the japanese, the chinese and so forth, wounds of world war ii and even the decades before that, not yet healed. no security structure or architecture the way nato acted to heal the wounds of world war ii and at least part of europe after world war ii. and so and yet it has enjoyed decades, now, of peace and stability. which in turn led first to the japanese economic miracle, than the south korean economic miracle then southeast asia and today china and india. all to rise and prosper. that was possible because there was an overall environment of peace and security. and that is not to be taken for granted going forward. i believe and i think that this undergirds some of what was meant by the pivot or rebalance, but i certainly believe that a key

ingredient of that peace and stability which has allowed the asian economic miracle has been the pir otal role, to use the word pivot too much, the pivotal role of american military power in that region. and i think that we need to keep that going in the decades ahead. it's not that i think conflict with china is inevitable, cold war, hot war, that would be very undesirable. but there's enough shift in the power dynamics in that region that we need to make sure that there is a stabilizing force there. and i think our continued presence, not in an overmeaning way but in a way that signifies continuity is important to all our allies and friends and all the countries in the asia pa sick. >> by treaty we're committed to japan. >> to japan, committed to south korea, committed to australia, today committed to thailand also by the oldest treaty of all of those. but it's not just allies there are security partners.

and china which i think in our objective is to have be what used to be called a responsible stakeholder but a partner in guaranteeing security around the world. china now depends more, for example, on middle eastern energy than the united states does. >> since bob zell eck uttered those words have the chinese accepted them and taken notice of them and said we believe in that and so we want to be a responsible stakeholder. >> i think there is some ambivalence. >> rose: why is that? >> because there is a part of chinese friends and i talk to chinese friends an leaders all the time, i'm sure you do too, which says this is a-- we have a good thing going. we have a peaceful climate in which we have been able basically in an unfettered way to develop our society, economically and politically. and that's a good thing.

let's not ruin it. but there's another piece of chinese opinion which harkens back to what they call the century of human-- and the period when they felt like a world system was created despite them, without them. they had no role in its creation. and they want to contest that. again-- . >> rose: contest that number? >> yes. and that's when-- . >> rose: by offering alternative systems. >> yes. and i think there are chinese who talk about their own political economic system as an alternative. >> kind of say capitalism as an alternative economically. >> right. and the if the talks about a new model of superpower relations which can be okay unless it really means a model of superpower relations wherein the united states and china are at odds with one another. or the united states and china make the rules and everybody else, the japanese decreases and everybody else follows the rules. so i think that there are

differences of view in china. and within the minds of individual chinese strategists. and i think the objective of american policy to the extent we can have any influence over that is to make the internationalists and participatory impulses prevail over the grudging and historical tendencies. >> there is the question also of russia now. coming, making this big energy deal with the chinese to supply them with energy. i mean could that be, you know, the beginning of a better relationship between russia an china which would be fearful to us? >> i think it's probably the beginning of a richer economic relationship between the two. i don't know that it will end up being warm politically. and i don't know that it's something that needs to be feared by the united states. but certainly in the economic sphere russia is

going to be looking for new markets for its energy. china is desperate for new sources of energy. but the russians and chinese always have plenty of things that separated them historically as well. >> ukraine, you knew it well. you went there with president clinton. >> i did. i went there many times actually because i was running the nonlugar program at the time which was removing the denuclearization, the consolidation of all the nuclear weapons of the former soviet union back into russia. i went there many times and it was always clear to all of us first that ukraine was itself a mosaic. there was the eastern ukraine which with which long associated with self lynn gistically with russia. western ukraine different. it was clear that russia would always have a problem

adjusting to the collapse of the soviet union. and that what had been the polish question after world war ii would become the ukrainian question as russia, as moscow, western frontier moved back and became ukraine. now you see that i rupt-- erupting in the contest. it was originally between the eu and putin over ukraine. and now seems to be in a situation that one hopes it gets faferped down at this point. what you worry about in a situation like this, charlie as i'm sure you know, is a-- we're one incident away from this flaring up again. a tactical decision taken at a local level, decision by a commander on one side or another to create an a tros

sitness action or response, action or response. >> and if we don't have that i hope that president putin understands that the reputational as well as the economic penalty to russia over the long-term for doing anything drastic in ukraine will not be worth it to russia. one hopes that that. >> one hopes. i mean do you assume he doesn't? >> i don't know what he's -- >> because he has as someone said sort of, you know, because it is often quoted a statement about the worst thing to happen in the 20th century was the fall of the soviet empire. >> yeah, you don't-- he is exceptionally clear about what he is thinking. he says it out loud. i think that what one doesn't know and he may not know is what the long-term-- right now it's popular for him. >> right. >> to keep stirring this pot

it is popular for him in russia. i don't know of the month and years to follow whether the economic isolation if it sticks and the reputational loss which i think is serious and maybe even irreverseable. >> within the world community. >> of putin himself will take a toll and suggest to him that this adventure was illadvised and that further adventures of its kind would be illadvised. one hopes for that. but again we're one incident away from testing. >> but even if that doesn't happen do you ever expect crimea to go back, to be part of ukraine? >> personally i do not, no, expect that to be reversed. i think we're talking about where do we go from here and will there be further encroachments or further instigation of separatism in ukraine. >> based on everything you know what do you think would be an acceptable slootions for putin? >> i think he wants to, i'm guessing now make sure that

ukraine never becomes part of a military bloc. >> rose: move to the middle east and irs is and the forward march and put it in the context of whatever happens in syria and where assad is today and should a whole series of questions. should we have done more? and if we did do more, would it have made a difference in terms of an opposition force to assad that was not so outmanned by, you know, radical extremists? >> i think the hard thing to know about the syrian insurgency right along was what did it-- what composed it. what was its internal composition wz. >> rose: we didn't know. >> i don't think we ever understood exactly-- this was a shifting group of. >> shifting number of different groups with different views, different

beliefs and so forth. i don't think, i at least knew, either that assad would be as ruthless as he proved to be. >> rose: probably in his dna. >> and there were others involved also whose behavior has been not always transparent or predictable. some of the neighbors who have been supporting various factions. there are lots of forces involved in this. and now it has become regionalized still further with the metastasis in iraq where it marries up to yet a different set. >> rose: my question was really if we had done more might it have not-- isis might not have gained the kind of momentum it did to go into iraq? is the connection that strong so that you can argue what happened in syria was a real contribution to what they are doing in iraq? >> i think if the syrian war

hadn't raged out of control for four or five years, clearly an environment in which a group like isis could arm itself and propel itself into western iraq,. >> rose: and train jihadists. >> right would, not have occurred. it's a little trickier to say, i'm just being honest with you, what leverage the united states or any of the other many participates in inn this might have had over that situation given the infrance-- intransagainst of a said, the support for russia of assad and the crazy qirlt nature of the insurgency against him. >> did you support doing more when there was a real move to provide aid two and a half years ago, two years ago? >> i always thought that it was, would be difficult to-- that it was difficult to understand what the

breakdown of the opposition-- was. >> rose: so if you supplied weapons and whaef ever assistance you wouldn't know what would happen to it? >> you needed to know-- i think a better approach for us was and is now to work on the political side with those who surround syria, rather than on the military side simply because the ultimate solution has to be a political one. and the military tool say trickier one. >> rose: should iran be at the able. >> i think iran has its hand in both of these pots, it's undeniable. >> rose: so had has to be part of solution. >> it is part of the situation. >> rose: and the solution. >> yes. >> rose: so bring me to isis and what's going on there and how you see it and what has to be done. because you have certainly enlightened knee in what you have written about this central power power position of tribal leaders in afghanistan and iraq.

>> the here again you have a situation in which the collapse of the iraqi security forces was directly the result of the unwillingness of people in western iraq to believe that the iraqi security forces were there to protect them that were on their side. which in turn was a failure of the government of iraq to truly communicate that it was an evenhanded multiculturally evenhanded government. that was an objective that the united states had obviously had in iraq. and it failed in that objective to the extent that feel in western iraq in this period even as they had back in 2006, 2007, when the u.s. was there in great numbers, people in that part of the country just refused to side

with the iraqi security forces. that is what left the door open for isis to come in. >> but is this a correct understanding? >> i mean some of the people who are now supporting isis are the same kind of people that supported the united states at the seem of the surge. they switched from al qaeda to the united states because they gave up on al qaeda and didn't like the way al qaeda conducted itself and didn't like the ruthlessness of it all. >> and one hopes that something like that occurs again when they-- if they turn against isis and its extreme methods. but there was another thing then and now which is there has to be an attractive force in baghdad that is a government that signifies to them that it's protecting all sects. and all part of the-- all

parts of the country. you need both of those ingredients for them to turn against ice-- isis, that's entirely possible. >> and it's unlikely that maliki could be that part of the government. >> that's what iraqi leaders themselves are saying. >> they're the ones-- they're the ones who are going to have the final voice. >> but was it a failure of intelligence not to know how strong isis had become and how they use their gains so well in terms of how much money they have incorporated by, you know, taking down the banks of places that they capture and once again creating a situation where there was support for them in syria, and that support now extends some of the own network of people who supported al qaeda. >> if that's true. i mean -- >> i think it's undoubtedly true that isis surprised everyone with the rapidity with which they were made to

cause the collapse of the iraqi security forces to the west of iraq. i think that surprised probably isis as well. but it certainly surprised everyone else. but again the underlying cause of that really was the unwillingness of the iraqi security forces to fight and the unwillingness of the population there to support a fight for now at least. against isis. >> rose: and why was the population unwilling to support a fight against isis? >> because they regarded that as a fight for a government that evidently most -- >> was more recept tough them. >> and they thought the maliki government had a-- not only -- but aggressively pursued them. >> exactly. and that more than anything else is the underlying cause of this. >> so what should the united states do other than pursue a diplomatic solution

involving the neighbors and the parties and everybody with an interest. >> i think that's the main thing because there has to be a political solution to this. ideally that would result in a suggest cessful multiethnic government of the territory of iraq, remains. and that is the paramount thing we're to the going to get a military solution to this i think our advisors who were there will give us insight. they'll give us some influence there. but that's the most important benefit of having them there. but it's a political struggle as it is in syria. and i think the main thing is to focus. and again to recognize that the united states policy which is what we're talking about, important as it is, will be influential but it

won't be controlling. it will be-- it's necessary but not sufficient. >> what if there had been 15,000 american troops left behind iraq. would this be happening? >> i don't think that anything anybody might have done in the years past would have been effective had it not been-- had maliki not succeeded in transcending his own sectarian beliefs. what i think maliki has shown is how mired in sectarianism he is. and how hard it is for him to rise above that. and that again is the critical ingredient here. >> rose: do you notice when he accepted the russian planes he basically made a point of saying the united states, he had an order that had not been fulfilled from the united states that is

something you would know about. >> i do know about it. and the issue there was always training the iraqi pilots. i actually met some of the iraqi pilots when they were being trained. i think it has more to do with maliki wanting to spread the explanation for the collapse of the iraqi security forces. >> rose: how much influence does iran have in iraq. >> i think it has a lot. >> rose: because they both -- >> yes. it evidently has a lot. >> rose: and is that to be feared because i mean sal manni is there evidently with lots of militias coming in. in terms of iraqi militias -- >> it depends on what it is used for. if iranian insurance fluence is used to try to create or re-create in iraq a tolerant,

multisectarian or nonsectarian government in the state of iraq then that would be something that was congruent with u.s. interests. if it's going to fan the flames of sectarianism, then obviously that's-- . >> rose: you expect -- we want leaders to tell us which it is. what is the intent of iran? >> i think iran so far has behaved, charlie so far, has behaved in a way that has tended to reinforce maliki's sectarian tendencies. that's been unfortunate. >> rose: you mean up until-- over the years since united states left. >> uh-huh. >> rose: there's also a question that you were interested in which is the use of drones. how do you approach that? >> well, recently and really consistently people have raised the question of whether drones are an appropriate tool in the

counterterrorism toolbox because-- . >> rose: we use them other people will use them? >> that's one of the arguments. i think the thing that i always try to ask myself in those circumstances is first of all, is the objective here which is to strike someone who is attempting to attack the united states, is that necessary to protect the country. and the second thing you need to ask yourself is there any other way to do that. than with a drone. and -- . >> rose: so you should go the other way. >> you have to ask yourself this is a convenient tool. am i doing this as part of a more comprehensive counterterrorism strategy and not as a substitute for a counterterrorism strategy. i think in all the cases i've been familiar with the answer to the first two questions was yes and the answer to the third question was a yes also.

but it's a question well worth asking. it's going to become more insistent because we didn't cause others to get drones but it is going to cause others to get drones over the years so, it matters whether we articulate a set of expectations. >> rose: is that genie out of the bottle, so to speak? >> it certainly is. >> rose: we use drones, other people want them, the technology is there. and so-- the other people were using drones before the united states military was. people were using them for a long time. it's not like they used-- caused others to use them. but yes they will have them. and yes it is, a matter of a matter of interest to the united states and important to the united states that we articulate our own understanding of when their use is appropriate and hope that others will take heed of that.

i think doing the kinds of things, there was a report issued by the simpson center earlier this week. general abezaid-- the use of drones. but i think that the-- the issue of whether you have a comprehensive strategy towards counterterrorism, that's an important backdrop to whether we use this particular tool or special forces or other things that are used in counterterrorism. do you have a wide strategy for doing that. because counterterrorism is something that isn't going to go away. it's going to remain a mission. >> is the threat today bigger than it has ever been and are we looking at another time like 9/11? >> i don't think its-- i think that -- >> even though a bin ladsen

dead as they say. >> right. well there are lots of sources of terrorism around the world. al shabab, various other ones. and i think in the longer, longer sweep of history, charlie, if you stand back you have to conclude that there will always be a problem of the few against the many. there will always be the possibility that small groups or individuals will have access to destructive tools and use them against society for whatever reason. an her ent, idea logical, whatever they have. so people who are in the security business whether law enforcement defense, intelligence or so forth, we're always going have counterterrorism as one of the capables that we're expecting to protect it is not a new idea. >> so it's important to be good at it to be judd icious at it and to have the acceptance of the population

that the steps we're taking to protect them are lawful, appropriate an necessary. >> and that's why i think it's fine to have a debate about drones. >> is the success of isis a real setback for american foreign policy and what it hopes to achieve in iraq? >> well, i think we're going have to see. we're going to have to see what happens there. i think that in the next face we'll see whether iraq can endure as a inclusive state or whether it fractures. obviously the former is very much preferable to the latter. >> rose: those are the two options, they either fracture or -- >> or chaos which is in a sense the worst of the three. >> so chaos is one. >> a fracture on sectarian

lines. and or the preservation of a single, multiethnic state. now i think that that last is by far and away the preferable one for the people of iraq but also for the order in the region generally which is one of the interests the united states has but many neighbors do as well. >> what would a last lecture about the american place notice world and its essential necessities be. >> i would say there is tremendous opportunity in the ideas that have constitutioned the american experiment. and the american role in the world and that to be able to carry them forward to be associated with them is a

privilege of a lifetime. >> rose: but what about this. here with are with all the remark will things we have done. and yet we have a government in washington that is essentially in gridlock. i mean can we just say well that's lem sock-- democracy, tough luck. >> no, no. it is, and that is something that i had to live with every day. and all of us have to live with every day. and that is very important. at the same time i'm an optimist about the united states. i think that the inherent strength of our country, the vibrancy of its innovative capacity, its capitol markets, its political openness, its willingness to ago on its values, all of those things to me are very positive.

and greatly outweigh the fact that every once in a while we make a mistake. we overreach, we argue with one another too much. maybe we're a little overweaning. at the same time i think that we have over the last ten years or so, 15 years since the end of the cold war, i think the united states has done a pretty responsible job of trying to not always perfect but a pretty responsible job of trying to forge a better world than the one we had during the cole war. >> rose: and have done so without trying to be imperialistic. >> that's my-- absolutely. >> rose: do you worry that we might enter into a period of who lost iraq if the thing turns bad as we did after china and the four days we lost china? >> i-- it's lard when you

look at iraq. it's hard for all americans to look forward and not look back. but i think for iraq we need to look forward to what we're trying to achieve there and what, first of all, we're not in control there. we have some influence there. we're not in control there are others who are playing a part in that. and that the objective that's best for the iraqi people and for the region and for the united states is one in which if it's still possible, if it's still possible, charlie, to have an iraq which is inclusive and a government which is successful in winning the allegiance of all of the people within iraq. i hope that that is still achievable but that's the objective. >> do you think we'll see a cyberwar? >> i don't know that we'll

see a sine war per se. but there is no question that cyberwill be part. >> will be a battleground. >> for espionage, for warfare, for competition. it is already. but i think that the most important thing for the united states is the protection of our own networks, our military networks upon which we now depend abjectly. our young people are used to having their devices. and used to operating on the web. and much of our critical infrastructure depends upon the continuing functioning of the internet. so we as a society, other societies as well but we as a society are vulnerable to that kind of attack. we feed to be able to defend ourselves. that's the principal responsibility of government, even as it is to defend the country against other kinds of attacks. it was a major commitment of

mine and responsibility of mine and something that i care a lot about from a technological perspective as well as the national security perspective because our commerce as well as our security depends upon the continuing functioning of the internet. >> did albert einstein influence you, not personally to become a theoretical physicist. was some sense of how one brain can have such influence on humankind, or did you just like it? >> just like the kind of problems. >> you mentioned that i also studied history. >> maybe a little history. >> so that was a right brain left brain kind of thing. i-- enjoyed and still enjoy history because it is the single discipline from its world of learning that most informs action in the world so if you ask world leaders what guides them in making a

decision about a new circumstances that they've just encountered, it is usually implicitly-- well, it's a little like this it's a little like something else that happened in the past. >> on a reference. >> they use that much more than they use political science theory or economic theories. it's what is this like that has happened in the past so history is its default methodology for thinking through the world for most people. so it's very much worth studying. physics was the other side of things because-- it's intellectually very stimulating but it's nice to know how things work. secretary panetta when i worked for him used to say to me you know how everything works around here. it's nice to know why things are the way they are. that's what history teaches you. it's nice to know the way things work. if you know those two things you're a little bit on the road to figuring out what to do next and how to make the world a better place. >> rose: thank you for coming. much success in your new career of what ever it might be.

>> thank you. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. fleur pellerin is here foreign minister for french trade, tourism, she served as-- she is the most prominent face of president francois hollande campaign to stimulate digital economy, she pushed initiatives to bolster start-ups an turn par business into a competitive tech capitol and the architect behind president hollande recent trip to silicon valley in march of this year. i'm pleased to have her here at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you very much, charl c.e.o.. >> rose: first of all tell me your story. >> well, actually i was working as a civil servant in france. i was with a court, which we call the court of auditors, auditing public policies and public bodies. and i was involved in three presidential campaigns. the 2002, 2007 and 200-- 2012. and president hollande during the campaign asked me if i wanted to take part

very officially in the campaign. and if i wanted to be an official member of the team. and i said yes. and then i entered the government. that is basically the story. >> rose: before that how did you end up in france, did your parents come from korea. >> i was korean born, i was adopted when i was six months and rifed in france when a baby. and was raised by french parent, loving parents from a modest background. but who really taught me values sum of as merit, being financially independent and my mother didn't have the chance to study very long so she obviously transferred her ambitions. >> rose: her aspirations. >> to my sister an myself. and so i grew up in a very good environment. and stimulating environment. >> rose: your interest in politics, where did that come from? >> i think it came from the idea of engagement, commitment to society in general. i think there are many ways

to do politics. not only to become a member of government or to be in a political party, if you were an ngo in a way are you doing politics as well. and i was very committed previously before i did the came wayne-- campaign in 2012 i was committed in an association that was promoting diversity in the promotion of diversity in elite media economic elite, business elite and political elite and to try to boost the renewal of elites in france. the subject that we were mentioning a bit earlier. and this commitment was very political from my point of view because even though it was not a political ngo, not the right or left, ngo, but for me it is very important conviction in the way that you can make the society progress and make it a better place for the people, the citizens, the fellow citizens. >> rose: you also want to see france assume a significant place within the

digital revolution and you want france to bring, become a magnet for capitol and innovative companies. how are you doing on that. and it was-- dow approach this with some sense of real concern? >> i am not concerned about french people, french young people trying and taking initiatives or building companies elsewhere in the world. because i think we live in an open economy. and i think it's a chance for french students of french talents to be able to grow to see how it looks like to try, to fell, to try again and not only in france but i think is something that in the sense of history. something that we need to be very fine with. my concern would be that all these people never want to come back to france. i mean some of them might want to live their life, their whole life abroad. and that's fine.

but i want to give them the impression that whenever they want to come back to france, we will find the right environment to develop the business v a balanced life, a nice life. france is a very nice country. >> do you think there is an impression that france is not necessarily, that it is a heavily state centered economy and not necessarily responsive to entrepreneurship and innovation. >> of course there are some adjustments to undergo. but i think we must see the future and the change as an opportunity. and we need to change our probably our philosophy. we need to be more offensive, more perfect about ourselves. we need more self-esteem. i think that is great-- it is something i learned in the past three years. we have great entrepreneurs, even in france. we have great talents. we need to be more proud about that. we need to focus on the promotion of these people because they are the gold mine of our economy and of

our society for the future. so we need to work on the irritants, on things that are not all right which exist as in every other country. but we need to do more to regain our self-esteem. >> so what is your plan to do more and be more. >> we have many small businesses in france. they don't manage to-- they don't succeed to grow and to expand in france. usually they go and they seek for equity in other places so, we need to find the way to build a strong venture capital industry in france. i was working a lot on that and we created new instruments so companies can find the means to finance the growth in france. and i worked on the spirit also. i was mentioning the fact that we should fail and try again, we don't have that spirit in france because we're so afraid of failure that we prefer not to try because we are too afraid to fail soichlt was trying to explain that through fail conference, through creating small programs in schools to

give the students, the young pip ils the taste of initiative, of taking risks. >> what was the result of the visit of the president to silicon valley? >> i think it was twofold. the first one was symbolic. obviously it was very important that a french president came to silicon valley and the first time since its '80s. the last time was hitter and in the '80s. so it was symbolic for him because usually the french president goes to washington, sometimes to new york, whenever there is something to do with international organization. but the only when you choose to go to san francisco was in itself a very important message it meant that france wants to be a landmark in the innovation and in the knowledge economy. and is one so that was the first one. the second one is that we create piece by piece we create bridges between the states and france. and between the ecosystems, french entrepreneurs, french

start-ups, american entrepreneurs, american-- . >> rose: to listen you gives me the indication that if you weren't in politics that you might like to be an entrepreneur. >> actually, you know sometimes in politics we are bit like an entrepreneur because you have a goal, you have an objective. you have indicated a performance and then you go. you try. you fail, you try again. and it's true that today i think people expect from politicians a different way to do politics. and i think the recent events in europe would give year mean elections where you see far right coming quite high. >> and to find new ways for government and the private sector to work together. >> absolutesly. i think really people expect something different. so not the old ways to do politics. and you know when i was working with the innovation i did something. i wanted to create a sort of road map foreign couraging innovation, financing innovation et cetera. and i gathered all the actors, private, public and

we sat at the table and decided we built together a dozen measures that we implemented afterwards. and the fact that we were discussing and elaborating a policy as private actors was quite new actually. there is always lobbies that come and have some requests to the government but the fact that we sat at the table and it was very official process. and we codecided what was going to be implemented for innovation it was very new and people were very happy about this way to work. so really i think things are changing now the way we do politics, we take political systems, the decision making process has to be more modern today and involve more the public and private actors. >> rose: mark an creasean is one of the top venture capitalists in silicon valley and a friend of mine and of this show said about you more modern than i expected from a french

politician. >> yeah, i meet him actually, twice in the silicon valley and in paris. and you see, this sentence is the proof that we need to find-- fight some cliche because france is changing. we have a great and vibrant ecosystem of great entrepreneurs, not only in the tech sectors. and mark told me that, you know, when we talked in the silicon valley it was a year ago. he told me well, i didn't expect a french politician to be able to be business friendly, to understand the concerns of businesses. and i said well-- . >> rose: if you ask what does the new france look like, you're looking at it. >> yeah, i think so. >> rose: give me a snapshot of where you think the french economy is today? >> well, i think it's on the slow recovery. we have indicators that show that things are getting better because the economic environment internationally is becoming better, in the

euro zone recoveries there. but we still have a lot of work to do in terms of structure reforms. i think we've done a lot for the past two years. i think it's very difficult because the political cycle five years is very short cycle to see the results of structural policies. >> rose: do you think that the act of governing has changed president hollande ideas about what's best for an economy? >> no, i think it's very consistent in his choices. but now you can be consistent in your choices and then have the reality which is very difficult. because i can't deny that france is in a crisis. it has been since the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. so we are slowly recovering from this crisis. and even though we have a very clear view of implementing what we should implement as structural

reforms, sometimes we need to take more time because the society cannot absorb all the reforms at once. so i think president hollande didn't change his views on this political direction, economic, in terms of macroeconomic policy. but sometimes the reason of reforms need to be adjusted to the reality and that's what is whatting now. >> rose: and the reality is too much public debt? >> too much public debt. so that's something we need-- we have said, you know, we have stated and repeated it during the presidential campaign. we said we cannot go on with these deficits and the level of debt that we have. it was 900 billion your ows in 2002. when we came into power in 2012 it was dpoubled. so 1,800 euros so doubled in ten years. so it was impossible to go and-- we spend more on interest in reimbursing the interest of the debt than on education. and that's why we committed to make 50 billion euro

spending cuts in the coming years which is a very huge effort. >> rose: its' very timely to have you here because of general electric. >> yeah. >> rose: what do you think of that deal. >> i think it's a good example of how we can cooperate with american partners. we have many others, actually. but it must not be seen as france trying to block anything. we had the president came to the united states and he repeatedly said that we can create great partnerships between france and the united states. we had the occasion when we commemorated the war, by the beginning of june in normandy also to reaffirm our will to have this strong partnership with the united states. which is historical. but now it's becoming economic and diplomatic. but we have a strong-- we have very strong ties with the americans. and we can work out good

solutions, even in industry to reinforce this partnership. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you very much. >> rose: pleasure to you have here. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us, see you next time.

>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company supporting this program since 2002. naern express, and charles schwab. additional funding provided

>> live from the united states capital, it's the national independence day celebration. join the millions of people watching at home and the hundreds of thousands here on the west lawn of the united states capitol as america celebrates its 237th birthday! it's "a capitol fourth." tonight, we welcome the following stars. a legendary singer song writer and musician who has sold over 80 million records, barry manilow, 10-time grammy winner and five-time academy award winner, john williams. joining in that salute from the sound track of the movie "lincoln" trumpet p