good evening from los angeles. i'm tavis smiley, as president trump decides to visit asia, many are worried that he is looking at war because of his boasts and name calling. many fear the u.s. will become involved in a major conflict in the coming years, tonight, a conversation with yale law school professor, oona hathaway, about the possibility for war and peace, and then deepak chopra, with his piece inspired by american immigrants and he will also talk about the stars in his new york times best seller. we're glad you joined us, all of that coming up in just a moment.

♪ ♪ and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. pleased to welcome oona hathaway to this program, she is an international law professor at yale law school, and she

co-authored the book, how we plan war. welcome on the program. >> thank you for having me. >> i want to start at the obvious place, president trump on his way to asia shortly. high expectations, low expectations? what do you make of the trip? >> well, i think that everybody is kind of holding their breath to see what is going to happen. i think many are worried about what might unfold. we're all hoping that there are no missteps. but one never knows with president trump. >> what is there to worry about specifically? >> well, it's a very fragile region, a region where there are a lot of animosities. where is there is historical differences, where the moment of course we have the tensions on the korean peninsula, where it has everybody scared and rightly so. it's a very delicate place and he is not known for being delicate so we're all a little bit concerned on what may happen.

>> what is your read on the way he has -- i don't want to say engaged. but the way he has gone tete a tete with kim jong-un. >> i think he is very dangerous, he seems to think that by being forceful and by sort of blustering with kim jong-un that he can get a better deal as he likes to put it. but the truth is that doesn't really work with kim jong-un. that is playing the game that he wants to play and it actually strengthens him at home as opposed to making him weaker. and it also raises the possibility that there is going to be a miscalculation that something could go wrong. and the more he threatens kim jong-un the more that kim jong-un is going to think that in fact we may carry out those threats and may respond to something that otherwise may seem you know not provocative and i think it just raises the tensions and raises the possibility that we may actually

end up in a conflict with north korea. >> part of diplomacy as you well know is always leaving the person that you're negotiating or in conversation with, always leaving them an off-ramp that allows them to save face. what is that off-ramp that we have left north korea? >> i think you put your finger on the problem, we have not left an off-ramp, ramping up tensions, and we have been kind of increasing the pressure but it's not clear where we want him to go. we haven't given him a place, direction to go that we find acceptable. and i think that is a real problem, because if you don't provide an off-ramp the only possibility is conflict. >> what is the best? i asked you whether you had high expectations or low expectations, your answer is that many of us are worried. what is the best that can come out of this trip if the president just completely blew your mind and made this trip completely worthwhile, what is

the highest expectation? >> yeah, i think the highest expectation is -- our aim is to try to get the chinese on board. we need htheir help to resolve the situation in north korea. we need them to assist in ramping up sanctions against north korea. they're the only ones that can really talk to the north koreans in a way that we just simply can't. so i think that that would be the ideal situation. we get the chinese on board, and more generally that we started the dialogue with china, because them willing to see us as partners rather than nearly as you know engaged in conflict in the region, i mean, really the solution to asia right now is going to have to run at least significantly through china. and so improving that relationship could go a long way. >> given his bluster about china and the way he sort of bashes them here and there, how likely will that happen? >> well, unfortunately, not likely, but we can hope, many of

us started out saying we're quite worried about what will happen. >> to your text, the internationalists, tell me for starter the parallel what they were talking about then, and where we are in the world now. >> i think they were desperately trying to find a way to end war. and in many ways, we are the beneficiaries of the system that they constructed. so they were coming out of world war i, which had killed millions and desperately tried to find a way to stop that from happening again. they got this idea of outlawing war, and then had to construct a situation to make it work. we're in a situation where we're the beneficiaries of a situation they created. the united nations has brought unprecedented decades of peace, the danger is we may put it all at risk, that is what worries

us. >> you say we may be putting all of that at risk. who is the we we're talking about? >> i think we, right now the united states has been backing off of its commitment to international institutions. but we're not the only ones. you see russia, of course, its invasion and seizure of crimea, and china is flexing a muscle in south china sea. so very states that created the modern legal order seem to be losing some faith in it and willingness to back it. and that's really going to be a problem, which could lead us to unraveling of the institutions which could be crucial of sustaining the peace. >> what does your research tell you about why that started to happen. >> well, the initial unraveling started to happen in the old world because people made a decision to change it. and they signed a treaty to out s outlaw war and then had to put all the pieces in place.

right now we're kind of stumbling around, we don't recognize the times, pulling out the thread of the national legal order and that is what the book is trying to do, is saying look, recognize what we have got and recognize what is at stake and recognize how lucky we are to have institutions that have brought so much peace and prosperity and don't put it at risk without understanding what you're doing. and that is what i think we're worried may be happening. >> do you think you have a read of what president trump really thinks of these international organizations, these international laws? i asked as we saw all during the campaign, even after he got elected, he was bashing the u.n. of late at least, when he gave his first u.n. speech to the u.n., he seemed to back off of that hubris just a little bit. but i'm not sure we really have a read on what he thinks about these international organizations. what is your take on it? >> his rhetoric is very

anti-internationalists. and it's very much in opposition to the u.n., kind of resisting international institutions. of course america first, which is not about multi-lateralism. it's about us first. and meanwhile, there have been some indications in his actions that maybe he doesn't really mean it. you know, so we hope that he doesn't really mean it. i mean, he has been working through the u.n. as i said with north korea to put in sanctions against north korea. and that has been a positive step. he backed off the iran deal but he didn't completely collapse it. as some feared he would. so we'll see. i mean, there are some possibility he may be willing to maintain some of these institutions and we certainly hope so. but you know, the signs are not great. >> you are right, he didn't completely implode or you know, explode the iran deal but he did enough damage with his rhetoric. and i raise that only -- well you raised it, but i raised it in part because i'm curious as

to how the world or for that matter how north korea could or should believe any deal we do with them if they see the way we backed off the iran deal. >> well, this is a really big problem, all right, we talked earlier about off ramps, the only off ramp is going to have to look something like the iran deal, it will have to be some kind of deal where we agree to give up some of the sanctions if north korea agrees to give up its nuclear program and allow for inspections and the like. that is what the iran deal looks like. so the more we back off the iran deal the more we start to pull the rug out of this arrangement that we agreed to. the more it makes it hard for anyone to believe we'll stick to a deal like that in the future and the harder it is to find a diplomatic solution to places like north korea. >> i want to ask oona a question as my exit question, when i got this book that came across my desk, the first thing you notice, on the cover, a gorgeous

picture, they're all basically white males. one can assume they pretty much have the same faith tradition, or the same beliefs. i wonder how these internationalists differ, how we navigate the world we're in now when the persons who run the world are not all white males, and don't have the same belief system or the same faith tradition. how does it make things more challenging or more difficult or conversely give us more opportunity to be a new era? a new generation of internationalists? does that make sense? >> yeah, it makes perfect sense. and definitely it was striking to me too, when i look at the cover i thought oh, my god we got a picture of all of these white guys. that was the reality. that was the reality of the situation. there was at that signing ceremony and buried in the picture the japanese relationship. so it was not entirely white, but it was all men. and yeah, it's really notable.

and there were more back then, but we have a much more relationship group of people at the table and i think that is a good thing. i think that is a strength, something we should build on and you know gives me hope to the future. >> the book is called the internationalists, how a radical plan to outlaw war, co-authored by professor oona hathaway, good to have you on the show. >> thank you. up next, deepak chopra, stay with us. >> pleased to welcome deepak chopra back to the program, the author of 85 books is now contributing to the immigration debate, called home, where everybody is welcome, coming off his latest best seller released this year called you are the universe, discovering your cosmic self, and why it matters.

good to have you, deepak chopra. i want to go back to earlier text because pbs viewers of course saw you all around the country when this one came off. why is this a two -- why is there an ongoing debate always about the interception of science and faith and are we becoming any more enlightened about whatever that intersection is? >> we are becoming enlightened, but very slowly, it's taking time but it's happening. so you know the scientists are only concerned with that which we call a physical world. and those who are faith-based are interested in that which we call a spiritual world. spirituality is self-awareness, for lack of a better word. if i ask you what is this? i'm asking. >> a book. >> what is this? >> your hand. >> what is this? >> your watch. >> what is this?

>> your jacket, sweater, yeah. >> so these are human words. for experience, where is the experience happening? if i ask the baby what is this, which i wouldn't, because the baby doesn't have language all it would see is a shape, a color, a taste, a smell. a sound. and then we give words to these experiences and we create the human experience. no animal knows that this is a book. a boy in the white house didn't know that obama was the president. these are human constructs. what science does is create constructs out of experience, for g forgetting that there is a conscience in which the experience happens, so the question is who is looking? what is the nature of the being that is looking? and when we start to combine the two then you have the confluence

of faith and what we call the scientific world view. the scientific world view is a materialistic world view, the spiritualistic world view is conscienceness without which there would be no experience, matter is a sense perception in our being. >> what happens -- i follow all that and i'm surprised that i do, but i do. >> i know you do. >> yeah, i follow it. but what happens when speaking of the intersection of faith and science, what happens when persons who present themselves, who promote themselves as persons of faith continue to deny the science, about any number of things and you know where i'm going with this. what do you do when people who are of faith start to deny the science? >> then we have problems because they deny climate change. they deny ecodestruction,

extinction of species, and then you have a problem because those are facts. but we also must recognize that those facts, climate change, eco-destruction, poisoning our food chain, industrial food production. extinction of species, mechanized debt, atomic bombs, so i think when we have this combination of faith which is different than belief. i think belief is a cover-up for insecurity. if i ask if you believe in electricity, you would say that is a ridiculous question, do you believe in gravity, that is a ridiculous question. faith is something different. faith is stepping into the unknown with an open mind, and stepping into the mysterious of our existence. science has not solved the

mystery of our existence, there was a big bang so what caused it. what happened 10 to the power minus 42 seconds when there were no physical laws to speak of. so you know, science does acknowledge these facts, they talk about evolution, yes, natural selection, random mutations, but could it be the evolution of conscienceness as the evolution of species. i think we need a dialogue right now. otherwise faith-based people are what we call faith-based people and fundamentalists and go to war. and scientists, looking at facts, those that don't acknowledge -- if you look at the universe, most of it is invisible. 70% is dark energy which has no -- we don't know what it is. 30% of the remaining 30%, 26% is dark matter. we don't know what it is because

it's not atomic. of the 4% remaining universe, 99.99% is invisible inter-stellar dust. the visible universe which is just 2 trillion galaxies, according to religious estimates, 706 trillion stars and unaccountable trillions of planets, the visible universe is 0.1% of what is out there the rest is unknown or is invisible. so for science to stay we know what existence is, is extremely arrogant. we need scientists to be humble and exchange their cleverness for bewilderness, and say what we have to recognize as empireical facts and have to look at the realities of the

world. >> as you look at the globe and travel, i say crisis, not just in america but europe as you well know are you finding that people are becoming more faithful, are they experiencing an expiration date on their faith? >> i think they're confused and people are also becoming fearful. so the rise of racism, bigotry, prejudice, extreme nationalism, it's all fear-based, right? by the year 2030, the united states will have more people of color than white people. that is something that people are scared of, if they're the majority. so you know we have in one sense, we have the technologies of the 21st century. but we have the mentality and the psychology of the bronze age. and that is not a good combination. because you know people tried in

the past, it was not with arrows, it was with gun, today you have all of the mechanized debt. the combination is bad, the mid -- midevil technology. >> let me talk about the book, where everybody is welcome. let's talk about the book and the cd. i love the packaging and project. how have you produvessed this assault? >> you know moral out rage, it makes you angry, and then you add to the turbulence. so me and my colleagues here said can we engage in a form of sacred activism. >> i like that term, sacred

activism. i love that term. >> instead of fighting and being a part of the so-called resistance can we shine the light to immigrants who made this country great? all of us are immigrants, including african-americans, but they were not indigenous to this culture, so 99% of the population here is immigrants. they made -- they wrote the constitution. they wrote it. when you have emotional and spiritual bonding you have a great culture. and this is the microcosm of planet earth. i walked through new york city, i walk through los angeles, i walk the planet, i can find india-town, chinatown, braziltown, and on and on, this is what makes this country vibrant. soon it will be a global culture

anyway, it's unstoppable. so we shine the light on people like albert einstein, what was an immigrant, audrey hepburn, an immigrant, and on and on and just to bring the light of what this country is all about. and i'm proud of this country. >> do you think everyone is still welcome? >> well, ultimately they will be. at the moment we are going through a fear-based reactive kind of ecosystem, and our government and our president is not helping. in fact, he is aggravating those situations. and the more he does it, his followers like that. but it's a passing phase. it has to be a passing phase, because it's unstoppable. and by the way, there are no borders anyway. you know, cyber hacking has made that very clear. the russians have made it very

clear that there are no borders in cyber space. there are no borders to this conversation that you and i are having. >> what angers you most about what you are witnessing now, vis a vis politics? >> i wouldn't use that term, anger, i don't know that feeling, honestly i have given up that feeling. but what frustrates me is there are so many people who actually favor bigotry and hatred and prejudice. but also i think in a way we have to thank the presidency. because through his prejudices, or his mindset, he brought out what was there. he -- he has brought out our collective shadow.

we were not that aware of it. you know, but now we see it is something we have to solve. >> i may ask you a question, i take a point that you gave up anger, what did you replace it with? >> well, there is only one thing you can replace it with and that is love and compassion and empathy and joy and peace. >> but anger and righteous indignation, i wouldn't be angry, but can i still be righteous and indignant? >> as long as you are not angry, hostility is having a grievance, resentment, and having a need for vengeance. that creates a risk factor for sudden death. >> well, i don't want that.

no hostility. righteous indignation, if not love. the most recent book from deepak chopra is called "home, where everybody is welcome, inspired by immigrants." his most recent seller, you are the universe, discovering your cosmic self and why it matters. deepak, nice to have you with us, always a pleasure. >> thank you, always a pleasure. >> that is our show tonight, thank you for watching and as always keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. >> hi, i'm tavis smiley, join me next time for a conversation with actress and play right. we'll see you then, that is next time.

and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

♪ -today on "america's test kitchen"... becky shows julia how to make classic strawberry jam, lisa reviews the best tools for canning, and dan shows bridget the secrets to making the best homemade bread and butter pickles. it's all coming up right here on "america's test kitchen." "america's test kitchen" is brought to you by the following -- fisher & paykel. since 1934, fisher & paykel has been designing