grandmothers with bound feet. and they remember their father who might have died the cultural revolution or something. and they have a job and they have a car and all that. so life has been getting better for most people. >> rose: and we contue with ambassador shankar bajpai on india. >> the fact of the matter is that both countries and in fact almost every country in the world is so heavily preoccupied with domestic and other problems, that it's almost impossible to get the kind of momentum that we had hoped this relationship was speaking of. after the nuclear deal, when the great deal of high expectation was aroused in both countries, things started to-- a distracted by other issues, so we felt that it was important to try and focus on what really matters to both countries, why it matters, and what they can do about it. >> rose: we conclude with iran and part two of our conversation with mahmoud ahmadinejad. >> we wish to have to enjoy good relationship with everyone, with all countries.

why would we enjoy bad relations between countries. iran is a country that has a great civilization. and for thousands of years iran conducted itself properly in the international arena. >> rose: china, india, iran when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following:

>> rose: additional funding provided by these funders: and by bloomberg a provider of multimedia news captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> jim fallows is here, he is a national correspondent for the atlantic magazine. he is a veteran observer of china and many other places. he has a piece in the atlantic magazine t is called arab spring, chinese winter it explores a counist party harsh political crackdown following the arab uprising. i'm pleased to have jim

fallows back at this table. welcome. pleasure to see you. >> thank you wz we justed talk about this where your wife has a new book out called mandarin lessons in life, love and language. >> dreaming in chinese. >> rose: the big title right there. she spes chinese. >> yeah. >> rose: and you read it. >> i can read more or less. so deb fallows, we have been married a very long time. she's a linguist, a ph.d in ling business fix. dure our time in china she pent her time learning chinese. i wrote a book about what you learn about a country about getting into the language. >> rose: its lot about the instinct of the culture. >> yes. i think it's a way to approach the lively humanity of china which doesn't come across that easily through news media reports which is the beijing olympic or oppression, but it is the quickness of the people that she and i in our different ways tried to get in touch with. >> rose: what is the essential different between chinese attitude and japanese attitude. >> that is something we

debated a million time. i uld say japan is one extremely well organized tribe. i used to think of it climbing inside a finely made swiss watch where the ges were all machined to such perfection they always meshed and there was no room for you. whereas china is this great big prauling nest and that's its problem a also its charm. that every place you go there is a little tribe of people doing something that is interesting. so it is areat big carnival of people. >> rose: so which isore interesting? >> they're bh interesting. china is more fun from my perspective. >> rose: but is it more-- is china more interesting because it is on such-- it is at an-- as well as on the precipice of great power. >> sure. and the scale as much, they have ten times as many people as the japanese people. >> rose: which is the key. >> yes, so they have only recently overtaken the japanese economy in size which is a size of how much richer japan still is. >> rose: u.s. first, china second, japan third. >> they were second still with even as ten teams as many people in china. but the scale of china is

what gives its power but also, there a famous saying that stuck with me, that says outside china you think everything about our country as being multiplied by 1.3 billion. we think of everything as being divided by 1.3 billion. you know, the land, the opportunity, the space and everything else. >> rose: here is the first paragraph, something bigs happening in china and it started soon after the onset of the arab spring demonstrations and regime changes in tunesia and tn in egypt. the most serious and wide spread wave of oppression since the tiananmen square crackdowns 22 yea ago, of course worse than tiananmen square does not mean as bad as tiananmen scare as the government has taken pains to ensure there have been no coordinated nationwide protests so far and troops om t people's army have not played the major re they did then in containing dissent, itead manily left to regar place, on and on. why are theydoing this? >> well, that is the question. i try to exam that in this

article. the background after living in china for a number of years were back for a few months during the time of the arab spring. and as the uprising started in egypt and elsewhere, suddenly in china the reaction was to clamp down in a society that seems objectively so different from the arab economies. the now, the economy is china is a huge success. there is not a big army of unemployed young people. because not that many young people with the one child poli. why was the government doing these things. one other fact i think is important, if you take these pew study and other measures with satisfaction wit government, china is usually at the top. people think things are going the right way. so why did this crackdown begin. >> rose: because it is compared to the way it used to be. >> right, almost everybody's faly is things are better than they were ten years ago, way better than 20 years ago, and unrecognizeably better than 30 or 40 years ago when people were starving and all that. so why was the government acting so nervous. the two main schools of thought are,umber one, the government knows more than the rest of us do. they know how deep tensions

are. they know the dissatisfaction,hey know that the ethnic riots and all the rest. the other hypothesis is the vernment foes less than the rest of us. they should be more confident but just by reflex they have this paranoia. those are the two schools. and no one knows right now. >> rose: and what is your hunch. >> my hunch is the government is by reflex being paranoid. that they-- there are huge tensions there, there are, the environment is just a catastrophe and people are protesting about that every place. there's real cynicism about a corruption at the public level. this high speed railroad crash a month ago really had a kind of hurricane katrina type effect. so all those things-- . >> rose: that slowed down the project. >> slowed down the project and it had this kind of crystallizing effect of saying-- it was sort of just the gem of what the government could do. every foreign journalist who went there said oh, the chinese can build these things and we can't. it's been shown to be unsafe in its construction. there was fair rotism in

sort who was rescued and when, the story was covered up and you had the sense of a rippling through the who society of this being a symbol of what people were discontented about. >> rose: is there any evidence that the next generation of leadersp is different? or as se have said to me nonot that much. you've got to wait for the generation after this generation. >> yea i think'm more in that latter camp. certainly there are different personalities and it matte that the current leaders a that they were different from the predecessors. they are more engineers, these current ones. they were trained in the poorer parts of the country. and so in the next generation, presubly lead by ting, they are different, more of a coastal heritage, whether that will matter to us, nobody has made a convincing case to me that the people are more important than the system. the system now still seems more powerful than these new characters. >> rose: what about this notion that it goes too far. i mean the paranoia.

>> right. >> rose: why would you-- prism your most famous-- imprison your most famous artist. >> pose you were in charge of pr for china. transport you to beijing and they will give you carte blanche. the first thing you would do is to have them-- . >> rose: not in charge of pr. >> just have them release basically everybody in jail now. >> rose: right. >> what they did with the nobel prize when he won the nobel peace prize. >> rose: even a better case. >> they essentially documented after his selection,ll the reasons why he was chosen. they locked him up. they wouldn't let his wife or family go to the ceremony, cut off diplomatic relation with think country that did go the ceremony as opposed to just saying it is a big tentyo know, whoos who you want, we are going to try to run things our way. so there is a reflective thin-skinned own worst enemy immaturity to a lot of the leadership that showup in these ways. >> rose: they want to protect emselves, th want to be a global power, ey want to have a navy that extends their reach.

but they're no imperialist or they are not product letizers for their way of life or philosophy or confucius or anything else. >> i think the main dissenters to that view are people in tibet, that are the periphery of china. >> rose: but that is power. >> yes, it's power and it is their sense of manifest destiny. if you ask anybody in china, tibet has always been part of china, et cetera, et cetera. so from their perspective that is territorial wholeness. but when it comes to you know, having some gospel for the rest of the world, that really is not part of the history of china or much of what you see now, and i think partly because most people in china would say what are you crazy, look around, we still have 500 million peasants. we'll deal with them and the rest of the world later. >> rose: and yet the largest entry into the middle class in the history of civilization. >> right, it's true. and i think that that is something that is so dramatic to see. you go to these factories in southern china, the factories where 100,000 people work, 250,000, which i have seen, they are credible. and you seehis transformation. you also see who is left,

those in the countryside who still haven't made that leap. >> rose: when you ask chinese what do they say? >> i think-- . >> rose: they say it's a die cot me. >> the combination of the complexity we would have now about american politicsment i personally don't like much about american polits right now. t i'm a very loyal american and i have faith in america. i think most peoplen china can give you a million complaints about things they don't like, and yet in their own family's life, they remeer their grandmothers with boundfeet, and they remember their father who might have died in the cultural rev luig-- revolution or somethingment and they have a job and they have car and all that. so life has been getting better for most people. so i think most people think the system is working. >> rose: this idea of not respecting copyright. >> uh-huh. >> rose: is that changing in. >> it is changing really, really slowly. i had the experience once 25 yes ago i went to give a lecture in front of the chinese general military staff. and they gave me this nice leather bound copy of a book i had written. and of course i never had rights assigned to china. it was translated into

chinese by the general staff and the pirate video stores closed down only when there is a u.s. trade mission in town. the rest of the time they are wide open. so it will be a long time. an when chinese companies start looking for copyright protection in pharmaceuticals and other ings, then it will happen. >> rose: what do they ask you? what are they curious about because you are a known americanournalist. >> somethinghat's charming about china in general, i think, is they really don't care that much what you think about. >> rose: about them. >> about them. they are sort of more interested in themselves. >> rose: wait, wait, they are not interested in you and what you think about where you come from or they are not interested in wt you think of them. >> both. i think more the latter. i will give new illustration. there was a seminar in beijing i was at about u.s.-china tensions and people were trying to talk about the dierences it between the u.s. and chinese and the on time ere was any real energy in the room was when a guy from beijing said yeah, the americans ar a pain but what i really hate is pele from shanghai and sort of got an ternal-- that is what

ally engages them. >> rose: tell me about that. was in shanghai and when i was there in the last six months or so, when i was there, they said you got to go to beijing, they said everything is moving to beijing. i said didn't you have an expo to tell you how great shanghai was they said yes, but everything is moving to beijing. >> i think there is a sense of beijing becoming the real capitol of the nation. the universities are there, all the bigovernment institutions. shanghai, werners love more as a city. beijing is like living in a giant airport. the roads are all 100 lanes wide. >> rose: shanghai has the rivers. >> and these old european architecture. so there is a lot, i like almost every city in china. they are all horrible and yet they are all fascinating. >> rose: h often will you go back? >> as often as i can. >> rose: me too. >> i hope at least twice a year. >> rose: really. >> yea >> rose: in search of just change. >> yes because every time, my wife and i went to ef pre-- ery province but one and every time we got off the plane or train we can believe what we saw. going to new places and see what is changing and meet new friends and old friends.

an interesting place. >> rose: they liked george bush, his foreign policy. >> true. >> rose: what did they like. >> mao had a maxism saying go with the republicans they are predictable. they feel the republicans will give them less of hard time. thdemocrats are more of a handful. bill clinton talking about the butcrs of beijing, the democrats give more a hard time on human rights and trade. >> rose: it's just that, human rights and trade. >> yes. with the republicans it's sort of a strategic link. on the other hand i think they recognize that essentially all american presidents have the same policy, which is disagrees but engaging with them. >> rose: are they optimistic about theiruture? >> i would say yes. i any compared with us, compared with the u.s. they are way poorer and things are much worse. but people feel life is moving in the right direction. i think that exact question is one that is very, oppressing here because the median income has been going down in the u.s. and going way up in china. so i tnk people feel the direction of events is positive there. >> rose: so they clearly know they will have the largest economy in 25 years.

>> yes. but they only have tget one quarter as rich as us per capita for that to happen. >> rose: right. >> soon they will have more billionaires than the u.s. because the top is rising so quickly there. and that is a real source of tension. >> rose: and corruption. >> corruption, yes. i think not corruption, at the retail level. to do business with government clerks or whatever it is not really corruption compared with indonesia or some other places. but the milies of the communist leaders are all very, very reach. and after this high speed rail crash, there were all sorts of investigations o where theontracts had gone. sot's old style, infrastructure contract style corruption. >> rose: i'm always amazed by stories read where somebody has been arrested for corruption. >> they oot them. and unless it chang recently they make the faly pay for the blet. as sort of carlic justice or car mick tying of the most. so it's very quick arrest and then delivery of justice. and the food and drug administration chairman

there famously three or four years ago was shot after some food scandal. so the question is, how many people do they catch and punish compared to t whole sea of people who are doing the same things. that is a source of some real tension in china. rose: tell me what the other tension is, urban rural. >> it is a big one. and not so of the fact, well, you see things like this example, two or three months ago in beijing i saw a person in the gold coloured bentley almost push off the road a guy who was pulling an ox cart with his shoulders. is this kind of dekeynesian extreme. the since of unfairness of how the rurals work. that people recognize there are rich a poor extremes but if you think more and more that it is the families of the government leaders who are having the opportunities, there was almost a riot about a year ago when at a provincial university, a rich girl was delivered for her first day of campus by her father's helicopter. it was seen somehow as just rubbing it, in there is a gilded age of extreme and

also i would say pollution. pollution is a more important problem than people outside china recognize. >> rose: and what did the olympicso thr them. >> the olympics was a real sign of national achievement. that it was mething that it really mattered to china, that it turn out well on the world scene and it did. and i think here's one free advertisement. i get which is it is really important, i think, for us not to disrespect china that brings out the worst in them. so it is good to have the olympics succeed. it doesn't make them masters of the universe but it is one more step towards national development. >> rose: i know a lot of businesspeople who believe the following. if china develops its own internalconsumption, switching from an export economy to a consuming economy, to a domestic demand economy. >> yeah. >> rose: and they allow american companies to serve that demand. >> uh-huh. >> rose: allow, a big if. >> yeah. >> rose: it's bonanza time. >> yes. i would agree with that. there is the caveat that for 150 years foreigners have been dreaming you have of the china market and can

only sell a shoe to every person in china you would be making a billion ses. >> rose: right. >> but i think it is true that leaders in country recognize this switch has to occur. their economy is too imbalanced, to reliant on exports. and they have been diantling some of the barriers to outside companies. and it's less structurally isolationist i think than japan was at the comparable time. it was hard for foreign mpanies to invest in japan. foreign companies are all over china. so i think it's ssible that this can remediate to balance. >> rose: and dow believe and do they believe that there will be an indexorable change in their political system, because of the absorption of new ideas and new companies and all of it. >> this is a very interesting and delicate question, as you can think. i changed my mind in this way. i think most of us from the outside think that dem october-- democracy and liberty are similar things. one will come with the other. i think there's tremendous demand among chinese people for liberties. being able to move, being able to speak, being able to read. i think there's less demand

for democracy. especially as they look at the spectacle in the u.s. right now and say our system is so-- . >> rose: which leads me to another question. it is said that after the economic collapse in 2008 that they lost some respect for the u.s. economic engine. >> i would say y, but. i think at the average person's level they still cognize the u.s. as a big rich country andhina as a big poor cntry. i think at the official level there was certainly for a year and a half after thelayman collapse, there was a real bragdocio with the officials and you saw it with the overreach in the south china sea and making enemies with everybody else in asia. i think now there more of a confidence as opposed to we're number one type mentality . >> rose: they want to suck everything out of you that you know. they want to get everything you know. there is a sense that we know, we want to be best. we want to find out what you know and build on what we know and therefore we would be better than you. because we'llve both. >> yes. i think-- . >> rose: so when you go there, people like bill

gates tell me, they can't get enough of-- they can't get enough questions of him. in china bill gates is their lindsay lohan. in america lindsay lohan is our lindsey lohan. the idea was that bill gates is a legitimate hero to the chinese. >> yes. >> rose: whereas here, -- >> i do remember a man name named-- li who worked for gates at microsoft and headed google's microsoft. hi moment in china where i saw his face on the side of buses, in om provincial townment so he has a how to do it show, as if bill gates had such a show here. there is that curiosity. to me it is mitigated by just the sort of genuine hun humor and color and i think there's a real sense of humor among most people in china that is not easily perceived. >> rose: but i mean the fact is that they have created their commerce rules so tt they can, in fact, learn. the erican companies care most about the fact that they can make a deal, but at

the end of that deal when the ten areas are up, the chinese companies will have taken their technology. and they insist on having access to it in order to do business. >> sure, right. and that is a real dilemma for companies doing business there. i think the oneshat survive probably use the intel model. thathey will show the chinese what they are doing now, and intel can survive by working on the nex thing. >> rose: right. >> so they have to run to stay alive. which i guess they have to do anyway. >> rose: okay, two things, one deborah fallows bk, dreaming in chinese, mandarin lessons in life, love and language, having said that for mrs. fallows, this piece in the atlantic called china's crackdown by james fallows, thank you. >> pie pleasure, thank you. >> rose: we turn now to the u. relationship with india. the council on foreign relations and the aspen institute india has released a new report about the shared interest tween the twcountries. joining me now one of the studies authors k shankar

bajpai, he has served in many diplomatic positions including india's ambassador to pakistan, china and the united states. i'm pleased to have him at thisable. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: tell me who made up this-- the commission that wrote this and what it says. >> well, we have eight extraordinary, distinguished americans with a wide experience of ruing your country's affairs. >> rose: right. >> and we had nine indian counterparts, perhaps not so distinguished but also experienced. and we thought that it was time for the two sides to try and figure out how to make t slow-- of the partrship that heen declared by both leaders in both countries to be a common strategic partnership, but how make it more than a slow go. what are the realities of this commonality and where it is it that we differ. and how can we make this a

meaningful relationship. >> rose: do you think that the government in power today on both sides want a better relationship? >> oh, i'm convinced of that. that's been happening, frankly, for the last couple of decades after a long period of neglect. but the fact of the matter is that both countries, and in fact almost every country in the world, is so heavily preoccupied with domestic and other problems that it's almost impossible to get the kind of momentum that we had hoped this lipp was thinking of. after the newer clear deal, when a great deal of high expectation was aroused in both countries, things started to be distracted by her issues. so we felt that it was important to try and focus on what really matters to both countries, why it matters, and what they can do about it. >> rose: so tell me what really matters and why it matters and w you focus it. >> i think if you look at the world's strategic problems today the ones for

india are the security of the rsian gulf, the stability of central aa, managing the power equations of east asia which is not just a euphe miss am for the rise of china which has a global phenomenon, but i'm talking regionalistic, plus a whole range of issues in the indian ocean from tsunamies and piracy to helping the small islands maintain their independence and keeping the sea lanes open, and serity. on all these issues which are of vital concern to the united states, the united-- are top priority for indialso. so we have these areas and that does not mean we will not disree, over how to achieve those objectives, but at least it's important that we discuss both the commonality aspect and what are the differences tt prevent us from working together. >> rose: one of the chinese fears is, including henry

kissinger has spoken abou it, is they think that some element of the american power structure are opposed to their role in the regio and their growth around on the global front. >> yes. >> rose: that you have to make an effort to-- on the other hand there is the question of america's desire and intent and announced and ambition to continue to play a role in the region. do the chinese object to that? >> it's not very clear what the chinese role is going to be. its immense rise of power has manifested itself fully in a global condition. it has started to show its interest in having its way and inn its own region but that is what a really great power does. >> rose: sea lanes and things like that. >> but the real problem is, is china going to use this great power to try and

develop new world order based on international law and multilateral cooperation or are they going to see an assertive claim to its own rights and interests. i think the jury on that is still out and it remains to be seen. and until that happens, other countries have to watch for both the hopeful and the worrying aspectsf chinese behavior. >> rose: what is the biggest obstle to a better relationship. >> well, frankly, it was an oldrelationship darkened by misunderstandings and lack of contents. that is what has really brought about the support of the possibili of the kind of cooperation we're talking about. first of all that india having grown 88 to 89% is now recognized to be a power of some considerable consequence. and the american view of india has become both more widespread and more positive from years weere not exactly very popular in this

couny. but the people of india in america are respected, they have a very good contribution. i think most of the old, i say, suspicions of india as being an agent of the soviet union, and all that is now gone with the cold war. and more than that i think the concept of india which was highly, i say, based on a-- with each other because when you had anything about each other, i rember when i came to school here, for instance, and i was introduced to my class as a hindu and asked the class do you know what a ndu is. and one lad in the back raised his finger. is it related hinda vasa who was then the burr lessing queen-- so you had complete ignorance of these things. and the office was-- we

weren't quite independent when my father came here. and when we had this name indian agency, what was then called american indians used to turn thinking it was a new agency of the government of t united stas. but that is greatly changed now. there is t proper regnition of india as well. and that enables us to talk. as i say we have changed as a power in s own right. we have changed in a relationship with the united states, and vice versear. we find that there are all these things we need to talk about because they are common interests. there is a future. of course there is a whole range of economic rerelationships. educational relationships, technological relationships, defense relationships. >> my impression is and you can correct me, that the economic, the opportunity for the entry of

multinational american corporions to th indian market has gotten bette >> it has. >> i mean even wal-mart. >> yes, indeed. we have oveome a lot of our old hesitations. every country has been protectionist. it's not unknown in the united states today. >> rose: no, it's not. >> so those factors have been there. but i think the other thing is that the indian business community is now reaching out an investing in the united states. >> rose: and think of themselves as global corpations. >> well, i hope they continue to do that. but needs to reach out much more broadly. rose: then there is the hardesquestion of all, pakistan, united states has a relaonship with pakistan, has a relationship with india. india and pakistan, fair to say, are nervous about each other. >> well, frankly, we have been made nervous because of the use o terror against us. >> rose: right. >> otherwise even our size

and our other interests, there is no need for us to be nervous about pakistan. what we have recognized very carefully if you read the-- in pakistan, we have understood the american dilemmas and i think there is better understanding in america of the indian dilemmas. we are confronted with a neighbor which has yet to evolve its own system of internal management and government. and in the meantime, unfortunately,sed to be ruby people whose primary interest is maintaining tension with india. now we can live by containing that and the united stat has to fight its own battle against the al qaeda and taliban. we can only do it with the collaboration of the pakistan army. so we understand your dilemmas. but i think what is really chand now is the amecans understand that we also are

facing an enemy or an elemenin pakistan that is hostile to us and that we cannot do much about it, except contain. >> rose: the element meaning the terrorist element. >> that's right within the radical -- >> well, it's more the radical. the fundamentalist, religious element is one thing. but the actual violence that has been inflicted on us, that goes beyond fundamentalism. >> rose: goes beyond fundamentalism to? >> to i think a deliberate desire to undermine india. >> ros and that includes the mumbai attack. >> indeed, the attack on parliament and just now in dellly. it goes on all the time. we have been very patient and forebear being it but-- . >> rose: can the u.s. play some sort of mediation role here as a broker on kazmir and other things? >> well, we've decided on that, if you read the report there is no role for america on that. it is something india has to

work out with pakistan on its ownment and pakistan i think recognizes that. we almos came to an agreement a couple of years ago. when musharraf was there but then the pakistanies found they couldn't go ahead with it. so we have to wait for that. but in the meantime, on the terrorist side, the americans have tried to put some kind of pressure. you can d more is for you to judge. but we feel that you have a real dilemma there. and 're understanding of it. >> rose: what's the dilemma. >> if you can't, unfortunately, work against the terrorists without the collaboration of the powers that be there. >> rose: in other words, if we can't get the pakistani government to help us work against terrorism then we will not succeed. >> that's it, yeah. >> rose: i see. what is the next step in making this a road map. >> first of all, make it more widely known. i think let's be very candid. india is not a country many americans think of in terms

of strategic immersion. >> rose: i think more and more americans care about america's role in the world think about india and the strategic partnership. >> well, what we have said is perhaps that sumsup the whole report. that america, i think, is finding that its great power notwithstanding, and by the way we don't buy the theory that you are a great power, twithstandg, y can no longer function alone, that you need friends and helpful partners here and there. and that what you need-- . >> rose: i think that is a fundamental reality. >> that what you need for your own self-interest can be better done with collaboration with a power like india. and india is similarly finding that its interests can be better served by collaboration with the united states. >> rose: relationships with other powers? iran, for example. >> aolutely. we have a very historic relationship with iran. we have the world's second largest-- population. we have to be sensitive not only to them but to our

muslim brethren entirely. so we have constraints. and perspectives which are not always evident to other countries. and yet i think we can find ways around that. >> rose: so what is going to happen with this report? >> we are perfectly willing to try and put it forward to our governments. we want above all to get a certain understanding in the public about it. and more broadly thanks to the kind of interests that you are showing we are hoping that the wider thinking communities in both countries have paid some attention to what we are trying. >> rose: thank you, pleasure to see you. president mahmoud ark ark of iran is back in the city for the neral assembly, we talk with him about the issues facing iran and the united states. >> would you like to see a better relationship with the united states? and are you prepared to take some steps, and you can take

some steps to do that? and would you like to see the united states improve its relationship with your government. >> we wish to have, to enjoy good relationship with every one, with all countries. why would we enjoy bad relations between countries. iran is a country that has a great civilization. and for thousands of years iran conducted herself properly in the international arena. who sees-- ceased the relationship, us or the united states government? during the algeria contract in its first amendment the united states government has committed herself not to intervene in any action, nor

contribute to any action against the government of iran. allow me. i sent a message to mr. bush, to former president bush, former president bush instead of responding properly and diplomatically was quite offensive. i sent a message t president obama, never received a message back. >> rose: i think he wrote a letter to the supreme leader, dihe not >> you see, allow me to complete my thought. i sent him the message. he should not have taken a politically advantageous step in his own mind, at least. doest matter whether the letter was sent to me or the leadership. but it's a diplomatic move. you know how it works and everyone knows, when i am the origin of the messa, the response goeso another part of the authority. i am not heartbroken that the response went to the leadership. but it was intended to

resolve issues. >> rose: so you are inviting american leaders to come and see iran themselves, correct. >> very recently a religious delegation came to iran from the united states. >> rose: right. >> they visited iran. they had free access. they were very happy with their visit. they met with myself, and they told me in no uncertain terms that they enjoyed a very good trip. we don't have issues, you see. if we want to reform the framework of this relationship, then the mind-set must change, the viewpot must change. the amican government must announce that we do respect the government of iran, and we will honor our mmitment. if they honor the commitment, then what else is there to resolve. >> rose: are you interested in briing the united states and russia and iran together to have a dialogue. that's a simple question. iran, the united states and russia, die lg-- dialogue.

>> we support any action that supports mutual understanding and mutual cooperation on the international scene. within the atmosphere of mutual respect and fairness. we have no obstacles what so ever. we have a logic, according to which we behave. allow me to remind you of something. fundamentally what is in the mind of the american politician as their national benefit or agenda that does not exist in our mind. we see the benefit of the iranian people in peace and freedom for all people all over the world. we think that we will reap the benefit of peace and stability. >> rose: so all of a sudden in the last month, there are great concerns raised not by an independent government

but by an agency of the united nations. and they ask why does the iranian government need stockpile of enriched uranium, eiched at 20%. >> i would like to ask for your patience because i do need to explain this a little bit in depth. 20%, why do we need enrichment of 20%. 20% enrichment is for a reactor that makes anti-cancer, cancer treatment medication. in iran, in iran, 800,000 patients rely upon these cancer treatment medications. myself, i proposed to the iaea that you should make the 20% enriched uranium available to us because what we have is nearing an end. but instead of honoring the commitment of e iaea without any preconditions, just by receiving the cost

of the 20% enriched uranium they turned this request into a political issue. and they set preconditions for it. this, this is a deviation from the commitment of the iaea as well as international laws. what are we supposed to do? >> rose: cooperate, you are supposed to cooperate. >> we were forcedo provide for our own need which is 20% enrichment. any sovereign government is free to do so. but the 20% enriched uranium is only good for the production of the cancer treatment medication. those who are subject matter experts understand this. but the politicians don't want to understand. allow me, sir, to continue. apply-- allow me to ask you. if we were a permanent member of the security council, do you believe that

the head of the iaea wou have given the same report. >> rose: yes. >> and addressed the same concerns. >> rose: yes. >> really? >> rose: yes. >> fine. does the united states government not have thousands of nuclear warheads? how many times has the head of the iaea given concerning reports about the location, the number of u.s. nuclear stockpiles? stockpiles that endanger people in europe, in the far east, the middle east, in africa. mi where that the united states has a military presence, it endangered the people of that region. the number of our centrifuges is even known to elementary schoolkids. >> rose: but -- >> that is the level of accuracy in the iaea's reporting. now this is discrimination. this is not proper international behavior. this is exactly our point. we say this behavio, this past-- path will not yield

results. the head of the iaea, vis-a-vis what happened in japan followg the tsunami, which resulted in great contaminatn. they were cometely silent. but when it comes to iran they are extremely active under united states government pressure in building uprong reports and giving erroneous reports. they don't understand who they are faced with. iran is a great nation. iran enjoys a great culture. they must come on the path of law, international laws and reason. and logic. do you not believe equal treatment undethe law for everyone? laws must be implemented, discriminatory only against us? we say equal treatment under the law for everyone. this is the logic we pure. >> rose: most amerans believe in equal justice under the law and equal treatment of the law. number two, i think that

most americans, people around the world recognize that iran is a great country and a great culture. this specific question has to do with anagency of the united nations suggesting that you, that you have much more enriched uranium at 20% than you need for the medical use, that there must benother reason for you wanting as much as you seem to be. >> there is no such thing that is completely erroneous. we need one 100-- 110 kilograms for one cycle. we haven't even reached 70 kilograms. let me put your mind at ease, sir. right now as we speak, if they give us 20% enriched uranium we mr. completely shut down 20% domestic enrichment. how is that? is there anything else to talk about?

as you and i sit here and speak, if they bring into our reactors 20% enriched uranium for the production of-- for cancer treatment medication, we will shut down domestic production, enrichment to 20%. you have to underand, it is quite an expensive proposition. it has been quite expensive for us. it hasn't been advantageous but we were forced to do that. i announced that foally today. the united states government, france, any other gornment, if they-- if they bring u if they make available to us 20% enriched uranium we will shut down mestic uranium production to 20%. we don't need it for anything other than the production of cancer treatment medication. i have no doubt that the people of the united states are law-abiding. they areumanitarians. but we're not talking about a role that people of the united states are playing. think there are certain

political groups in the united states that are playing will soferp -- the essential roleere. i think there is definitely a mutual love and respect between the people of iran and the people of the united states. there no animosity amongst people. there are certain politicians that protect the interests of a very wealthy minority and the interest of that wealthy minority is in ongoing conflict with ir. so the point is clear, it is not the decision of the people of america, you e. i said something to you, i made a proposition to you that no one else can come back with a counteroffer to. bring us 20% enriched uranium today, we will shut down domestic uranium production to 20% on the same day. see how transparent we are tryingo be, and we are being. this is how we conduct ourselves habitually. >> rose: you have made this offer before. >>e have said it before. we say it aga.

but on the outside the framework of this proposal, they wish to force the political agendars on us. we will not be forced into any situation by any outside power. i ask you, are the people of the united states willing to be dictated to and forced down any path? if a foreign interest is wishing-- wishes to take away the independence of the united states, if they wish to fake a-- take away the right under the laws of the united states, will they accept such force. >> rose: well -- >> no. we're the same way. we say respect our rights. let's put the framework of the iaea and give us-- respect our rights and give us our rights according to the letter of the law, the charter of the iaea. >> rose: if they give you, if you could persuade someone to provide the 20% enriched uranium, in order to fulfill all the medical

needs that you have, a supplyo take care of all of the medical needs, you are saying, that much, then you will tear down all of the enrichment facilities, the new enrichment facilities thatyou have. at is the deal you're offering. >>gain, i have said many times, 20% enrichment will be shut down. 3.5% is only-- for the power plant. >> rose: if you do that, would you allow total open access to iaea? >> as we speak the iaea has open and unftered access. they have inspections all the time. their cameras-- allow me to finish, sir. the mera ofhe iaea are in place and active in our facilities. it even, in iran even the transfer of 1 percent of a

gram is monitored and registered. even the transfer of such a minute amount is registered with the iaea. they ask us why are you building facilities in the mountains. where does it is a in the charter of the iaea according to the laws of the international body that we must pick one location over another. we certainly wish for us to put those facilities in a location that-- would be free to bomb them. the ia aerx broke the law in by annncing publicly the name of three of our scientists who have following that public naming of those scientists, they have been assassinated by the zyonists. so the agency is responsible. the iaea is responsible for

the killingf these three scientists. why do they not announce the names of any other foreign nuclear scientists. the iaea made a mistake. >> rose: it was a mistake. >> made a mistake and they printed the names of our specialists. >> rose: yeah. >> three of our scientists, university professors were assassinated. their family members, their wives, children are still there, are still crying tears of blood. why did those three have to die. why did the iaea have to take that step. now i ask you, did the iaea take the right step? why do they not print and make public the names of american nuclear scientists. why do they not make the same public for japan, or great britan? >> rose: may i ask a question. >> please. >> rose: do you believe that they made them public in order that someone could

assassinate them. >> they made an officl announcement, they made them public in their report >> rose: but you are -- >> they made them public. >>ose: you are sugsting that the iaea did this in order that it would lead to their assassination of these scientists? clearly you're not saying that, clearly are you not making them, the iaea complicity in e assassination of iranian scientist, whoever did it. >> you see, this needs investigation. i will not pass a judgement now whether the iaea was compcity with the zyonist regime and interests. i'm noreaching a conclusion on that. i'm not judging. it needs a pror investigation. >> rose:eah. >> but the iaea went outside the framework of the law. whh resulted in the identities of our specialists and scientists being made public. when there is a law, which states that nuclear

information, even personnel of specific countries must be kept secret d confidential, it must have been out of concern for such things. why was it even brought within the framework of the charr of the iaea. the iaea is obliged to keep confidential the information of each country's nuclear activities. each country that is a signatory to the iaea. they publicly announced the names of three iranian nuclear scientist. just like anyone, with laws that result in the killing of cerin individuals, doesn't mean that that driver intentionally wanted to kill those individuals. but since he chose to break the laws which resulted in the loss of life, then that party is guilty. >> rose: do you have evidence that the state of

isel was behind the assassination of those scieists? do you have evidence? within yes, absolutely, individuals have been arrested, concessions have been made, in the occupied territories. they received training. given by the znists. we don't take a position or make an announcement based on thin air. one of them is currently being put, has given proof, it's been documented. ey have confessed. why did we not say that fran carried out those assassinions. why did we not say that great britain or the united states carried out those assassinations. we say it is the zyonists, because they havehreatened us previously. and they threatened us openly and officially.

zyonist officials openl said that we intend to assassination-- assassinate certain officials. >> rose: but did it do great damage, did it slow your program down? >> no, no, we were able to mitigate it. >> rose: and do you fear another one? virus two. >> no. >> it possible but we're always we're always ready. we're not seeking the weapon. we're not seeking the nuclear weapon. if we were seeking nuclear weapons, we would have the guts to announce it publicly. who is ahmadinejad afraid of. why do we need to be afraid of anyone when we keep saying repeatedly that we don't seek nuclear weapons production. you must take that at face value. >> rose: it's in your power to convince the united states, the iaea, the united

tions and the world that you have only peaceful intentions for nuclear energy. you have the wer to do that. you really do. and it would be good for iran. it would be, the sanctions woul be eliminated. it would be good to bring an iran deeper into the world community, which you should hope for. and it could be a recoition of the dignity of iran. >> do you think now iran is outside of the international community. >> rose: no, i do not. but i said deer into it, i didn't say outside, i said deeper into it. >> please allow me. this is precisely what i have issue with. we have economic ties with most countries around the globe. you know iran has exports in excess of $150 billion,

equal number, equal value in imports. who are these ade ties with, with mars, with another planet? or with countries around the glob >> rose: thank you captioning snsored by rose comnications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org .

>> fding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. >> and american express. additional funding provided by these fuers. and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

09/23/11 09/23/11 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is "democracy now!" "democracy now!"