>> welcome to thbroadcast. i'm roger cohen of the "new york times." tonight, a special ition. charlie rose is in berlin for an exclusive one-hour conversion th u.s. secretary oftate hillary clinton on the historic 20thnniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. >> you kno, we have n walls. the walls of the 21st century they may not be, you know, the visible of t concrete and the barbed wire as we saw here berlin, but they are equally confing and defining. they a walls of ignorance and extremism. we fig wars to protect america. our lues, our ierests, our allies. we fight wars that we can

achieve a end point tha we think is infurtherance ofhat. so if we're going to fight this war, then erybody better be ve clear what it is that we're trying to do. would we like tosee education levels in afghistan improve? absolutely. is that direcy in ourational security ierests? probablyot. so we want to help, but weant to keep focused on what is clearly in our national security interests. toismantle, disrupt, and defe al qaeda and its tremist allies. >> hilry clinton for the hou coming up.

captioning sponsored b rose commucations >> good evenin i'm roger cohen the "new rk times." charlie ro is in bern where, earlier today, he intervied secretary of ste hillary clinn. he was participating in the cebrations marking the 20th anniversary ofhe fall of the berlin wall. wod leaders and thousands of visitors converged on the cit to mark the historic moment. e day was filled with a series of symbolic events. german chancellor angel merkel, ong with former soviet leader mikhail gorbach and polis solidarityeader lech walesa retraced the steps of the first each germans,ncluding

chancellor merkel hself as they surged io west berlin on vember 9, 1989. inhe eveng heads state, including british ime minister goon brown, frenchpresident nicos sarkozy, russian president dmitry medvedev, chcellor merkelnd secretary of state clion all walked thugh the brandenburg gate from east to west. under a drizzlg rain, secrety of state hillary clinton spo and then introduced a video message from esident barack obama. >> together us keep the light of freedom burning bright for alwho live inhe daress of tiern and believein hope for briter day >> the hour-long interview took place at the famous hotel d lon the shad of the brandenburgate. it w a wide-ranging conversation that ban with the legacy of thwall. she also spoke about an, afghistan, and pakistan and her upcoming trip to china with president obama.

here ishat conveation. >> rose: thank you for joining us. >> thank y, charlie. >> ros at this histic time in thisistoric city, where were you wn you heardhe news that the berlin wall had come down? >> i was in arkansas and bill and i were ving in the governor's mansi in arkansas. and i remember watching the news coverage which that time was pretty... ch more limite than it is today, over and over agai and talking with not only my sband but lots of friends about what this mean because i'm a childf the cold war. i rember those ck-and-cover drills that we did in school to protectourselves againsthe communist that. i studied international relations in clege. i had a b interest in it in law scho. and the cold war was the defining structure of howe saw

ourselves and how we maged our affairs. itas an amazing momt. but that whe year was like that. i mean, the activitiesthat ept the world. not just in europe, but predominantly inurope that ad to thatoment, that icon moment when the wall was literally pped apart by people. was so moving to me. >> rose: what's t significance? what are the lessons we ed to apeciate? >> wel i thinkhere are so ma. but amg the is that freom can never be denied along as free peopl elsewhere continue to speak u and speak out about the right of all peoplto be free. as long as the transatlantic alliance tt was forged aft world war iihat ran the berlin airlifts that kept this city a its peopleed and wa, as long as fe people will r lling to invest inefense and take measures that are necessy in a

still-ngerous world. buthat ultimately eedom resides in the hearts of people. and what saw in bratislava and buchast and budapest and then sweeping across startedin e gdansk shiprds, it was fueled by ship workers who had had enoughthey were red of beingdenied their rights as workers and as hum beings. it was encouraged by a pope who came from pola and new who knew the importance of human dignity and the eedom ople should be ableto exercis anso on that night in novber 20 years ago i was a swelling up that had taken yea. it w like a tnami. the earquakehad hpened and the ripple effects were occurring and then just washed over and the wall came down and there was this great sensof rief and gratide at

the sacrifice of so my who'd come before and ofthe leership that stayed the cour. that, you know, didt go too far and provoke a military conflictut who made it very clear by resolve and commitment on a bipartisan basis starting with harry trumaall the way through george w. bush that we stood with the people o berlin of germany, and of europe. rose: what are the walls that we have to tear down today? >> oh, well you know, we have new walls, the walls of t 21st century. they may not be the visible as the concrete and barbe wire as we saw heren bern but they are equly cfining and dening. they are walls o ignorae and extremm. they're walls of oppssion and impoveriment. they are nnecessarilywalls constructed by ideology but they are walls that exist in the

mind-sets of those w would try turn the block back on human progress, ny women their rights,use tools like suicide bombings and trorism to t to assert themsees and we heo in the west alo with our friends d alli throughout the rest of theorld understand that this is o challenge of the 21st century. we can'talk away fm it. we have to bsmart about how we addrs it but it what calls us to action today. >> rose:ou met with chancellor merkel. >> yes. >> rose: is germany onboard with respect to afghanistan? >> i think germany is coitted to t effort in afgnistan. they're waiting,ike the rest of the world is, the united states and tough president ama to announce our inttions d our way forward. t they have a deep undetanding of why this is imrtant for nato, why this is important for the larger international community.

and hink that given the right meases of accountality that we need to be seeking from president rzai and his government,e're going see a commitment notust from germany but from my of o nato allies. rose: might ey make whater the gap is between what general mcchrystal i seeking and what the united stas is prepared to provide in terms of troops? >> well, i tnk we have to wait for the president's nouncement. but will be,s we have been, consulting verydeeply o alli and talki about what we want to see from them in order to havehis integrated military and civili strategy. beuse, remember it's not just abt troops on theground, it's about making sure that the people of afghanian see the resultsof ts effor that they have more faith their own government aof... as an entit that c deliver r th.

so the needs to be a lot more civilian and financial sport as well military anroop support. but in my conversations with a lo of our allie, not oy in nato but beyond, there is an openness and a readiss to partipate. rose: to ok at in the a new direction. >> absutely. yes. >> ros when you lookt that question of ahanistanand ose that say "can we win can we stop e taliban?" is your answer yes? >> my answer ises. that right now we've been somewhat in a holding pattern because of the afghan elections. it's hard to make a new policy until know who is in the new government and until wehave very clear discuions about what is expected from them. this is notjust a one sided contract here. but i also think tt th momeum as describ by general mcchrystalnd others that the taliban seem to have acquired can definitely be broken. there is no evidenc whatsoever

that the st majorityf the people in afghanistan wan to see a return ofhe taliban. in poll after poll a anecdotal evidence as wellhey remember thebrutality and oppressiveness, the perversion of religiothat was used for the grabbingnd holding of power under the talan. >> re: beyond that is the taliban in controln afghanistan a threat to the uned states? >> i believe it i i believe it is a threat because i believe thatt once again ovides a safe havenbecause what we have seen is that al qaeda is now rt of a syndicate of terror. it inspires, it directs, it trains, equi,funds other groups within this syndicate. and to many of us, the principal

abtive is still to defeat, capture, kl the al qaeda leadership. we do think tt is importa. it's not a marginal issue, it's a core sue for us. but also realize that there are many aspects to this threat from extremism that have to be addressed. it isimperative that there not beafe haven r al qae and itsyndicates, its allies in afghanistan. >> rose: and that's what t liban would deliver if they were in contl. >> they would parts of afghanistan. if they codn't take over the entire country cause of resistance from th afghans themselves and allies like us, they would certainly establish a beachhead and would ve a broader area of operations. >> rose: so whatdo you say to mothers and fathers as you know thquestion who are sing, are you asng me to sendy son or my ughter to afghanistan whe i am essentiay fighting for a corrupt or fraudule vernment? >> no, but you're not.

you're fighting for thunited states you are fightingto prote our homeland a our peopl weften don't get to choose the battlefield that wre on. we have to adju to whatever the circstances are that we find and much of wt president ama and the rest of us in this administration he been working on for the last eight mths is at given the failures of t last eight years to capture and kill the al qaa leadership, to trto stabilize afghanistan, we have to recommit ourselves. because we do think it's in our interest, we do think it's in our security interests. ani feel very stngly that the young mennd women who are stioned in afghanistan are really doing what s to be done on the front lines of the war against teorism. >> rose: and the understd and believe in the mission >> yes. well and its impornce that the entire american public understand and bieve in the mission. because in a democracy, we hav

to sport those tt we sendto the battlefield. >> rose: do you lieve at this point that t american public understands e mission or a ey waiting forhe president now to redefine the mission? and the sttegy. >> yes. and i think that they're waing for e results of this review. back in march when the president made his speec about what we wereoing to do goi forward, he ordered new troops into afghistan, he saw a chang of mmander, which is usual in orr to better fulfillur mission and he said " will be revisiting this ter the afghan elections. it's st ten longer to get the elections over than wead thought. so wwill belearly defining the purpose of o mission, how it's goi to be reconstitutes. >> ros what's taking so long and what'sheebate inse? >> well, i... look, i have to y that i think we went through eight ars where it at least

appeed on the outsidehat there wasn't enough me taken. there wasn't enoughthought given as to wh we were trying to achieve and how we would achieve . there were a lot of mid-course corrections. witness the sue in iraq. and partf what the psident is ting to do with his national secity team is too and seek out informationhat is of direct relevae, evaluate that information, make sure tt we are putting forth the best thought in order to ffill the mission that hs going toet. you know, i think it's... i it' unfortunat charlie, that we li in timehen people expe instantaneous reaction. huge cris, get o in front o e cameras and ta about it when y don't all of the cts becae the facts are hard to gather. and i think what the president is determined to do to fl as positively focus and as comfortable as possible. >>ose: fair enough but is he... are you looking to the swer to some question? d if so, what is thatuestion

and at is the debate out at questi? well, i think that the question rlly is how bes to define the msion so that w d our allies our publics, and the world understandhat we'r trying to achve. e mission was, frankly, confused. there was a lot of tk during the prior administratn that came pretty cle to natn building, tranorming afghistan. there was a lot of confusion about what tt meant a how to do i weanted to be sur tha we stripped dow and focused on whats most important i mean, we fight wars to protect america. our values. our interests,ur lies. we fight wars s that can achieve an end point that we think is in furtherance of that. so if we're going t fight th war, thenverybody better be very clear whait is that we're tryingo do. woulwe like to see educatio levels iafghanistan impro? absotely. is that directly in r natnal

security interest? probably not. soe want to help, but we wt to keep focused on what is clearly i our nional security inrest. to dismant, disrupt, and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies. well, let'sefine those extrist allies more carefully, let's not just pnt with a broad ush. is some poor young man who has no econoc prospects who is bacally volunteer to the taliban byis villa so the viage is not tacked by the taliban, ise our extremist foe or is he someone who c be persuaded to leave the taliban and ce again reenter society. the are questions that g to the operaonal aspts. it'sasy to paint e big picture. we're the and good forus. but how does tha translate into what we do on the ground? how does that actually affec troop decions and depyment decisions and expeitures of vilian dollars? so i think ts review which has

been more though and more debated th what we're told ev happened previoly gives us a plaorm on which the president can stand. >> rose: but has to be a certain element of govement because the strategyis thin ten areas, say, to te and hold and bud, which is the operative ea, is it snot so give pro toe the civilians, that's thenly way you'll have an effective counterinsurgency sttegy. >> right,ut let's think about counterinsurgency. counterinsurgencis protecting pulation centers. >> rose: right and they have to be a part of that themsels. >> they have to be a part of that themsels. but it may mean that you don't deployn some areas where there's novery much in population to speak ofut instead you only do counterterrorism in those areas. so you try to concentrate your troops where we can give t maximum stility. and wh we talk about govning it's not just wh happens in kabul, it's what happens on the ground in local districts.

if you loo at a m of afghanistan and u really evaluate, ll, whichistricts e under goverent contl-- meaninthe central government in kabul-- what are under local governme control? what are contested? at are under taliban conol? i mean,there is a varied piure here and part of what we want to do is to convince the pele of afghanistan is that it's not just clear, hold, and build,t's also transitio we don't want to stay a day loer than we must in der to trantion over to forc and security that is ithe hands of the afghans theelves. >> rose: you were recently in pakist. >> yes. >> rose: you are convinced the pakistans now uerstand that the taliban is their enemy as much as their lon held opposition to dia and they' prepared to do something >> well, they're certainly evidencing that. this very forceful response, first in swat, now in south

waziristan illustrat a mmitment to take on the pakistani taliban. i think in my conversatio with both the civilian government leaders as well as the military andntelligenceeaders, there is an awareness that the taliban is not just about somebody else's fight. it is a direc attack on the authority of the pakistani government. when youave extremists attacking your generalrmy adquarters, your intelligee offices who go right a the islamic universi in islamabad, is is n some foreig plot. these are people homegrown who want to overthrow various aspects of the pakistani governmentnd control territory within the undaries of pakistan. so the's no doubt in my md ashey see this as a direct threat. >>ose: andhey're prepared to

go as far north as north waziristan? >> well, i don't want topeak for them. theyave their hands fl in south wazirian, but they unrstand, too that u can't just play whack-a-mole. you cat just knock downhe taliban somewhere and expec they're done becse they have unfounately created this ndicate, this network of terconnected terrost groups andhe kistanis have to be vigilant but at people of pakistan are mu more in favor of what the army doi that an any point in the past. >> re: you raised question in the press conference abo osama bin den. d you get any information as to where he i and why they have not been able to reach him? >> rose: well, i did rse that question, because i was very willing to hear all the questions and conrns from the peop in the government of pakistan. and there are rbs r their concerns. >> we haven't always been the most consistent or understanding rtner and allyver the course of our relationship.

and we do bear some of the responsility, frankly, for helping to create theery terrorists that we're now a thatened by. softer listening and responding and dng what i could to dispel some of the myths and the stereotypg that goes on, i sai "you kno, americans have questio, too. we find it hard to believe th nobody knows where t al qaeda leadership is. and i think that there is no evidence tt anybody in th govement at the top levels knows, but what wre trying to courage is tir awareness and acceptance of if fact that the alaeda leadership is arrayed against them as well and still posea direct threat to u i mean, we have had the arrests just receny of zazi, someon who trained in an al qaeda training camp inakistan.

so we're ing to kee pressing. this is the highest priority to us. and are encouraged and supportive of what pistan is doing against thei enemies. we wt more help against our common enemy. >> rose: and they've been successful agast some of the pakistani taban leaders? >> yes >> rose: let me move to iran for a second. for longer tn a secon. ere does that stand now? i ierview mohammed elbaradei on friday. and he said that the irians are reluctant to take the deal because they're relucta to give up their nuclear marial. and heuggested that perhaps turkey might be a me amenable repository for that rather than russia are you involved in this idea no >> yes we, we're ve invold in it. and let me jt put in th context. when this idea was first jointly proposed, it was in reonse to the iranians' quest to the

ternational atomic energy agency for assistancen refuelintheir tranresearch reactor which, soar as we know is not at all connected to thr othe enrichment prram or any program that would lead to weaponization. >> rose: had medical purposes, they say. >> micalisotopes and we ppen to believe that's true. so when the iranians made that request, the unit states and russia togher made a joint respon and weaid that we would be willing to take o the 1,200 or so kilograms of enriched uranium, have represd and have iteturned to... reprocessed d have returned to fuel the rearch reacto theranians accepted that in principle an continue to be ve favorably dispos toward it at the first meeting on october 1. >> rose: ithe person of their representative but also presidt ahmadinejad

specifical. >> that's righ so it appeared as thoh there would be a meetg of the mds, which would be immensely reassuring to the world that i iran were willintodo this, it would demstrate good faith on their part, would open the door to further talbout their nuclear program and then i think we have seen a lot of confion and debate within the irania leadership to some mease fueled by eir internal discusons arising out of the elections and the opposition. some of it is peonality driv. we understand l of that. >> rose: b it's coming from all side it's coming from the ayatolh on one sid and the even some people w are part of t reformovement. >> wel we also believe a lot oft is jkeying. and some of it has gotore to do with ahmadinejad than does with us war this proposal. me nevertheless, it is r very firm convictn, and there has been absolute unity amonghe

so-called p5lus 1 which includes russi and china that we expect a favorable response om iran. >> rose: soon? >> soon. yes. we understand the internal litical dymics and we've been, i think, patient in lping em to see th we're serious. there are certain safeguards that could be agreed to that they wld get theiruranium back once it had been enriched. but they have to take this step as a coidence building measure. w the internaonal community. and i hope that they will do so. >> re: and if they don't? >> well, wll cross that bridge when we actually come it. >> rose: well,the first action is you go tohe united nations for sations. has anything cnged that will make the russians at that point more amenable to supporting sanctions? because many argue that i the russns support sanctions, so will the chinese. >> well, i've beenncouraged by the commentsrom president medvedev just recently ain over t weekend inn intview

with spiegel heren germany where he talked about perhaps there wille a need for sanctions and i hope that if it cos to that-- wch wetill would like to avoid this cooperative arrangement-- that we will have everye on board. and there's alrey beenn agreement enred into by the p5 plus 1 includingrussia and china that we we on a dual track. we were on one track which was negotiations, diplomacy, agreemts like thatffecting the tehran research reactor. but in t absence of proess there, we we on a second track whicwould look to assert mo pressure and impe more sancons. whethe that's going to be necessary or what e ctent would be and where they would be sought... you know there'sot anything magicalbout the u.n there's other ways o imposing sanction so we are in the process of

exploring thatith others. >> re: is the atlantic alliance going to help? >> absolutely. >> rose: arehey going to be preparedo enforce? >> well, we'veeen an increase in actions by ny of the nations of europe because the unrstand that ts is ahreat to them. you know, when the president made his decision about changing theissile defens architecture it was in responseto a better understanding th our technical andefense experts hadthat iran was further advced in short and medium-rangeissiles thanong-term misles. short and medium range missiles can hit every partf rope. so think e europeans understand that this is a very importt step for them to try to help us and others to assert pressure ainst iran. >> rose: secretary gates has sa that a mitary option probably would only delay for a year or two. >> well, no one wantsto go t

that. wee always said that every option is on the tab. our goal iso prevent dissuade irafromobtaining nuclr weapons. and we've madet clear that they have a rit to nuclear power that is civil a peacefully ud. >> se: mohammed elbaradei said th they don't trust u that the lev of trust ther.. and have reason notto trust them. you assumehat there arether cilities that we have not discered so far or they have not acknowledged so fa >> well, we don't have any evidence of that but obviously we're alys vigilant and loing for ything that might suggest other concealed undiscsed facility. i'm not in any way down playing the lack of trus i mean, we have 30 years of mistrust, misderstanding and misaligned objecves. i mean, the iranians not only worry us bause of their

nuclear program, the worry us because of their support for terrorism. their suppt for theilitary wing of hezboah. their support fors. theirinterference i the internal affairs of thei neighbor trying to destabilize gulf countrie and other countries throughout the great region. soran has given usany asons to worry about their motivation and their action t i think what president oma has tried to do since becoming president is to create a new dynamic where, look, we don't have to ust or love eh other to understand that it is in our terest to try to stabilize the world. it is t in iran's intert to have a nuclear arms race in the gulf where they would be less secure than th are today. it inot in iran's interest or the anian people' interest to be subjected to very onerous

sancons. so the presint has reached out anhas reallyone the extra mile to try to engage wit the iranias if they cannot overcome their mistrust and their internal political dynamics, then we have to do what wethink is in ournterest interests. >> rose: they' have to al withhe consequces. >> of urse. that's the way the wod works. >> rose: is tre anything that we can do to say to them we understandour fear, we understand your paranoia, we ask yo what is your... whacan we do to convince you that nuclear weapons are not in your terest? >> well, those are certain the messages tt the president has publicly sted, as u know. he's h private messages sent to the supme leader he has chaed the resof e administration to convey that message and i think was significt when this adminiration said "we accept your rig under appropate safeguards thave civil nuclear

powe are not going t be demonizi you and calling you names. we'd much wther have a civil diplomatic relionship that could le to negotiations that woullower the temperature and try to diminishhe misust." but takes two todo that. and ctainly the way the iranian government handled the elecons, the respons to legitite opposition has been very dconcerting. because it demonstrates they don't trustheir own people. t only that they don't tst us! ey don't trust man iranians! so wn you get to that level.... >> rose: after the electn, they have reas to. >> well, that's ght. and so you t to that level of mistst all the y arod you, hoyou break through that is what we' looking for. but it may ormay not be possib. that'sretty much up to the irians. if this re a confident leadership, they would accep tehran research react ordeal.

theyould not be worried aut it. this is not a confident adership because of the pressurethat are coming from within ir. >> rose: so whaver happened in that eleion, the aftermath, has not been capped and wil contue to... >> i don't think we're be any means the end ofhat story. >> ros all right. so what's the message of the obama administration androm the secretary of state about the united states and its foren policy intentions today? that we are ck. >> rose: back a.. >> back as fully engaged. we're not leaving any part of the world unatnded to. because thatas one of the most mmon complaints i heard when i dh go to aa for my first trip. it was becau there washis nse that the united states w departing from t pacifi a place that we had been inmately involved in for much of the 20th century. and a time when there's a lot of questns about how the pacic asian region ll be

organid. and what role thenited states will py. so first and foremosthat we are enged. we're t just focused on the one or two mostressing trouble sps that we have toeal with. that we areworking to bring people togeth to create more partnehips. we wen from a bipolar world that ended wn theall came down in blin and we want a multipartner world wre we can make common caus on transnatnal challenges like climate change o h1n1 influea and where weare bring partners to the table on some ofhe diffult securitychallenges. look at whate achieved with north rea. we g china and russia along with japan andouth korea working th us to iose the tohest sanctions ever. no why, th, is north kea begins to say they nt to tal, ey want to talk? it's because ty see a united front agnst them?

so we reay believe that engagement is no an endin self, but it theoor you walkhrough to get to the table get into the negotiaons that c possibly lead to improving conditis regionally and globally. and'm very committed to doing that but it is anntensely persal relationshipuilding endeavor. >> rose: you've also as a hallmark haveaid we wanto listen and so has the president, but enough your political reer. right. >> ros so what are you hr what is the role ty see whether inurope whether it's rope? right. >> rose:r whether it's china or the middleast. because so people say there will be no peace in e middle east without the unitestates there tg something. but on thether hand, you've got to have peoplewho are willing to accept that le. we, you ask a complex questn thataises a lot of inrconnected issues. rst, when m listening, wt

i'm hearing isthatpeople know the unitedtates cannot solve all the problems of t world. t they know that witut the united states, the chances of solving any the problems are pretty reme. so they want us to be engaged, to be leading, bothby example and throug eagement. they also believe that e united stas cannot ave the fid on any of the problems. and complicated and as difficulas they might be, we have to be there. we have to be working. now, we may be more engagedr ss engaged depenng upon our assement. leave the pares to themselves f periods of time and std on the sidelines or we may be intensely worng with them. that's a calibration. but th overall fact is the uned statesust be present. and you would any aworld that s moved towards virtual reality than tt might mean something other than it meant

two cenries ago butn fact it means we have to be ther we have show up. when ient to the asean meeng it mnt so much to them. us a anne. we tald aboutverything from environmental condions in the lower mekong delt to what we were gng to doabouter be ma. and were rebuildg that, which i think is essential. but equallymportant is to set autoour own jectives andhe stratees desned to achieve those objectives and a lot o to that tes patience and part of what we're fing, charlie, is the uned states unfortunately has lost leverage in the world because the global economic crisis. and because of the steps that this adminisation had to take to try to prevent, frankly a worldwide depression, which means increasing ourebt, goi into the biggest deficitswe've seen since world war ii. th undermines some ofhe pacity we need to have to influence ents.

>> rose: elain thatto me, cause i was going tosk you about that,hat's the pact of the global ecomic cris. you're suggesting ou leverage is less? >> yes, i a suggesting that >>ose: becauseur economic power is less or bause they look a usas creating a cris that is debt cemental them. >> ithink both. i think both whate have don is by moving from the cditor nation that my husbans policies helped to crte to the dtor nation that we inhited from the bush admistration, made evenorse the lapses in regulation and the failu of oversight that led to the global econoc recession has raised questions in people's minds. because one thing the world believed about thenited states is tt we knew howto run an econom we knew how to produce weth. we knew how t create economic opportuny and consumptionhat was unmched. rose: and they boug into the idea ofmarkets and

pitalism and all that. >> tt's right. and i give the predent and his economic tea a lot of credit for nigating us through the worst of this crisis. and beginning not only the recovery economilly but the recovery of confiden. but e fact is when we do have that rovery and we can l lo at it, touch it and feelit and feel better abt ourselves in the world, we're going tobe hugely inn debt. and we're going to have deficits that wlmpingepon our ability to make decisio and will also affect ourapacity to deal with other countries, because we are in debt to tm. >> rose: so youo to chi and you sit down with... you and the president it is down wh hu jintao, the president ofhina d he says "madam secretary, how do you seeus? how do you see china over t next 50 years? and how do you see this relationship if you were the dominant coury? weeel pretty go about where our onomy is going and want

to play a re." >> and well they suld. i think thatthere's nooubt, at least in myind, that china has earned t right to play a role. and the rise of china is inevitable the chinese are fused on imoving the standardf living wi their peoe, on playing a leadership role notnly gionally but globally. d we are working to shuk sure that there's aeaceful rise, that there ia good understaing between the united states and china, what we called for was a positive cooperati and comprehensive relationshi seetary geithner and on our side share our rategic and economic dialogue, which met for the first time at th endf july. where we're talkg about a broad array of economic and strategic issues because we want to have an

in-depth relatnship with china. >>ose: what's anxamplef ? i kn the deal we want to make with resct to climate change and emission standards and all of that and they're reay moving forward clearly onsome areas of that. what's the stratic possibility? strategic in termsf the united states and china. >> rig. >> rose: what n they do tother? >> well, w can do a lot together. if the uted states and china workogether as we have in the g-20 pcess, wecan help to stabilize the economic sittion the world and begi a recovery and a return to growth. it would not be possible if it were jt one or thether. it had to be in tanm and tn to work with t other members of the t g-20. when it mes to climate change and clean energ, china's makg a big bet on clean eney technology. that's an importantet for them to me. >> rose: a bigger bet than we ar >> well, i'd le to s us begin to do moren that.

>> rose: solar. >> but you can't fault china for seng a market opportunity as well as an environment cessity so that they are moving. and i think they're moving in large measurebecause they see that this is beneficial to them but also because they want to be part of e world leadership in dealing with these transnational problems they kno thathey will have an their doorstephe effects of erratic clate developments that they will hav to deal with. they know that they can'tust turn alind eye to nor korea's provocative behavior. that it's veryestabilizing and it isn't to be left to others. so ty've been playing a much more involved role in trying to corralhe north koan >> rose: doing everything u wanted them too with respect to northorea? >> thehave been extrely helpful with respect to north korea. >>ose: africa, especially darfur. are th doing everything you want them to do there? >> they are more understanding of the lonterm consequences to their position in sudan than

ey were before. at i mean by at is the chinese have natural resource interests in sudan. darfur is destabiling. the nth/south situation could become viole and lead to conflict ain. that would put a risk chinese investments. so think that they are looking in a broader way than they perhs have about their responsibility. it's notust we' got toind reurces t feedthe engine of the economtoroduce growth becae we have so many hundred of milons ofpeople still ving below poverty. it'sokay, we have to do that but we have e cocious d aware of the larger stratec interests thate have to be part of. >> re: how about iran, though? whe are they in helping you? because they have ergy contractswith iran. well, they signed on to the agreemen that ind the otr

foreign ministers signed in new york during the united nations general assembly aut the two-track apoach to iran that the foreign minister with whom i wo closely, minister yang was athe table. so they know th this is complicate what would be th worst nightmare for chinese energy needs? if war broke out in the larger gulf or the middle eas thatould be devastating to them so they know the have .... >> rose:upply go down, price go up. >> absolutely. and whether th suly-- which was more limited-- could even get delivered would be a question. so i think that they are as ey play a larr role in theorld seeinghe mplexities that we all are facing andbeing much more open to listening. >> rose: a chinese official sa toe if the unitedstates would find a source oil outside iran we may very well bemore amenable. >> rht. ll, look, energy fls all of us and we don't ppen to get any

oi from iran but iwe were dependent upon iran, we'd have to be scrambling to figureout what we were going to do in order to enforcehe international communits expectations o iran. so we know that china has to be aware their own energy needs, which is w their move toward clean ener and alternative forms of energy is so important ov the long run. >>ose: what do you say to them when they say "madam secretary, i'm worried about a prottionist sentiment in you congress i'veeen exames of itand a trade war would terrible." >> we ree that a trade war wod be terrible. buthis is not just a one-way street. we he concerns about se of the actions that thechinese governnt.... >> rose: d are they reonsive in understding? >> wel i mean everybody works from tir own nation interest and their own onomist inrest. who would exct anything different? but i think the conversation is much more candid a open. and very cle on our part as to how we don't want to seealls

of protection. buwe also need, you know, more guarantees for intellectual property in china. we watched some of the problems with exporting natural resources out of china, which ey n't permit. so there' a lot toeiscussed on both sides. >> rose: let move to this job that yo holds we have a few more minutes left re. nuer one, how doeswhat you had doneefore-- chuhill famouslyaid "everythingi've done has prepar for for my moment" en hwent to 10 wning during world war ii. how does being first lady of arkaas, first lady of the united states,enator from neyork, and a presidential candidate with substantial political support influence make you a secretary of sta for better? >> well, i thi that a lot of my eerience which was rooted in not only travel b woing on intnational issues, being

involved with many of the leaders, some of whom e still there, others of whom are still influential. >> rose: and that mas a difference inwhat way? >> itmakes aifference because i come as known commodity. i think it accelerate it is relationship to a point whe we can move int the business side of what we a trying too together. i al know that lot of the players. i underand what thr needs are. it isot take it or lea it, it's like, okay how can we work toward as ch of a w-win as possible? i don't think we're in zero-sum ge. that i believe kind of ancient hiory given how the wod works today. it is also... it has alsobeen quite helpfulor me to have been in political lif because even in societies th we view alacking in democtic politics, ere's always politics. maybe it's small " politics. maybe you have to rise thrgh the party. maybe you haveo fend off

opsition from those who don't agree with youolicies. you have to be at leastware of publ opinion because evenin closed societi, publ opinion can risep and cause demands on you that you he to manage. so i have undersnd that. i mean, i knowwhat it's like to have to either put together a coalition or deal with the consequences of the public either being for you or against you. and i've said on numerous ocsions, look, i come tohis job not as a diplomat or a an academic but as a political person. and that'shy i know why this is difficult forou. and i've been really impressed byow quickly that creates a bond wh some of the leaders. in some ofhe countrs that i visited where we're asking the leaderip to make some ver rd choices that we thi are in their interests but certainly in our interts, you kn, being able to talk about our political backound. i mean,it's wellnown that

senator kerry and were tag team in dealing with president rzai in theeadup to his decisiono accept a second round. and i was talki about.... >> rose: tell me what you mean by "tag tm"? you realized he was there, you realized he had problems th certain people and you realized it was better to deal with th chaian of the foreign relation committee? >>irst of all, the ft that john was there was so fortuous we couldn't have scripted it b he was the at exactly the right me. anhe and ialked abo... he got fully iefed by ambassador holbrookbout sort of thetate of play. and he and i talked about how we made a political argumt to karzai you ow, you can come in and say "look, it's the right tng too, the international community pects you to do it, you must respo." >> rose: (laughs s, yes, bu.. >> but ifou come in and say, "look, i won and lost elections, i know that this feels like, i understand how upset you are that you feel like you won and all the votes,egardless of whether th were specifically fraudule or not based on the

sample that the u.n. committee did are going be thrown out and how at makes you feel" and all the rest of it. and john can walkhrough the garden with him d talk about hohe felt wn he fe bad about the outcome in ohio and i ta to hip about wt happened in 20 and i ta to him about, you know, the expeences that i had. >> rose: 2008. >>es, exactly. so it helped. it reay did help, charli because it was a visceral connection. and it wasn't something abstra. it was we know. we know how it feels. we know what you're going througinside. and how unfair you think it is! >>ose: (laughs) >> but the comes time when a leader oa democracy must suort the institutio. this is an institution that you must rpect, just like in 2000, the supre court made a decisioni would not have made in the "gore v. bush" case but you acpt that and you go on and you therefore strengthen democry and, frankly you

strethen your hand politically. >> re: is what you just sa me part of theay you thought aboutosing the nomition and moving on? >> ofourse. you know, i am a tru true believer in the americ political system and ihink that it's rooted in who i am and how i was raised and sense of patriosm and all these wonderful oldashioned but very impoant values that i hold. so i did the best i could, i fought as hard as could, i made my share of mistakes, i did better insome areashan i thought i would. i was very gratified by the pport iad. but it cameto an end. and ianted to support at that time senator oma because he and were muc more in line on our world view a what we wanted toee happen domestically than e other party waso i thre myselfinto helping to elect him.

and member w more surpris than i when after t election he called and asked me to conser taking this position. >> rose:s that the first te mentioned it? >> absolutely. >> rose: so now you're secretary of state. you decide to accept it because... >> becau when your presint asks you tserve your country, i think you should say yes if you can. >> rose: but you hadoments in which you said "i'm not sure this is in my best interest or, b, i'm the st person. whatever youhought. >> i said all of that over and over again. (laughs) >> rose: (laughs) >> iept saying ow about and ?" >> rose:exactly. you could hav been senate majorityeader. >> want to return to the senatend catch up on my sleep, all of tho things. >> rose: (laughs) u were wrong about that! i was very wrong about that. if the shoe had been on the other foot and i had bn asking him, i wouldhave hoped th he would have said yes. and so h could by standoffh d sayi'd wrather be a

senator d i want my fe back" and all these tngs that were going through mind. >> rose: someone watching the campaign, e democratic campaign, might have said there's some space beten how you view the world a how he views the world you being more hawkish, more... something. >>laughs) well, look, i.. i am very pleased at therelationship that the president and i have. >> rose: what wilr you pleased about? >> that itis veryollegial. it is personally very positive. we e each oer all the te and wework veryell together. and i think that we probably had people i both of our cam which were surised by that and somewhatskeptical. but, y know, bot of us understo what it is we h to do and d together given the array of pblems we fe. so i'.. look,'m very committed to doing everything i can on behalf of my country and the prident.

>> rose: there's n sharp disagreemes between the way you two see the world? >> well, if there are i woun't ll you. (laughs) >> rose: that suggests therere some. >> no, it doesn't. >> rose: but in the end it's... >> look, he's the president. but what i really appreciate we have a very robust process where everyby is heard. and there is quite a good back and foh. testing assumptions, comingup with ideas and on couple of occasions i was in somewhat solitary position vis-a-vis the n.f.c..... >> rose: give me one example of that. >> someday, charlesly, someday. about ten years ler. but i wt to the president and said "this is really what i would like you tothink about and he are the reasons for it." and, you know, one vy portant matter he agreed wit me. and so it's not just that you have discussions betwe the two of us which we do where we ok

at thingfrom different angles, where we try to come up with the approach. but it's t larger tea sometimeboth the president and i are pushing theeople on ou teams to think differently and more creativey. >> rose: you have said you'l never n for president again. >> y, i said that. (lghs) >>ose: (laughs) any othe things youe said that you'll never do again? >> oh, well, yes, i'm sure there are. at the momt i can't think of them. >> re: thank you for this time. it's aleasure to have this opportunitto see you. >> thanks, charl. rose: from berlin, german a conversation with the cretary of stat this is, as we recor this, november 9, 20 years aer the wallameearing down with momentous consequences the cretary said, for europe for ssia, for the united stes, and for the world. thank yo for joing us. see you next te.

captioning sponsor by rose comnications captioned by media access group at wg access.wgbh.g