>> rose: welcome to our program,m, tonight we look at political change in two very different parts of the world. china and the sudan. first china where there has been the firing of a very important political figure. we talk to richard mcgregor of "the financial times" and damien ma of the youra-- your asia group. >> to put political context, let's remember many of the top leaders don't like him as a politician precisely because of his western style charisma, that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. and i think he was in some sense banished out of chongqing from beijing where he was a finance minister. he tried to make a name for himself doing all these red songs, maoist cultural revolutionary shenanigans that r i think, disturned the top leadership at some point.

>> rose: and then there's the sudan where george clooney and john prendergast recently returned from south sudan. they testified before congress in washington and met with the president and the secretary of state. >> we were the u.n. the day that the south announced before the referendum they announced if there is a vote for independence for the south, we will support them. and the minute that happened, everything changed for the south. the idea before that was there's a great possibility of a real civil war like a bloody war that was there before. and the minute that chinese said well, we will acknowledge the southern government, everything changed. the north wasn't going to attack. so our feeling is, again, you can't appeal to countries for humanitarian reasons. it really doesn't work. and you know, we're all grown-ups here. but you can appeal to them economically. >> rose: the winds of change in china and the south sudan when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following:

captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. captioning sponsored by >> rose: we begin this evening with politics. chinese politics. this morning it was announced that bo xilai the communist party chief in the city of chongqing has been removed from his post. until recently he had been seen as a front-runner for the politburo the highest authority in china. the new comes after the prime minister used a press conference to publicly rebuke bo for a scandal in his chief. the shake-up in the communist top ranks comes as the party prepares to choose new leadership this fall. joining me now from washing ton richard mcgregor of financial time, the author of the party, the secretary relted-- secret world of china aes communist rulers and damien ma, i am pleased to have both of them here to talk about this.

i begin with richard. what's going on? >> well, good question. it's a political earthquake whichever way you look at it in china. i think perhaps the biggest upheaval at the top in the politburo arguably since 1989 and that is big because that's when the party almost came a sunder. the cardinal governing principleses of china since 1989 was that there should be no visible splits at the top. and that's been a sunday we are the scandal. a couple things happen. bo xilai is a very charismatic politician n some ways the only true western style politician in china. and he's been campaigning very visibly. and until recently quite successfully to be elevated, as you said, to the politte boro standing economy, the ultimate power center in china. but in early february his police chief was with whom he had, you know, very tight bond in chongqing fled to the u.s. consullate in cheng

due-- chengdu, tried it to defect and told about bo xilai's misdeeds. he gave himself up and that was just for the top chinese leadership for a split in the ranks to be played out in the u.s. consulate of all places was just the worst thing that could happen to bo xilai. i think it's given his enemies, and there's lots of them, plenty of ammunition to bring him down and that's what they've done. now we don't know whether this is the end of it. whether he will be later arrested for corruption but i would say his political career is over. >> rose: damien? >> yeah, richard, i agree with most of what you had just said. i think to put a little bit of historical context here, let's remember that, you know, many of the top leaders actually don't particularly like bo xilai as a politician. precisely i think because of what richard said, about his western style charisma, that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. and i think he was in some sense banished out of chongqing from beijing where

he was a commerce minister. so i think he tried to make a name for himself doing all these red songs, maoist cultural revolutionary shenanigans that really, i think, disturbed it the top leadership at some point. and the police chief, when he defected that was the key opportunity to go after bo xilai himself. >> rose: how was he a western politician, what was it that made him so popular. >> yeah, let me give you a few examples. i mean he's flashy. most chinese leaders aren't flashy. they are the opposite of that he has these matinee idol good looks which he makes great use of. he also has and this is very important, terrific pedigree, chinese political pedigree. his father is one of the great eight immortals of the revolution. so that gave him great status as well. now being a principlesling is a bit of swings and

rounds about. sometimes it can be swung against you. sometimes swing in your favor. at the moment they have been consolidating power in china. and maybe bo xilai's problem was that he was so high profile, so campaigning that he threatened to upset that. and i think, you know, it's very important thing in china. if you embarrassed system, the system will gobble you up. and i think with the incident in the u.s. consulate in chengdu, the system, the empire striking back. and that's what what happened. >> rose: what happened to the police chief? >> the police chief has been officially stripped of his mayor position. they sent someone else from the city of chengdu to replace him, that was announced this morning as well. so he is, his future fate is still very unclear. i think it depends on how much he dished out to the u.s. consulate, how much the americans know and how much he dished out to the central disciplinary committee that had him holed up in an office for interrogations.

so i think, i think he had nothing to lose. while we had heard through the grapevine he felt his life had been tlented and that's why he went on the run. this really had the making of a bit of a hollywood movie feel to it as well. >> rose: i'm holding up the financial time, your newspaper, richard and on the front cover of today's edition, win races fear over returns of the cultural revolution. outgoing premier urges political reform, swipe at leader bo xilai and here is the first paragraph, this came from beijing. chinese leader a shot at the conservative officials in the ruling party, conservative officials in the ruling conservative party warning that china could face another cultural revolution unless it undertook urgent political reforms. this is the number two person in in china today, warning that there could be a cultural revolution with all of its horror unless they reformed. >> that's right.

it's a very, a very sort of, you know, hot phrase for wi win-- to use he was having a slap at bo xilai because he has started this maoist revival, nostalgia. and many people do feel nostalgic about mao because that in theory, besides the political campaigns was a time of much more sort of fairness, if you like, without such the rich poor gap. and many officials, top officials didn't like it but they had trouble campaigning against it how do you campaign or put down somebody who is praising mao. but and that's why this particular incident in chengdu allowed them to fight back. now you have shown yesterday's paper. here's today's paper. i will just hold it up for you. which is out in asia already and will be out in the states overnight. about bo xilai going down. you know, i don't think when he talked about the cultural

revolution was talking about the cultural revolution in the '60s and '70s. i think he was talking about the party loss pog we are. because that's what happened in the cultural revolution. you know, mao used the people to overthrow the party. anarchy, you know, the communist party's definition is anarchy is the communist party losing power. and i think that is what he was talking about, as well as having a slap at bo xilai. >> rose: continue about when xaobao. what is going on in the body politic of china. there was a three hour press conference, he said quote there are obviously political conflicts with the most important conflicts related to the distribution of power in the party. >> he is not calling for democratic elections. but you know, on the chinese sort of political ledger he is on the liberal side of it. and i think he was it was his last press conference, an annual press conference thises with a biller sweet valediction from him saying he still stood for these

values. he wanted to be associated going out associated with reform, not for the clock swinging back to mao campaigns but as it turns out wen was speaking not just for himself by putting down bo xilai he was giving us a big include about what happened a day later. >> rose: so what do we expect from the new leadership, the vice president who was just here and soon to become president, damien? >> well, i think he is really not going to show many of his cards right away. i think it take its really two to three years if not long tore consolidate his power. that is how the political system process goes in china. and he may not even get the full military position until hu jintao steps down that is how it happened in the last round. so he, i think, is basically on the domestic front going to keep the relative slowdown of the economy and trying to rebalance and spur

consumption. i think the biggest uncertainty, unknown is what are his true foreign policy views. i think china for the last 30, 35 years has had a pretty, you know, straightforward economic policy strategy. but i don't think they've really had a very coherent foreign policy. and i think given the scope and the impact of china now, i think it's time for them to really think about how to have a more coherent strategy on the foreign policy side and i don't think anyone really knows where that is going yet. >> in turkey there has been a campaign in the government of turkey to reduce the influence of the military. so-called put them back in the barracks. where is the military in china's political future. >> i think that as an interest group in china or political interest group, the military have been much more vocal over the past five to ten years. in some ways the fact that they've become more professional has made them a little bit more independent or speak more independently as a party. they are little developing an empire, there is also the interest group politics that

all militaries play out and they're speaking to be sure they get a bigger bget. but you know they have adopted, they sort of wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism or many of their generals do. and they have a licence to speak out that people in other ministries and certainly the foreign ministry do not. and so i think, you know, they appear to be having a much greater influence over foreign policy. and i think that certainly has implications for the future. and particularly in the asia-pacific. >> rose: do china watchers and people in china assume that hu zin tau and-- will hold -- >> the basic thinking right now is that hu zin tau will remain chair of the central military commission which is the top post in in the military probably for another term after he steps down as the top leader in the communist party. so i think that is why i made my point earlier about vice president xiping may have time to consolidate his power among the military

interests. >> rose: richard? >> i think also, hu jintao, for example s the nominal head of one of the two big factions, the chinese faction, his influence will live on. his people are, you know, littered throughout the politburo so i think he is an important figure. wen less so, he is not a factional figure. i don't think he is well networked. he's cult more much independent path, you know, which hasn't garnered him much power. so of the two departing leaders i think hu will be more powerful and wen and his family a little bit more vulnerable. >> rose: hu tends to be in terms of some right left, of the right, does he not, less reformist and more conservative and traditional. >> it is a little bit like that but as somebody once described it to me, look at hu jintao from a difference walking like a duck. one minute the right foot forward, the next the left foot forward and you can't really tell so i don't think we k the right, left label is great but i tell you he

is very conservative on the issue of maintaining the party's power. that's in his life blood. they all are. but i think him particularly so. he's really a creature of the party bureaucracy. and getting back to our original point, the minds of bo xilai is i think the triumph of party bureaucracy and discipline over sort of campaigning and charisma. and for hu jintao it's a big victory. >> rose: richard mcgregor, financial times, thank you so much. damien ma, your asia group and the atlantic. back in a moment. >> thank you. >> rose: stay with us. we turn now from the politics of china to the politics of sudan and south sudan. and the continuing efforts of the actor george clooney and the activist john prendergast to bring focus to that area, especially where there is civil conflict. as you know n 2005 a peace accord signed by sudan's opposing political parties brought africa's longest

running civil war to an end. violence has erupt add long the border since the south seceded last year creating south sudan. the images released by the sentinel satellite project show that government forces in the north may be preparing to launch an assault on the people. joining me are the projects' co-founders george clooney an john prendergast they have just returned from the sudan where they were investigating the impact of the recent bombings targeting civilians in south sudan. yesterday clooney testified before the senate foreign relations committee. he began his testimony by establishing the facts on the ground. >> the government of sudan lead by omar al bash ear, ago hem harun and the defence minister hussein who orchestrated the awe trosities in darfur have turned their bombs on the noneen people. they are not military targets. these are innocent men, women and children that is a fact. the three days ago while we were in the nuba mountains 15 bombs were dropped on a

neighboring village. when we got there we found children filled with schrep nell including a nine-year-old boy who had both of his hands blown off. as we traveled further north, we were greeted by hundreds of villagers carrying signs reading stop the antinof. and as we met with their leaders we were also met with three, 300 millimeters rocketed fired overhead. we witnessed hundreds of people running to the hills to hide in caves for their safety. that happens every day. these people are not the cave people of nuba. they actually live in farms and they have, they're the oldest society in the world. and yet now they're forced to hide in caves. it is a campaign of murder and fear and displacement and starvation. and that is also a fact. >> rose: i'm pleased to have john prendergast and george clooney back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, good to be back. >> rose: so tell me what you just returned from south

sudan. >> we got off the plane three hours ago. >> rose: what did you do, what did you see. >> do we smell nicer now. >> rose: it was hot. >> it was hot t was rough. we, we had a pretty amazing experience. he, we went up north from the south. there's a camp yida which we started from and then we sort of moved our way into areas that you are not allowed to go. and they don't allow cameras. they don't allow humanitarians. and it's a pretty rough road. we got about six hours north into some of the villages that were, that are being bombed every day. and we were on the ground during a rocket attack, that landed about a kilometer away from us. these are big, these aren't kadusha rockets they are 302 millimeter serious rockets. and we got to a village the day after 15 bombs were

dropped on them. so we, we were able to see sort of firsthand in almost, in actual realtime bombing of individuals, of civilians that have nothing to do with military this was not a military operation at all. >> rose: ethnic cleansing. >> ethnic cleansing, period. >> rose: where does what is happening there, where does it going and how does it fit in the long history of sudan. >> since sudan's independence in 1956 there has been one conflict after another with the various regions of the country rebelling against the center. so the government that took power in 1989 is still in there in a military coup has basically gone to war with a number of the different regions. the south was the only one that was really fighting for independence and they won their independence through a referendum. becoming the newest country in the world, mid 2011. >> also cost 2.5 million lives. but that left behind these other regions who have similar complaints about the

kind of discrimination that occurs in their regions. the darfurrians, the people where we were just vitting in the nuba mountains, blue nile and other regions. and they are basically uniting in an opposition to try to overthrow this government to change. >> rose: this is the government in khartoum. >> yes. >> rose: and so the civil war, if it comes, is it eminent? >> there is-- imminent. >> there is a civil war inside the sudan left behind by south sudan. >> rose: right. >> that already is a tremendously costly war. >> is it intensifying. >> it is intensifying because the government of sudan sees these guys as a threat to their regime. so they are increasing the use of the aerial bombings. they are starving these areas, hoping that through this, they will drive the people off the land and they'll take that land militarily. so basically what we're concerned about is the expanding civil war within sudan but also the possibility of a resumption of war between sudan and south sudan which is also

potentially imminent. >> rose: what's the likelihood of that happening. >> there's a chance. >> there's a real chance. in the last six weeks one of the major issues is, of course, oil. it's always oil. >> stephen: it is in south sudan. >> oil's in the south. the pipelines and refineries are in the north. and so for a long period of time what has been happening is the south has, the north has been taking that oil from the south, giving them a small amount of money, and dheening most of it and buying bombs and buying rockets. and using them to attack darfur, the nuba mountains or south sudan when they were at war is so what's happening now is over the last six weeks the south just shut off, shut it all off. said no more oil, period, at all. some people, experts including people in the united states think it's a bad move. it might be. i personally understand it. i understand why you wouldn't want to arm your enemy.

and it does open up a possibility for a discussion with china. because china is the one country that gets 60% of their oil imported from sudan. and now they're not getting any. so they have a real vested interest in working out some form of a deal. >> rose: and so they're on the ground trying to work out a deal. >> well. >> there's a peace process now that's sort of been stumbling along. and china comes in and visits every once in a while with an envoy. >> rose: trying to look after its oil interest. >> really to push things along a little bit. our contention is that we would like to see the obama administration intensify its dialogue strategically with china to save work together as the two countries, the u.s. and china with the biggest influence. >> rose: did in the end did china come aing on darfur. >> not on darfur but in the south. we were at the u.n. the day that the south announced, before the referendum they announced if there is a vote

for independence for the south, we will support them. and the minute that happened, everything changed for the south. the idea before that was there's a great possibility of a real civil war, like a bloody war thats with there before. and the minute that chinese say well we'll acknowledge the southern government, everything changed. the north wasn't going to attack. so our feeling is, again, you can't appeal to countries for humanitarian reasons. it really doesn't work. and you know, we're all grown-ups here. but you can appeal to them economically. so we as a group feel as if the united states and china rather than saying you guys should do this because it's the right thing, say listen, the cost of oil is going up for everybody. the president said in the press conference last week, that one of the reasons for the price of oil going up is because of the lack of oil coming out of the sudan. because the chinese aren't getting there, they're getting from somewhere else, raises the price. so there is mutual interest between the united states

and china in solving these solutions and these crossborder solutions. so why not go directly to the chinese and sit down and rather than try to guilt them into doing something right, partner with them in doing something write. >> rose: so part of your testimony before the senate tomorrow is in a committee i assume will be that argument, also an argument for a no-fly zone. >> i actually don't even think-- my suggestion will be i understand that this is an impossibility. are you not going to get a no-fly zone through the security council. china and russia will both vote against it, always. so we're trying to look for realistic answers. and the realistic answers are, are what we actually do well in this country which is robust diplomacy. and that means, taking the techniques we learned about going after terrorists money and using it to find the money that these guys are hading. they're not buying these weapons from the north in

sudanese pounds. they're hid then banks in malaysia. we want to find them and freeze them. >> that's what they are doing with respect to iran. >> that is exactly what they're doing. and we'll see but it has proven to be somewhat effective. we don't know how effective and how long it will be effective but there's hope. >> rose: while you are in washington also testifying before congress you will see the secretary of state make the same message to her. >> uh-huh. >> rose: and who else in washington. >> the president. >> rose: how has this administration been in response to the efforts that both of you have been making for south sudan. >> well, i think he's been-- what is your opinion on it. >> on his africa policy. >> i think in general you always want to see the maximum possible. and i think the president obama when he is engaged personally as he did in support of the referendum in the south, you know, before the united states took a real leading role in harnessing a number of nations together to demand a free and fair vote be held for that referendum,

everyone thought there was going to be a resumption of civil war, of north south war as george said. when president obama took the lead in the united nations general assembly, brought 40 heads of state together, laid down the conditions to the sudanese that this had to happen so that kind of personal diplomacy has been tremendously effective. we think the situation is as urgent now as it was then and we need them to reengage on this. >> and you think he might. you think he's going to be -- >> i think it's a positive message. we're not dk d think about it this way. here is the beauty of this. we understand how the world works, right. it's an election year. so if i was to sit down and say okay, well, listen, here's the right thing to do. everybody go-- we have got problems with debt, we've got our houses aren't worth. >> you are saying it in your interest. >> it is in your interest because as the president pointed out long before, a week before we went to the sudan, our gas prices are going up. because this is not resolved. resolve it and everyone's,

and it makes a difference economically to us. so there is actual reason for us to do it and not militarily. it shouldn't cost lives it shouldn't cost money. >> the broader picture here is if we look at where we are, new york and the united nations b ten blocks away t is the notion of china and the united states could work together on syria, russia vetoed but china was there as well. worked together on these places like in south sudan, would you get in sudan, you would get a kind of consensus-- consensus that could change a series of very hot troubling spots. >> uh-huh. >> yeah. >> including north korea. >> that's right. and what we're asking, our message, our request to the president is going to be send, without any fanfare, without any press releases send a senior official from the white house directly from him, as his emissary to talk about sudan and some of these other regionals. >> to china. >> to say how can we work together in a strategic partnership to maintain some

of the mutual interests we have in peace. and i think it's a compelling message at this time for the chinese. >> you know what happened with respect to iran, the saudies went to the chinese and said we'll make up whatever your oil shortage is, so if oil is your interest, we'll make it up for you. >> right. >> listen, look at china right now. the thing that people don't really understand about china and india, for that matter, is their economies are booming so much, suddenly you're having millions and millions and millions more people. >> they're cars. >> their demand. >> going off the charts. so they can't afford six% less oil imported so they have a real vest interested in this. >> it creates unemployment in their own country. >> absolutely. i've been to china and done the activist version of going in and sitting down with the heads of the chinese government and saying you know you've got an olympics coming. and it probably wouldn't look so good if you were supporting this slaughter in darfur and they're like thank you very much for coming. and i was gone. >> we hear you, george.

>> i understand that. and quite honestly if someone came to the united states and tried to guilt us into something, we probably wouldn't do it. it has to, you can't appeal to people's humanitarian-- to countries humanitarian solely it has to be their economic interests as well. it exists for both countries right now. >> rose: to put it on the map. >> uh-huh. let me go and talk about the nuba people. you've got this incredible footage that took them, you were there. tell me who they are. tell me the difference between africa and arab. tell me what this is about. >> sudan is an incredibly diverse country, there are arab, nonarab, muslims and christians and for literally centuries people coexisted. it's only been fairly recently where this government favors certain groups of people and discriminates heavily against others that you start to see the kind of repression that that creates, caused armed opposition so the nuba were basically fairly isolated group of people because of the mountainous region they come

from. about 50 different subgroups within this ethnic group called the nuba people. maybe 2 million people in that particular region. and half-and-half christian and muslim. and so since the war began and this sort of policy of ethnic cleansing began the targeting is of the nonarab people. the targeting has nothing to do with religion. the government fears that people who are of nonarab background are supporting the rebellion so it's the oldest counterinsurgency strategy in the book. drain the w59 tore catch the fish. if you kill the people or move the people off the land, how are the rebels going to sustain themselves so they go straight for the civilian populations rather than fight the army. >> we had this exact conversation a year ago, talking about another region called abia which is on the border. and it had, supposedly is rich with oil although that is disputable now. there is a group, 120,000 people in that area. and we came back and we were

with senator kerry. we went there. when we were talking about the referendum we said if you leave out abia in this discussion all the way through in this peace process or separation process, if you leave them out, they will disappear. because they, the north wants to move that border further south ad they don't want the people that live there, they don't want them there. and there were 120,000 of them there last january and they there are none there now. they're gone. they're either dead or refugees. >> take a look at this footage. this is extraordinary footage. taken, a matter of what, three days ago. >> three days ago. >> . yesterday, 10:30, right, 10:30 in the morning, 15 bombs hit this tiny village where everybody is hading in the rocks. and this is an unexploded

bomb, it's buried up to its neck in the dirt. that's what you do with unexploded bombs. and this is where it hit yesterday. here, here and here, and they're hiding in there. and there was yesterday? >> yeah. >> there it is, that was taken out of that young man's leg, two hours ago. >> yeah. >> you're a very brave boy.

>> these people are targeted. >> rose: tell me, have you had any contact with bash ear, has there ever been any-- he's written some nasty. >> rather nasty things about me. you can't please all the war criminals all the time. >> rose: how much opposition is there to him within sudan. >> that's a good question. john has a version of that. in sudan at the time of the arab spring broke in tunisia we saw almost the same kind of spirit of unarmed opposition in some of the major cities in sudan, immediately crushed by the regime in khartoum. and they, the regime in khartoum used a particular tactic that was very

insidious. they picked out women and girls who were family members of some of the leaders of the unarmed opposition and used rape against them. systemically rape against them. and it really took the wind out of the unarmed opposition. but what we is see now much more powerfully is a belt of unarmed opposition along the periphery, along the borders, countries adjacent to sudan so you have the darfurrians who have linked with the people from the nuba mountains and the blue nile in the east and all these people are basically rebelling against the government, wanting to see a democratic transformation in sudan like we've seen in other parts of north africa and the middle east. >> rose: where are other african nations on this. >> very divided. when a country has as much oil and oil resources as sudan does, they can buy a lot of support from countries that are less principlesed and less interested. the neighbors, though, ethiopia and uganda and kenya really want to see a

solution so they've just begun to step up. the mediator in all of this is the former president of south africa, up beki. he represents the african union and is fridaying to negotiate a union, they are worried about spillover effects and the contagion, regional contagion-this kind of long-term civil conflict can have. >> rose: what kind of priorities does this have at the u.n.. >> i think it's a high priority for them. they understand it. the one thing that they understand and what we're trying to explain is that these have all of the exact same earmarks, all the exact same signs as when darfur started. when the actual tragedy started. this is systemically choke off a certain group of people, picking them out ethnicly. by identify. -- by identity, starving them, making it impossible for them to live on their land, trying to get them to move, raping their women and the raping the women is not because you know this is something fun to do. they do it systemically. >> rose: as an act of war.

>> as an act of war, as an act of genocide, quite honestly. you know, you have to be careful how you use that word. but it's certainly a mass atrocities at the very least. so these are all of those compaq same things starting up again. if these people in the nuba mountains aren't in some way protected, as the rainy season comes in the next couple months, if the avenue to get food to them doesn't, opens soon because once it starts raining there is no getting food to these people. and believe me, these are a group of people that farm. this isn't, this isn't poor people who have done nothing and now they just need our help. these are farmers who are happy to work if they weren't getting bombed. and their crops weren't being burned to the ground. they're, there is a lot of people that are going to die, in much bigger numbers than are dying right now, in very near future. nick chrisoff wrote about it

in his column ten days ago talking about the fact that this could be a pretty large amount of people dying. >> rose: and the world cannot stand by as it did in rwanda. >> no. >> rose: that's the message. >> and we know it's happening and there are things we can do. let's do them before it happens. >> rose: what are you learning from the satellite project? what is it telling you about the movement of troops and everything else? >> that validates the accusations that this government in khartoum is utilizing the tools of war, civilian, i mean bombing of civilians, blow cading areas so-- blockading areas so humanitarian aid can't go in, these kinds of war crimes. basically it provides photographic evidence of the kind of-- . >> rose: where does that evidence go? >> well, first we make it public. >> first i think is this. we make it public so it's a lot harder to deny. because at some point you can't just keep saying well this is rebel infighting

when you've got antinof and helicopters and tanks and mass graves. we have a picture from yesterday, which is very rare. it's hard to catch things happening. that is a hard thing to do with a satellite imagement but yesterday we got pictures the day we were there of bombings and you can see the plums of smoke, bombing innocent civilians in villages. you know that kind of evidence, first of all, what's important for us is it is a record. and that record can be used later at the international criminal court ifs that becomes the case. it also is an element for us that we believe can be used at the security council to try and edge this mandate to protect a little bit higher. they come in numbers, you know, six is your mandate. six means that you stand there with your gun in your hand and if everybody gets killed in front of you, as long as they don't shoot you you don't do anything. we would like it to get to a

seven, you know, we would like the mandate to be raised just enough to say we have a responsibility to protect the people that were standing there in front of. that's something that we might be able to do with something like the satellite project because it makes it harder and harder for china and russia and the people who always veto raising this mandate it makes it harder to argue the fact that this is rebel infighting and that's our goal is to try to keep this constant drip of the idea that everyone is watching right now. so you cannot completely deny what's going on. >> are you impressed with what is happening in this kony 12 social media. >> we have been gone the whole time it happened. >> it's incredible. there is no precedent for it. but you know, the cause is a simple one that there is a particular rebel group t may not be as big as it was ten years ago. by the way, ten years ago the benefactor of the lords resistance army was the sudan government. so because of international pressure the sudan government largely cut them off but we think there mate be a little support.

let me interrupt you. because of international pressure, so international pressure can make a difference with al bashear. >> it's harder and harder to do because they've moved in a more extreme position. but still when the world is united all that attention that was raised during the state of darfur efforts that george and i have participated in, you know, maybe it didn't resolve the war but it sure made it a lot harder for bashear and his cronies to be able to cut off food and humanitarian assistance to people of darfur. hundreds of thousands of people are alive today because people put signs and went to rallies and wrote their letters and put a spotlight on that situation. so i think that you know, the name and shaming and spotlighting of things when they're that bad can actually impact. >> you think it might have that impact in terms of what is happening in uganda. >> i think what the whole effort to try to move toward it is on kony is he's been weakened so substantially. president obama is take the

courageous move to send troops. they're not operational. they're just helping to plan an effective counterinsurgency so that the remnants of kony's force wris still doing terrible damage in congo and south sudan can be, and we can catch kony and bring him to justice in the hague in front of the international criminal court, that's the objective of the campaign. >> think about it. if you think about kony, think about right now in khartoum, but not really in khartoum, a lot of it on the border, there are three actors. bashear, the defense minister hussein and harun. all three charged with war crimes against humanitarian for their acts in darfur. all three of them are the perpetrators of what is going on in the nuba mountains, all three of the exact same actors. we know what these guys have done left to their own devices. so the kony thing, i think it's great. i know there a backlash. >> rose: where the money goes that kind of thing,

more of the money is meant for self-promotion than it is to-- actually gets to the people there. >> right. i mean we didn't put this one together. and you know we're not quite sure how it all works. i'm happy that there is attention on kony because he is a bad guy and another person charged at the hague. >> rose: the more attention the more the world knows and maybe the world will get motivated. i think furst got turned on by africa in ethiopia you saw pictures and said how can we stand tore this. >> we all remember live aid it save the world it saved a million lives. because people paid a little bit of attention. >> how did you get turn and to the sudan and darfur. >> nick chrisoff articles. he was writing pieces, really compelling, ann curry had gone, good reporters had gone. but it wasn't getting much traction. it was getting alot of, you know, i think nick won a pulitzer for it. it was getting really, the important people were hearing it but it wasn't getting out, you know there

were students' groups and church groups and everyone, this subcurrent that was doing all of this really great work but-- . >> rose: it hadn't hit popular culture. and i called my father up and you know, i said you know, remember how you used to tell me how every time did you a story, you said you do a story, would you gym so where and cover the storind get bumped for elizabeth taylor story. and he said yeah, i remember. and i said okay let's go, why don't you and i go to darfur. and you be the newsman and i'll be elizabeth taylor. >> and you went. >> and we went. and he went and it was a very brave thing for him to do because it's not easy there at all. there's a lot of-- it's hard to just get around. and it's hard to breathe and you know, and he was 74 years old. and it was tough for him but he got out there and he continues to go out and work and speak and try to put an end to this.

>> he's a reporter. >> he's a reporter. >> okay. here is win lesson that comes out of this, it seems to me. is that if you are going to bring whatever advantage there is to celebrity and it's significant, you have to pick your pots. >> uh-huh. >> is that the lesson here for you in sudan. >> i think-- i think that if i have a talent at this, and john will maybe disagree or agree, i'm not sure, but my version of this is understanding news cycles pretty well. and understanding that you know, after the referendum, for instance, and you know there was a lot of things going on afterwards but there was also an arab spring. and i said we have to lay low, you have to let at rab spring do its thing. you have to pick and find your place where you can then find a news cycle. now there is syria and afghanistan, but there's still, a place now. there's air for us to be able to talk about something that's very important and

brewing and happening. but it's usually about you know you can't have a constant drip of missery. there is donor fat agency. there is missery fat agency. you have to do hard, quick, condensed hits of it to get people aware. to have them understand what's going on. and then to give them room. >> you got to know things to make a difference. >> he has taken a complicated issue and made it accessible to a lot of people in this country and around the world. and he has stayed committed to it. and you know a lot of people when things don't go well in the first year or two sort of drift off to the sidelines. and here he is back in the war zone again. >> he basically just said that i'm simple. the truth of the matter is, as you know, and john knows better than anyone, this is never going to be resolved. right it's going to take forever. it's going to take generations of work and constant-- and the victories are going to be small and

they're going to be huge setbacks and two-steps forward and two-steps back. it's fever going to feel like ah, we got it. but the truth of the matter is there is, there is a progress to thisnd you can see. look. when hillary clinton stood up, you know, 150 days before the referendum, she said that the sudan, north south is a ticking time bomb. and everyone, and you can talk to anyone we have spoke to at the u.n., the state department, the people on the ground in the sudan thought this is going to be a war. and they're never going to pull this referendum off. it's just going to go wrong. that didn't happen. now you can't prove what didn't happen. but what we know is it didn't happen. so you find victories in these elements. and you just keep pushing forward, understanding that it will never feel complete. >> rose: so where is darfur today. >> well, it's better than it was in 2005 and better than

it was in 2006. there's still a tremendous-- . >> rose: will it be better than it is today in 2013. >> that's a good question. >> it totally depends on whether or not this developing alineses, as i said between the darfurrians and the other regions is successful in altering the way sudan is governed. that may mean regime change it may mean regime transformation, it may mean the regime adjusting its policies so that they're more fair and less discriminatory. >> rose: you mean the regime in khartoum. >> in khartoum so i think the darfurians were fighting for their own little slice of autonomy z not succeed so now they've thrown in with the larger sudan to say we've got to transform the whole country. we have to transform the center in order to be project-- protected if the region and they're not fighting the war any more in darfur, they're going to these other areas and saying let's fight together until we get what we want. which is a democratic future in sudan. >> i think what is also

important for people to understand is that there is, because everything seems complicated. when i go, i just came back, and just before i left really smart people were like, good luck in darfur. you know, because it all sort of meshes together. but the reality is it's all the same people doing the same crime. >> rose: a roads lead to khartoum. >> there is the government sudan. and south sudan. and sort of horseshoed around it are four regions that are left out in many ways. darfur, the south cortifan, avia and the blue nile. and those area are not really part of north, really, although partially part of the north. and not really part of the south, i suppose. they're-- avia wants to be part of the south. they believe in it. the nuba mountain was like their own independence. darfur would like its own independence within or their own autonomy. they all consider themselves sudanese but they are not

treated fairly by the central government, they are not included, they are terribly discriminated against. their land is stolen for agriculture schemes, for mining schemes. so they just want a fair shake. they want some equal rights, basically, under the law for a rashes and nonarab people. and it's a struggle not for independence, but for a fair and democratic future. >> rose: where are the russians and where is western europe, other countries part of the security council. >> well, russia and china as we see in most of these places vote together as a bloc. in sir ya, it's really russia's game and china just backs it up because it doesn't want to be left alone on something-- but this is china's territory, sudan and south sudan. and so russia goes along. they sell arms to the sudanese government. >> rose: like with the syrians. >> so they are in it basically for the money. but at the end of the day, if we can affect the calculations of china to invest more deeply in the peace process, to help bring about a constructive solution, the russians will

go along with that. >> because remember this. i think what people also will not understand until you explain it is, that china has 20 billion dollars worth of oil own from structure invested in this area. you can go to places in the sudan and see truckloads of chinese workers, truckloads of them working, building roads, building oil wells. i mean-- . >> rose: in south sudan. >> in south sudan and in the north. sure. but most of the oil wells are in south sudan. but it really has, you know, i've been on the roads where it feels as if it's, you know, the turn of the century in america building a, you know, a rail line. it really does have that sense. they really have invested in this. so they have a great interest in this all working out for them. and for a period of time, there wasn't any great push or pull. okay so there is some conflict. but the conflict in some ways works for them. because the united states without calls them a

terrorist nation, doesn't do business with them. meaning we don't take the gas. we don't take the oil if we don't take the oil, they don't have the competition. so there's a reason not to get involved. >> rose: now is south sudan trying to build rewine-- refineries too so they can refine their own oil. >> they are hot in negotiations now with companies in order to build a pipeline out to the indian ocean in kenya, and to have their own refineries. instead of being reliant. >> rose: is that part of the reason that they fear that an attack may come from the north because they know that there is a ticking clock that will work in the advantage of the south sudanese. >> that's exactly right so there is some urgency. this is a little bit of a window here. before they start building their own written from structure to completely delink from sudan. before both of their economies basically collapse internally, both sudan and south sudan because of the cuttoff in oil,s they are's a moment here where encouraging a positive solution away for these two countries to figure out how to coexist, would actually

bring about a potential peaceful solution. >> so give me before we go george some sense of where you think washington is. so now what the united states is looking to do is to create a coalition of other people that other countries that can help. because if you close this down, you know, omar bashear f you freeze all his assets and they're in banks all over the world, he is not buying weapons in sudanese pounds, you know. that's not happening. so wherever that money is,. >> he can't buy weapons. >> you can't do it. and you start to close those things down because you get help from all of those international countries. so part of this, part of what washington is trying to do and what we're hoping that they will do more of is building a coalition to really tighten thats into. >> that is exactly what they are doing with respect to iran. >> it is. >> that is a very, they got very smart about it too. in the beginning it was, do the financial ends. and get effect the central

bank in iran. then it had to do with the oil embargo. then it had to do with putting pressure on people not to buy oil if not successful. >> the entire sert to put that kind of economic squeeze on the sudanese so that they can. >> and that was from the very top. >> you need the chinese to do that. >> you need the president directly engaged this is a priority for the entire u.s. government. >> we need the president engagedment i don't understand item president is to the engaged. >> he is engaged. we would like to see even more, more involvement. >> so the president is sitting at this tablend and he says look this is what i am doing already. and will you say i though that, mr. president, but i want to you do this. >> uh-huh. >> we want to give you support for what are you doing and we want the president to send an envoy to china to talk about a strategic partnership and getting a deal done. >> why wouldn't the president want to do that. >> we don't know. we haven't had this conversation yet. >> we are having it tomorrow. but the truth is this is not

something old. this is some conversation that has just come up. >> i have to say -- >> the idea of sudan and with the independence of south sudan, that's been in existence since the end of 2011 as i remember. >> sure, right. >> but i have to say, he was incredibly helpful through that period of time. incredibly helpful. that was a very, that was a thin type -- >> tell me why this is not a no-brainer for the president. what is the downside for the president? >> i don't know. >> we don't think there is a downside. >> it's a deepening engagement of the united states. >> she say friend of yours. >> absolutely. she has been pounding away. they have a great commitment to sudan. they are just, secretary clinton has been committed. we just need to operationalize that commitment and even deeper and stronger ways in the form of the partnership with china and in the form of a more robust set of sanks that we're really biting sudan. >> congress's sending up a bill i think when, soon. >> the house just introduced

that basically will help provide even more political consider for the administration to say let's go do more. >> john kerry has within there. >> we were there with him. >> chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. s so he's on board. >> he is absolutely on board. >> and dick lugar. >> senate minority leader. we had a meeting with him as well. >> and i think that senator kerry has been the real leader in this. and wants to continue being. he is the one without called and asked me to come and testify to the senate. >> thank you, george. >> thanks. >> thank you, john. >> thank you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org