with the united states. 90% of our experts go to the united states. 90% of our oil goes to the u.s. 90% of the tourist that visit mexico come from the u.s. and so on and so forth. obviously, all of our immigrants are in the united states by definition. there's a very open economy. so mexico can't be an interspective closed off character. we don't have the traditional mexico way of being in our mind when in our everyday life we're an open economy. >> i want to return senior castaneda to mexican phobia and the fear of the foreigner. with the growing middle class in mexico, as that changed? >> it hasn't changed yet. it's beginning to change, but we are still very much immersed in the fear of the foreign and in the notion that we've always been victims of the past or in the past that we were conquered by the spanish in 1519, 1521, and humiliated and exploited by the spaniards for the following three centuries. then during the 19th serge -- 19th century with texas taken away, then the united states invaded us, then the french invaded us in 1963, then the americans invaded us again in 1914. a

considering american foreign policy and the united nations it's not such a departure from the united states uses international law invokes international law when it's useful and ignores it when it's an obstacle. the first iraq war was authorized by the united nations security council and the first president bush used as an argument that he didn't need congressional authorization that well the united nations security council has authorized it congress didn't except that there was a fight and eventually there was congressional authorization so the united nations they don't none of this replaces the constitutional requirement or the war powers resolution requirement that the president. explicit congressional approval unless the unless the united states or its armed forces are under attack and as was pointed out there are multiple provisions of the war powers resolution one of them affirms that the president must get authority to advance unless there's an attack on the u.s. and its armed forces and another one affirms that u.s. forces must be withdrawn in the absence of an attack if there is no

career and then the needs of this should come as no surprise the united states. terrorism terrorism a different policy one of the. humanitarian short humanitarian mandates which in fact is also because you do not come to the rescue of millions with the two still follows french. let's talk about some of the interest in bahrain because as hillary clinton secretary of state clinton clinton made no secret bahrain is seen as a very important partner and one of the reasons why that is that there is a naval base there the u.s. fifth fleet is stationed there and from what i hear from basra needs by looking at the construction they believe that the u.s. is expanding its naval base there that it's growing that they're building upon it and they also say that the united states used a u.k. air force base in bahrain to fly planes out of and used that base so i want to ask you if you did see those as being some of the largest interests in the region. well absolutely the whole if you look at it from the geopolitical perspective with objectives of the united states that this. is

it's all because we're going in the wrong direction we've had three years of budget cuts in the united states now most of it's at the state and local level but when you aggregate all those state local cuts they've been tremendous we've been laying off government employees by the hundreds of thousands for the past couple of years since the start of the recession in two thousand and seven government employment at all levels in the united states is down by a quarter million so the idea that it's too much spending on public sector hiring is just a myth it's exactly the direction we need to go ok one thing i want to ask you just a little bigger picture because the euro zone has been a hotbed for debt crisis we've seen this in greece also portugal of course and spain it had problems as well you know the e.u. is not the united states but this is a global economy we saw u.s. stocks tumble today on the news out of greece and it does according to analysts give a lot of concern about u.s. thinkers so how does what we're seeing in the euro zone affect the united states economy. but the two thousand and f

it is really quite amazing, the extent to which israel is a taboo subjects here in the united states.> host: why? >> guest: well, my view is that the strongest supporters of israel here in the u.s. states want israel and the united states to have a special relationship. they want the united states to give israel large amounts of material and diplomatic assistance, and they want us to give that assistance unreservedly. in other words, without qualification. we just give it to them no matter what they do. this is what makes this relationship so special. so we have this large interest group who we call the israel lobby that has worked overtime for decades now to put the yet is states in a position where it supports israel unconditionally. now, if you have an open debate where israel is criticized for pursuing policies court this role is criticize in ways to make it clear that american and israeli interests are sometimes at odds with each other, then you begin to question the special relationship. you begin to say, why are we supporting israel in an unqualified way when the interest of th

when we come back i would like to move into more current affairs and the united states relationship withchina. we will cover all of those issues are former secretary of state henry kissinger in his new book "on china" when we come back. >> host: we are regional by former secretary of state dr. henry kissinger who has a masterful new book out called quite simply "on china." dr. kissinger, let's talk about more current events, particularly as they relate to the united states relationship with china. it's very complicated now. i remember when it's working for president nixon in the early 1990s, he said it's interesting because when kissinger and i opened relations with china in the early '70s, it was all about strategic issues, which we talked about before the break. he said now in the early '90s he said now it's almost all about economics. i think now in the 21st century it's a combination of both, strategic and economic. when you look at china's incredibly rapid economic rise, are you stunned or are you surprised, or not at all? >> guest: i'm surprised, and so would nixon be in any of us

and advance the national security interests of the united states. not to enforce, to quote the president, the writ of the international community, end quote. not -- nor because of the united nations -- nor because of the arab league. yet these are what the president has repeatedly pointed to in justifying sending u.s. forces into action in libya. but what he has not done is explain to the american people and to congress how the situation in libya, if allowed to spiral out of control, poses a threat to u.s. national security interests. it is an increasingly important region, mr. speaker, with implications stretching into other areas that are vital to our nation. little if any details have been provided in response to repeated questions regarding u.s. goals, the scope of the operation, and other issues of direct relevance to our national security. it is an open question as to whether the administration simply won't tell us or whether they just don't know the answers. members on both sides of the aisle are increasingly frustrated. and i share that frust

how big a concern should that be for the united states? >> guest: well, what i think the focus is, we are the two most powerful countries in the world today. there's a whole series of issues that are new, the environment, proliferation, fair institute of energy, these are unique problems only to be solved on a global basis. secondly, we ought to learn from the european experience when a rising germany and an established britain had to dole with each other -- deal with each other and didn't manage to do it and the result was world war i, and i often ask myself if the leaders that went to war in 1914 had known what the world would look like four years later when the war ends, would they have done it? would one or the other make an accommodation? i say in the book we ought to approach foreign policy vis-a-vis china with that in mind. we ought to look for opportunities of cooperative relationship. at the same time, we will strenuously defend our interests, and if the chinese approach the problem in the same way, then i'm hopeful that the ingen

the united states has been growth for us. the united states has been clinics and schools for us. but the united states has not invested in major infrastructure projects for us like dams and electricity that we can produce for all. we have an argument about that. afghanistan has made its point of view very clear. for example, a project in kandahar for the production of electricity where the u.s. government spent $215 million on providing generators we disagreed with. we felt this money could be spent better by building a dam in that region. that will give a lasting sustainable economic environment to the people of the region. so if the investment of the united states is done in concertation with afghanistan and based on afghan priorities, it will produce a lot better result. we are grateful to every penny that the u.s. taxpayer has given to afghanistan. afghanistan will account for that part of the taxpayer's money that the afghan government has spent. where we are in charge, we are accountable, and we are grateful immensely for the u.s. taxpayer's money. they are hardworking peop

>> i'm running for the presidency of the united states. he role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws. >> on that point to voters out there for whom this is an important issue, let's go through it. let's start at this end and go through. i'll describe it this way. are you a george w. bush republican meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage or dick cheney who said this should be made -- this decision should be a state's decision? >> state's decision. >> i support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman. i was the co-author. >> the federal government should not be involved. i wouldn't support an amendment. one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. we know what marriage is all about, but get the government out of it. why doesn't it go to the church or the individuals? i don't think government should give us a license to get married. >> constitutional. >> mr. speaker, i helped author the defensive marriage act, which the

serving the interests of the united states. demonstrating the high caliber of the american system of free enterprise. what from this new front here is coming into the brain of the world oil. one of the material that is making the truly great contribution to our modern civilization. and. one of the reasons the reason for that primary one for the invasion of iraq is to ensure u.s. control over the major energy resources of the world the embassy it's being built inside baghdad it is a city like no other embassy in history or in the world they're not building the embassy. in syria rank in the huge basins around with an intention to leave they're building them with an intention to maintain control. since two thousand and three the u.s. has built dozens of military bases in iraq in two thousand and eight the u.s. and iraqi governments signed an agreement that states that all foreign troops should leave the country by two thousand and eleven. the agreement also says that the u.s. will not seek permanent basis or a permanent military p

yeah absolutely i mean i think a bigger difference between united states and western europe is largely about the political system so even before the disastrous citizens united supreme court case the united states we had relatively pay to play politics as against europeans i think on both sides of the atlantic inside the united states as well as in western europe the financial industry in some cases rightly and some not so fairly enjoys about the same level of popularity that major diseases usually have the difference is that american politicians get their money from powerful lobbies and are much more beholden to corporate interests even when their own popular and the europeans with proportional representation publicly financed campaigns are not quite as much under the sway of the sway of transnational business and so they do a little more legislative responding to what their constituents actually want and many of our politicians are a little bit less worried about that because they all face the real primary which comes before every election which is cost on raising a very quick slight

the united states military. and i can tell you that. because i was serving at the time when my friends who were in tank units at use golf carts to practice tank tactics. i can tell you as an exhibit is officer when we didn't have enough money to buy tools to repair our house is orie enough money to get to rebut paper for some of our soldiers we didn't have enough money to buy ammunitions so the guys could stay out on the rifle range and we find ourselves going down the exact same path. and the united states military in the 20th century to today you see this ready for world war i and we go all the way down to the bottomless pit. in the literature and that backup for world war ii and go back into a bottomless pit. if we don't have a steady state and then a plus or minus, and then we lose an opportunity to ensure that we protect america for the future that our children and grandchildren. we took the road map or the respective areas of operation and combat and commander area responsibilities and look at the threats to their and that is the c

well the united states is the principal instigator and president is. the chief executive officer of the united states and one of our constitution so there's no declared war that congress is upset about that our constitution requires there be a declaration of war by the congress. so far the congress had declared many wars of aggression it's declared war getting under war should have been a good way or to. really interest of the united states and it's unclear if they i doubt that they would have rejected the president's plan had he gone to congress but but i guess the broader question is you know if you look at the history of warfare in the united states every single president since reagan has had a war of his own so to speak. is there a culture of aggression and warfare that we're fighting for that's broader than just libya yes of course it goes back before reagan. remember the korean war bloody bloody war three or four million people killed for no reason except. you start to dominate the korean peninsula and divide it the most unified society on the pl

more clear are you satisfied that it's legitimate or is it just all about domestic politics the united states obama is trying to satisfy public opinion without alienating the military all that much because it's still open ended even what we've heard about these plans american and nato troops will be in afghanistan for a very long time. well i wouldn't quite put it that obama is trying to satisfy public opinion in a sense opinion in the united states on afghanistan is way ahead of president obama in terms of the desire to withdraw our troops i mean the latest pew poll shows fifty six percent. to thirty eight percent want to withdraw our troops as soon as possible only thirty eight percent are interested in keeping troops there until the situation is stabilized quote unquote so i mean that's really you know it's not that obama is satisfied in public opinion what he's doing is primarily satisfying the interests of the pentagon in the military they have gotten most of i would say eighty percent of what they wanted whereas the faction in his administration was really concerned about the cost of th

united states military. nd i can tell you that because i was serving at that time when my friends were in tank units and had to use golf carts to practice the tactics. i can tell you as an executive officer when we didn't have enough money to buy tools to repair or enough money to get toilet paper for some four soldiers we didn't have enough money to buy ammunition so that the guys could stay out on the rifle range, and we find ourselves going down the exact same path. when you study the history of the military in the the 20th century to today, you see this. ready for world war i, and we go all the way down to a bottomless pit maybe try to wrap it up for world war ii and go back to the bottomless pit. if we don't have a steady state, we will lose an opportunity to ensure that we protect america for the future for our children and grand children. we need to look at this road map by saying what are their respective areas of operation, what are the combatant commander responsibilities and look at the threats tha

not terry the head of the united states state department and so getting. our ways but you'll see the consequences i don't know i never heard of using the army is a poverty reduction tool or the state department was conned lisa writes know about the poverty reduction poverty creation made but i don't see a lot of them what they did and how a seven able to get their support in order to you know lots this program that you say has no no going well about it you know how it is sad ron we all know this power i hear in their. cash it's cash under a lot condo resources paid a fortune by chevron as a board member and it's very interesting that she goes from secretary of state from sharon's board to secretary of state and then back into chevrons payroll the question is did she ever leave sharon's payroll in effect because george bush put the heat and her state department with tremendous heat on ecuador tremendous you know there were over these over these cases and tremendous heat on ecuador for trying to put the. put the would get some justice from the oil companies

she has been at the united states six times, but this is the first state dinner.ip? >> i think this particular visit is laden with symbolic importance, and that the relationship between the united states and germany has gone through something of a rough patch. germans are asking why obama has not been to berlin. has the united states to some extent lost its european calling? obama wanted to send a clear signal -- we stand by you. this relationship is important. it is not as if with previous visits they were downgraded. it is that this one comes at a very important time in obama's presidency and merkle's chancellorship. >> we will go to the republican color -- a republican caller. >> i wanted to let you know that your comments are very much appreciated. you handle calls very well. we really enjoy you. you are a great host. i want to ask your guest -- the euro has been so strong for the last few years, with the exception of the last two years. it has been a strong currency. all of the social benefits that germany offers -- how come german exports are so strong, and

at different times has been intensely critical of the drone attacks and threatened to throw the united states out at one point. what is your current state and current opinion about the use of drone attacks? do you support it? do you understand it? are you 100% behind the united states when it comes to the use of these drones? >> well, the president raised the civilian casualty several times, a, because he's saying that we should focus more on the safe haven where the terrorists

from 2000 and 2007, i served as an assistant united states attorney with the united states department of justice working in the united states attorney's office for the central district of california nfment july of 2005, i became involved as the lead prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of a group of individuals who were involved in a conspiracy to wage a war of terrorism against the united states government by murdering u.s. military personnel and jewish persons in southern california. these individuals were members of a group or j.i.s., which was created in the california prison system. i intend to discuss the j.i.s. case and the conspiracy which was engaged by its founder and leader, kevin james and his cell mate and two other cell members. let me begin by discussing kevin james and j.i.s. in approximately 1997, kevin james founded j.i.s. based on his preparation of islam while serving a prison sentence in the california department of prison system. he remained in prison throughout the conspiracy and the resulting investigation. james preached that it was the duty of j.i.

when the united states forces were there. and, of course, the israelis had gone in and taken out their nuclear program well before that. it was chemica and biological weapons that the u.n. was particularly concerned about and that saddam hussein's regime refused to tell the u.n precisely what had happened and stockpiled. now, we know saddam hussein had them, we know he used them on his own people, we know he used them on the iranians. when the war ended, there were not large stkpiles found as the u.n. had assumed he had becaushe had refused to indicate that he did not. what they did find, the duelfer report found this, was precursors for chemical weapons and biological weapons. the competent people who kn how to do it and had done it previously together. and dual-use facilities that would enable them to have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons within a matter of weeks according to the dell fur report. so it really didn't make a lot of difference that there were there weren't stockpiles as long as you had the ability

furthermore, the united states must be prepared to suspend all funding to the united nations if the general assembly -- [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] let me repeat this and know this. this was secretary of state jim baker's advice to george bush in 1989 in a similar situation. the united states must be prepared to suspend all funding to the united nations if the general assembly moved to recognize the palestinian state and the control of hamas. -- under the control of hamas. eighth, all of this will require a restructured state department, a new level of training and management for a embassadors, a new promotion system, and a profound shift in the culture of the foreign service. [applause] the quickest way to change the culture at the state department is to inject new blood into the system. we must engage in fundamental reform of the overly slow and bureaucratic security clearance system to raise the level of applicants for the foreign service. change on the scale will be the true fought by the old guard of the state and media allies. it will require a strong comic operas, and

related to that is, there's a perception in the united states with some justification, not necessarily entirely justified that china is different. there are indian state-owned enterprises without getting into too much detail -- the idea that the indian government guides them in some ways sort of obviously falls on contact either the government or state-owned enterprises so don't have an equivalent in terms of size coming down the pike or anything of that nature so dan's policy -- what dan has referred to very eloquently over and over again is historical u.s. policy is going to rule in most of these cases. we're not running huge trade deficits with the brazilians. we run a -- a relatively small trade deficit with india. all that other baggage doesn't come in. in that sense china is different. i don't mean it's so different that we have to treat them differently and discriminate against them and i'm not sure we have to worry about globalization of u.s. policy. u.s. policy is generally fine. the question is, whether it's fine with respect to what is now the world's second largest economy

by the way, i also think it is the united states a single most important issue with mexico. there are 11 or 12 million a marriage -- mexicans residing in the u.s. there are important states in the u.s.-led california, texas, arizona, nevada, illinois where mexicans make up a very significant part of the electorate. the population at large. it is a central issue, and one that has to be addressed to no end that nobody wants to address forthright. >> how should it be addressed? >> a little bit the way that we said back in 2000 when in 2002 with my good friend and former secretary of state : paul, the way president bush wanted to address it, and the way president obama wants to address it now. legalize the people here without papers, establish a migrant worker program for people to be able to continue to enter the united states as the u.s. economy needs labor. support and help the areas of mexico where migrants come from so that they eventually the star staying in their home towns of less they are needed in the u.s. once you have done that insure that the u.s.-mexican border is o

handed him to the united states in march and april there were discussions between the u.s. and the u.k. because the u.s. wanted to send him to the u.k. didn't object despite the fact that at this time even the grade broke making it absolutely clear to anyone who had any doubt what was happening to prisoners in the u.s. detention the u.k. says that it learned quote unquote in june of that year june two thousand and four that my client had been sent to bob graham and although there was and no you kind of deal between the u.s. and the u.k. that permits the u.k. to get him out of custody and never bothered to do so so we've had to sue them in the united kingdom courts in haiti as corpus to tell them you have to get person this.

journalism our founding fathers knew this that's why the only industry mentioned specifically in the united states constitution is the press they knew that our democracy couldn't function without a fourth the state of journalism but thanks to the rise of corporate media monopolies and patriot act policies that swash journalism and whistleblowers as we see in the cases of the new york times reporter james rising has been spied on by the cia and former n.s.a. official thomas drake who blew the whistle on government waste and judith miller of the new york times shilling for bush's war in iraq investigative journalism in america it's pretty close to flat lining it's a shell of what it used to be so as the newtonian law of politics we have it something has to fill that void. it's like something has to fill the void nature and that something is little security and anonymous and wiki leaks but this isn't a phenomenon a play exclusive to the united states it's occurring all over the world from tahrir square in egypt where a democratic revolution was ignited thanks in part to government abuses exposed by w

think you know that he will never see is and the average iranian has no interest in him or with united states i think that's true i think most to radians are actually if not pro-american at least favorably disposed to america when i was the country tehran was the biggest city in the middle east on nine eleven that had a candlelight vigil in support of absolutely absolutely that's true and i don't and that the you know that hasn't gone away if we drop bombs on them it will of course it would if it hasn't a lot of it would you have to look at is you know we're you see everything set up and you know right now you have the arab spring and of course syria is being usually affected by the arab spring and what is happening there so it is you know our interest to make sure that it's best we can if the arab spring succeeds in syria does that mean that we have to have troops in iraq not necessarily but what it does mean is that each of these players they look at the world map kind of like a chess board and when they look at the chess board the world map they see all the different pieces that are there

the united states government is united in its support of an alliance and the aspirations of the libyan people print thank you. her look for to an answering your questions. >> thank you very much. we appreciate the testimony enormously. i will reserve my time for such time that i may want to intervene with my questions. i will turn to senator lugar to start. koh, one of the reasons it is important to have this meeting and debate on this issue is that there are a number of situations in which the united states and other nations have severe disapproval of the governments of those countries. as a matter of fact, from time to time, we make speeches and editorialize and work with others in the united nations to exempt to bring about conditions that are better for the people of countries that we believe are under totalitarian or very afar -- very authoritarian mr. rule. in this particular instance, the libyan situation arose following uprisings in tunisia and egypt, which caught the attention of the united states and the world. in the case of libya, the arab league and the united nations and

member but the united states is not. even if the european union were to disappear tomorrow, reconciliation between the natis of the balkans would have stayed the priority of the government of serbia. >> rose: the relationship o those countries of the former yugoslavia remains, was, is, and will be the highest priority of the serbian government? >> well, ithink that relations with neighbors is something that is the highest priority of everyone in the world. you need to have good relations with your neighbors in order to have, like, a prosperous... >> rose: economic future. what's the economic future of serbia? >> well, that i believe the future, including the economic future, of the entire region of the balkans is in the european union. i think it makes geographical sense, it makes historical sense it makes cultura sense. it makes good political sense. and this is why the european future is a central strategic... building a european socie and achieving a european future is a priority for the government of serbia. despite

the united states and the united kingdom and switzerland with at least be a start. they say that they will go for more, to get somebody that they want. with a push 10% of the common equity for the retail operation, they would lead the wholesale operations to be determined by this process. this is clearly not willing to go with unilateral on the wholesale acquisitions. paul lee because of their own banks and being subjective to tougher requirements than those elsewhere. we can get the u.k. and switzerland with us and it would be better than going alone, but i do not know if it will be different. >> it is only about two banks. one of them was not billed out because the swiss government had made a profit during the crisis. the conclusions that they had drawn from this is basically, we don't want these huge banks. this is not the conclusion that the u.k. had made, or the united states. one way to look at this unconfirmed decision -- and there is a debate in parliament. this is something that looks like the proposal. this is a way to say, we will go back to the banking s

we know no experience with corn in the united states that the biological pollution . of these you know clinton across is uncontrollable there's no buffer zone you can't control the way insects fly or that rainwater will carry any vector can take this these new genes and spread them to other crops and to weedy relatives it's happening all of the united states can't control it but the companies are not taking responsibility for that and they're not being held liable for this biological pollution in the future that a company like monsanto is going to go out of business there they're teetering economically months and isn't meant as economic problems think of the billions of dollars already out there and biological pollution costs are not going to pay so they're going to be long gone i mean what we look at our major crops if we're not careful corn soy cotton wheat rice and they're all going to be polluted. perhaps indefinitely the future because of these companies' actions which they can never pay for that's gross corporate responsibility. not to consider. a field in minne

there will be few jobs lost inside the united states and then there will be growth of jobs in the united states. and abroad as well. >> okay, could you just go into a little bit more detail on the growth for jobs in the united states? and what you think of, what period? >> yeah. we are growing our technologies business. we had set $1 billion revenue target a couple of years ago. we're about half of that now. that's a business we're investing in intensively. a lot of those jobs are in the united states. we're building a futures business in the united states. it is the main competitor to the cme. it's a very business right now. we have high hopes for it. so those are two of our biggest growth businesses are in the united states. and we're going to continue to hire in those areas. >> and mr. katz, do you have any comment concerning the lack of or growth of jobs? >> well i agree with mr. lebowitz, that the, the prospects for growth as a result of this company are stronger and have a higher probability than the prospects of a loss of jobs. there are great opportunities to build businesses and

but in terms of the politics of the united states, eisenhower took extraordinary steps to oppose israel's policies at that time. now, the earlier stuff i'm not as good on in many terms of the creation of the state of israel generally, truman recognized the state of israel in may, i believe, in 1948 part of his presidential campaign. and that was really opposed by, by george marshall who was then his secretary of state. and you've got to remember george marshall, general george marshall had been eisenhower's mentor. and i think there's circumstantial reason to believe that eisenhower agreed with marshall, certainly key people in the state department believed, loy henderson is a graduate of my school, southwestern college, and what a great diplomat who really believed that the recognition and creation of the state of israel would lead to endless turmoil in the middle east. and he's not wrong. that doesn't mean you can't support that because there's a dramatic and wonderful story for the state of israel. and i am moved and touched by it, too, that, my, the weeds are mixed with the flowers in