Charlie Rose

ShalomFreedman  06/22/2011 05:22 AM Report

There is a school of thought which makes the argument that China is a major part of America's present economic problems. Peter Navarro wrote in the LA Times of June 22 2011 the following: The " most potent of China's "weapons of job destruction" are an elaborate web of export subsidies; the blatant piracy of America's technologies and trade secrets; the counterfeiting of valuable brand names like Nike and Chevy; a cleverly manipulated and grossly undervalued currency; and the forced transfer of the technology of any American company wishing to operate on Chinese soil or sell into the Chinese market."

Perhaps Charlie Rose should invite Mr. Navarro to speak about his views of China which seem diametrically opposite to the whitewash presented by China - employee Kissinger.

OLAN  06/07/2011 11:40 PM Report

Free will and good faith will do the trick.

Communists, bad as they are, there are people of good faith who would help them. There are still people who would pray for them since 1917.

BENEZRAA  06/07/2011 02:04 AM Report

COMMUNISM AS CAPITALISM, CAPITALISM AS COMMUNISM -- FLIP SIDES OF THE SAME COIN; SO WHAT IS THE FLIP SIDE OF COMMUNO-CAPITALISM? AN ASSAY OF THE MARKETING PLOY THAT IS MARXISM, AND THE IMPLICATION OF A NEED FOR A VIABLE THEORY BY WHICH TO ENVISION THE POST COMMUNO-CAPITALIST WORLD -- ERGO, IF "COMMUNISM" AND "CAPITALISM" ARE MARKETING CONCEPTS, THEN WHAT MAY BE THE CORRESPONDING REPLACEMENT MARKETING CONCEPTS FOR THE POST COMMUNO-CAPITALIST WORLD?

At the mundane level of the US [alleged capitalist society] v. CHINA [alleged communist society] there is the appearance in the economics realm of two differing economic philosophies in conflict with each other. While there may be degrees of differentiation in terms of participation in the scheme of world economics, much of these "philosophical" distinctions have less to do with the nuts and bolts of economics and more to do with marketing and politics.

One make think of the distinction between "capitalism" and "communism" in the following way: A "capitalist" society is "dog-eat-dog", whereas a "communist" society is "the other way around" [which is still "dog-eat-dog"].

Another way to think of the distinction is that in a "capitalist" society there are a handful of "too big to fail" corporations competing to own each other and the world, whereas in a "communist" society there is only one "too big to fail" corporation: The Government. As the distinction in the USA between "The Government" and "The Corporations" gets blurrier and blurrier, and as the distinction in CHINA between "The Corporations" and "The Government" becomes cloudier and cloudier, so too the distinction [other than racial and linguistic] between the USA and CHINA grows murkier.

The brilliance of Marx is that against the backdrop of totalitarian monarchy [Russian Czarism] he created his own totalitarian "Czarist" monarchy, "communism", which he expressed via an appearance of anti-capitalism by creating the ultimate capitalist entity -- the monopoly capitalism of a single corporate entity called "The Government".

Clearly today both the USA and CHINA are increasingly totalitarian, increasingly corporate, increasingly anti-populist, increasingly engaged in the disenfranchisement of the average citizen, and increasingly active in manifesting "communo-capitalism", which is marketed in the political arena as "communal capitalism" in order to obtain "popular support" [market share]. In the USA "popular support" takes the form of "stock ownership" in the private sector and the "Will of the People" in the public sector as reflected in the marketing campaigns of the "Two Party System". In CHINA the "Will of the People" and "popular support" are one and the same: The Party.

So once "Communo-Capitalism" [to coin a phrase] has run it's course, what can the world then look forward to in terms of world economic transformation?

Tea, anyone?

OLAN  06/04/2011 11:42 AM Report

The problem is not understanding the consequence of a form of totalitarian communism being imposed on one-fifth of humanity and its failure.

QDP  06/04/2011 04:30 AM Report

The problem is not in understanding China. We understand very well their rise to economic power. Their motivation is as clear as emerging markets intent. The problem lies in the global shift their actions declare on these same open markets. If business is strategic warfare, then the United States is today confronted by a resolute and determined adversary, bent upon the exploitation of the free market system to engender these newfound market powers.

We have learned little of China's rich heritage in discipline and persistence as the worlds' oldest continued society....

OLAN  06/03/2011 05:44 PM Report

Is China going back to Imperial Monarchy over one-fifth of humanity via Karl Marx?

laupan  06/02/2011 04:22 PM Report

"Never bring a knife to a gun fight..." Obama!!

markhas  06/02/2011 01:16 PM Report

"Power comes from the muzzle of a gun." Mao!

onevoice  06/02/2011 10:23 AM Report

What's different for today's China from Mao's era are: 1)Today, Maoism is no longer accepted the way as it used to be. Many people simply reject it. Many more people ignore it. But it is still accepted by some groups of people because it can be used to against current China’s big gap between rich and poor for its socialist ideology. Furthermore, It also can be used as a big stick by some to knock down their political opponents at the time when western democracy is discouraged/suppressed by the government. 2)Today’s party members, most of them are no longer Maoism or party ideology seeker by heart rather are ones who wears it as a protector or use it as a ladder to gain opportunities for more power and special interests. Opportunist is a better name for them. 3) To reflect the changes of Characteristics of people in power of today's China, most officials in power today always have their special interests in mind and therefore are more practical. Since their interests are closely connected to the authoritarian government or the “country”(the pseudonym for the authoritarian government), nationalism is another weapon to protect their special interests and to fence off western democracy. In future, before China became a democratic society, the relationship between China and its neighboring countries will be greatly driven by the appetite for special interests from the people who are in power. They will do everything to protect their interests.

Ricardo_Amaral  06/02/2011 01:55 AM Report

Gen. Hamid Gul: US will start WW3 if war expands to Pakistan – May 31, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH8WUHjo1ms&feature=channel_video_title

Amid the fallout between Washington and Islamabad over the killing of Osama Bin Laden, RT spoke to Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistan's Intelligence Agency.

It seems to me that this fellow has implied on this video that Pakistan would start a nuclear war against the United States.

.

ShalomFreedman  06/02/2011 12:48 AM Report

There is a certain deplorable moral relativism in Dr. Kissinger's suggesting those in the West may judge Mao's murder of tens of millions of people one way, and the Chinese another. Murdering tens of millions of people makes Mao one of the monsters of history. Cruelty is the ultimate sin and this expressed itself for Mao both in his public and in his private life.

charlie2011  06/01/2011 08:53 PM Report

In regard to China subject, I suggest that Mr. Rose invite more Chinese Americans who are scholars of studying modern Chinese history, politics and economics etc to the show. They have both language and cultural advantage to give better understanding about today's China. They can be anyone like Mr. Fareed Zakaria who came from India has pretty good international view and knowledge.

tabs  06/01/2011 06:28 PM Report

During the discussion about China Dr K omitted one fact about the Chinese intervention in the Korean war. That China only intervened after the US had come up to the Yalu River border between China and N Korea. What was omitted is the fact that the Chinese were fearful that the hydroelectric dams that provided power to China would be endangered by the US. When taken with the fact of MaCarthur's bellicosity towards Communist China and that it was only after the Yalu river was reached by the US that the Chinese intervened gives credence to the notion that China was more concerned about its hydroelectric dams than the North Korean regime.

BENEZRAA  06/01/2011 05:41 PM Report

RE: THE FOLLOWING EARLIER COMMENT BY 'TABS':

"China only acts on the world stage when their is a need in China to do so. As a Chinese diplomat on the Charlie Rose show said, "The era of Imperialism and conquest is over." So this idea of China being a military threat is a reflection of how the west projects its own perceptions onto others."

While much of Tabs' commentary is spot on, this particular comment is quite wrong. Respectfully, Tabs, once the Great Wall of China defined China's frontier; today it is a Great Tourist Distraction; today China's frontier is at the Himalayas and those mountain ranges in Central Asia contiguous to the Himalayas, as only fifty years ago China overran Tibet, and within the past 100 years the Chinese won out over the Russians for influence in Xianjang. Today these two huge once independent regions are now under the official hegemony of China, until and unless the combined thirty-million persons of these two sparsely populated large geographical regions regain their independence from China. No Chinese imperialism? No Chinese conquest? Think again, and think beyond geographical to economic imperialism and conquest. In the West we are free to speak out against our own imperialism. At our peril, we fail to speak out against the imperialism of others. So much of our own debt and actual property and livelihoods are now owed to China....

BENEZRAA  06/01/2011 05:13 PM Report

COGENT IMPLICATIONS OF GROWING CHINESE INTEREST IN MAO.

China is now experiencing one of the less pretty effects of "capitalism" -- a growing underclass along with the jealousy and righteous indignation towards the "Haves" that is to be expected of the "Have-Nots", such as the "taxi driver" reading Mao, mentioned by Henry Kissinger. There are two major implications of HK's observation of a resurgence of interest in Mao among the Chinese population: (1) a possible popular anti-regime reaction of young Chinese based not on western democratic values, but, based on Maoism; (2) as the economies of the west displace and impoverish more and more westerners, a resurgence of western interest in Maoism or other forms of Marxism may be forthcoming.

charlizecourriers  06/01/2011 02:30 PM Report

Who likes the Chinese dictatorship? Answer that question and you will know the future of the Han. Hint: Those who make a living touting dictatorships don't have the answer.

OLAN  06/01/2011 01:36 PM Report

I agree.

onevoice  06/01/2011 11:39 AM Report

While politicians are talking about histories and international affairs and think they know better than anyone else, please don't forget about average people's history and average people's mind. They are parallel existing as always. Sometimes, politicians seems lead the nation and history but sometimes they are a lot behind average people. Recent Arab Spring shocked the world and many "great" politicians. So don't count average people out, particularly for the people who under dictatorships, their voices are usually suppressed and ignored by many "great" politicians. History also only reflect the past, if we don't know whom and what we are dealing with now, we only get the half of the truth, because people are changing and the worlds are changing too.

Ricardo_Amaral  06/01/2011 11:28 AM Report

The Chinese can learn how the military power game works by watching the videos in the following websites:

STANDING ARMY . A journey into the world of U.S. Military bases with Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdd7d37G17U

***

Noam Chomsky - History of US Rule in Latin America – December 19, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwJI9axblQ

Time: 1 hr. 15 min.

History of US Rule in Latin America; Elections and Resistance to the Coup in Honduras - Professor Noam Chomsky PhD. - Filmed by Paul Hubbard at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 12-15-09

Excellent lecture by Noam Chomsky about Latin America history and United States military intervention in that area of the world.

***

Boston University School of Law - April 24, 2008.

Noam Chomsky Lectures on Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PdJ9TAdTdA&feature=related

Time: 2 hrs.

Noam Chomsky, an emeritus professor of linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a well-known political activist critical of U.S. foreign policy, traces modern-day American imperialism to its earliest roots, 25 years before the American Revolution, and he explains how the United States has lived up to its reputation as "the most frightening and dangerous country in the world."

Hosted by Boston University School of Law and the Boston University Anti-War Coalition on April 24, 2008.

***

Noam Chomsky on American Foreign Policy and US Politics – October 26, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwqkvF7umpk&feature=fvsr

Time: 24 min.

The Young Turks interviews Noam Chomsky.

***

Here is some information about the U.S. Military Industrial Complex:

Monday, May 30, 2011

"The U.S. Military Industrial Complex"

http://thefinalcollapseoftheusdollar.blogspot.com/2011/05/us-military-industrial-complex.html

***

Red Flag:

After reading all the above material and watch the videos, then you will understand why the United States might be setting the stage to create another Vietnam War - this time around in South America.

Alarm bells are ringing:

The U.S. is setting the stage to wage war against South America

http://thefinalcollapseoftheusdollar.blogspot.com/2011/05/collapsing-us-economic-and-financial.html

Note: What has been happening in Libya in the last few months can happen to any country around the world - as long as your country is rich in natural resources, then your country might be the next prey of the United States.

.

laupan  06/01/2011 02:29 AM Report

This was a great interview with Dr. Kissinger Charlie, one of the best ways to spend an hour in front of a TV. It would be great to have Dr. Kissinger, Lee Kuan Yew, and Mr. Wang Qishan on one night for a two hour special to discourse on Asia and Western issues for now and the prospects for future years. This would be a major coup Charlie and a reference for future scholars for years to come. We are not likely have the luxury of having these gentlemen with us for many more years so you need to move quickly.

Dr Kissinger’s knowledge and reflection on the inner workings of Chinese diplomacy, examples of the role Chinese History plays in the decision making and strategizing of the leadership. With his extensive personal experience with four generations of Chinese leaders, his study of the history and culture, interaction with Mao, Zhou Enlai, and Deng Xiaoping, was revealing on how their different visions have shaped China's. This is the type of understanding we need when dealing with people from various cultures in a world economy.

Having done business in the International Markets in Asia for a number of years I have learned we are all human beings with similar human qualities however the nuances of doing business and negotiating is unique in each culture. I marvel at some of the children in Europe who grow up speaking 3,4,5 languages and have the knowledge of history / culture in a number of countries and the interplay between them.

We need leadership in our country to come forth, the likes of Mr. Kissinger, his insight, wisdom, vision and patience presents a shining example for our young people to strive for.

tabs  05/31/2011 11:16 PM Report

Let us cut right to the chase. Mr rose wasted our time by asking for more Chairman Mao anecdotes. What one really wanted was a meat and potatoes assessment of the current standing of the US as a world power.

Further there are three points that Dr K made that need to be addressed.

1. Taking the long view of history and or understanding "the arc of history" is not a peculiar Chinese phenomenon. There are those in the west that take the same approach to events and history. Thus it is a universal phenomenon for those that care to do so.

2. DR K asserts that the US tends to approaach problems as being seperate and thus segementd with no real linkage. That the Chinese misinterpret these separate events and think of them as part of a grand design or plan. Perhaps Americans just tend to over look the culmative impact a series of decisions has?

3. Dr K also asserts that there is "no historic inevitability." To which the following can be proscribed.

All They Can See

Tue, 12/14/2010 - 01:50 — tabs

The problem with political and financial leadership is that it lacks clarity of vision and thus incisiveness in the decision making process. What we find as standard fare is that men are guided by narrow self interest, pettiness, ambition, which all combined makes them myopic to the larger concern. This phenomenon exhibits itself in leaders either in the particular or in combination with others. The result is that no matter what decisions or combination of decisions are made the river eventually reaches its inevitable destination.

.

Sheldon  05/31/2011 10:04 PM Report

An excellent interview, despite his coma-inducing voice. The parallel between Mao and QinShiHaungDi is interesting but it might be a bit of a stretch. The same line could be drawn between Mao and other great unifying Emperors (Liu Bang for instance). I was disappointed, though not totally surprised he wouldn't go into more detail about the Chinese response to a collapse of the North Korean government.

SkyLarkJ  05/31/2011 09:48 PM Report

I really enjoyed this interview w/Kissinger, of what he had to say about China, the Mid East, and etc.

tabs  05/31/2011 09:39 PM Report

An E-mail to Mr Rose after Dr K's visit tothe show in January 2011

A Chinese Puzzle

Thu, 01/20/2011 - 16:50 — tabs

Now one can understand the basis for the considerable success that DR K has had in the foreign policy arena. His understanding of his adversary or counterparts cultural and personality has been the key to that success. However Dr K is still at heart a middle European with a Cold War bi polar mind set. For on what basis should a military style confrontation be discussed, who brought that subject into the room? Further Dr K's take on China is very interesting and accurate to a large extent, however there are areas where his conclusions don't quite match up with Chinese sentiments. For example Dr K says that after the great "Chinese Humiliation" the Chinese wanted to return to their perceived rightful place in the "sun." However this rational doesn't quite play out on the ground so neatly. The Chinese starting after the First Opium War and Chinese Gordon's looting and burning of the Summer Palace in 1860 lost control of their destiny. Foreign influence and meddling in China brought it to the nadir. Thus the Chinese are not merely wanting to stand in the sun again, but are saying NEVER AGAIN will we allow foreign influence to dictate the destiny of China. We can see this rational in nearly all of dealings that we have with China from the investment parameters corporations doing business in China have to operate under, to currency issues, to human rights issues etc that the Chinese are intent on maintaining control of what happens in China. This is quite different than Dr K's take.

Further the Chinese inflection point of burning their Dragon Fleet in 1477 and the great turning inward is still playing itself out today. China only acts on the world stage when their is a need in China to do so. As a Chinese diplomat on the Charlie Rose show said, "The era of Imperialism and conquest is over." So this idea of China being a military threat is a reflection of how the west projects its own perceptions onto others. So understanding this, to what purpose have the Chinese been building up their armed forces in particular creating a blue water navy? One is that the Chinese do not want to be in a position of being bullied with the threat of the superior naval forces of the US in their dealings? Or perhaps the Chinese are taking the long view and have calculated that the economic trajectory of the USA is on a downward spiral and that they should ready themselves to be able to protect their own interests as the US will no longer be able to provide Global Security in the future?

One can also see that in the 2 following years since the Great Economic Crisis of 2008 that the Chinese are calculating the long view about their relationship with America. Starting with their pronouncement of thinking that their should be a New Reserve Currency in the world in early 2009. With 1.6T USD in US currency and T Bills this wouldn't exactly be an optimum economic move for China, so one has to think what brought them to say this? Further the rolling over to shorter maturity dates of their US T Bill portfolio, backing off from purchasing new T Bills to add to their portfolio, their trade agreements throughout the world with Brazil, the Middle East, and Russia being central, where as part of the agreement with Russia is that the USD not be the currency of exchange. The decoupling of the USD from the Yuan in July 2010. The buying of European debt through public and private means. One might conclude that the Chinese are diversifying so as not to have all their eggs in one basket, but also the corollary to this applies and is that China does not want to go down with the American ship economically if the US continues on its current trajectory.

.

tabs  05/31/2011 08:52 PM Report

An E-mail to Mr Rose on 1/25/11

Human Rights In China

Tue, 01/25/2011 - 10:34 — tabs

"When one thinks about Chinese motivation and reactions to events one would do well to understand that the Chinese remain very aware of their own history. As such when Mr Roth speaks that there were 90,000 protests in China in the last year and that scares the Chinese leadership one has to realize that the Chinese leadership is remembering the Taiping Rebellion of the 1850's and the devastation and instability it caused in China. When Mr Roth suggests that the US support the people of China in their endeavor for human rights one should be aware that that support is going to be viewed negatively by the Chinese leadership as undermining their power. Perhaps the better course of action was suggested by Mr Schultz, that in a private conversation the opinion is expressed that in the view of the United States a more open political society might be to the Chinese advantage in the long run."

.

OLAN  05/31/2011 08:42 PM Report

Mao was a frightened man who didn't know what he was doing. He used very oppressive and unethical means to his ends - saving his own neck.

JohnGelles  05/31/2011 07:49 PM Report

It turned out, in my opinion, to be an appropriate profound conversation about China and our prospect for "building a better world" -- not shaking up all our old problems and circumstances.

Kissinger points to North Korea, the Pakistan/India border, and Iran, as places where China and America have opposing thoughts. He might have added Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam and India -- and the containment we deny.

We have built a world for China to trade with or lead or both. They may want to share it all with us -- or not. Stay tuned.

Then there is the matter of money and financial engineering.

The latter has proved to be bummer. Kissinger begs off that one -- it is economics, the dismal art -- and we may leave it all to Jon Huntsman to discuss another day.

Kissinger knows a lot of history. It connection to the future is far less than ever -- as revolutions in technology change everything that made history what it was. I need dose a dose of Ray Kurzweil to break away from the thousand year old eggs we just had to eat.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  05/31/2011 07:12 PM Report

Charlie, I'm sorry. I tried. I even turned down the volume and read the closed captioning. Even the person doing the closed captioning could not understand him. So . . . I said good-bye.

Funny story. I took Diplomatic History in 1982. Almost 20 years ago and the Professor commented on this same issue. I loved "The King's Speech". Perhaps you two can make a date of it.

JohnGelles  05/31/2011 04:54 PM Report

I will comment on Kissinger's conversation later. This is written to comment on the comments. REM's comment suggests the conversation was interesting. I hope Kissinger is not out of place this week when our interest is focused on Memorial Day, preventing WW III, and global peace and prosperity as very near to being a human right.

The news is full of losses -- to Mother Nature and Father Financial Incompetence. With parents like these two and Uncles like Kissinger Spence -- whose Nobel prizes help them to write books that sell -- we hardly need any problem children in the family: yet the house is full of them.

REMant  05/31/2011 01:25 PM Report

I enjoyed the story about the Tang Dynasty, but the topography of Europe and its cultural groups, nor its military tactics, philosophy and religion, haven't changed in thousands of years and even in an age of tanks and aircraft, you can, and they did, learn something from past conflicts, too.

Also Dr Kissinger seems to have forgotten the influence of the Teutonic myths on the Germans, Gothic ideas on the French and British, and the Romans on the Italians. America has had its own ideas of "exceptionalism." and borrowed from all of these as well. It would suggest that serious wars are contemplated by enthusiasts, not rulers given to realpolitik or common people, nor the truly pious, altho our forefathers' classical emulation is something of an anti-enthusiasm.

Tho I would not expect a "world" war to develop at this time, at least not among those with nuclear weapons, etc, I don't think it will stop the enthusiasts from doing a lot of sabre-rattling, nor the possibility of it happening in places less amenable to reason, and because they are promoting revolution in them. And I'm afraid China is in danger of being lumped into the Iran, Syria and N Korea category.

You can extend what we call the culture wars to human history generally. The Middle Ages, when burgeoning cities built cathedrals dedicated to the Virgin and Her statue was on every corner, was a period of commercial growth much like our own, and also like it in its evangelical nature. The Reformation, however, saw more true piety, but also the development of science and industry. I realize this is not the way it is normally presented, it being Whiggishly assumed that throwing off oppression has brought civilization and light, trade and human realization, but I ask you, what has become of the science and industry? No, I think there's an antithesis between reason and unreason, science and civilization, industry and trade, men and women, autocracy and democracy. The Chinese I would guess belong among the former group, but the West today increasingly the latter. This is probably indicated in the different approach to problem-solving Dr Kissinger mentioned. There is little point in doing history if all you intend by it is to boost your ego. Just a few decades ago our academics did not think like this. To those who question Arab potential, I'd point out that they, like the Chinese, have a record of past achievement in science.

I'm glad he brought out the degree to which they have tried to copy, and been disappointed by the US, and I think it is something we ought to take to heart. Some were ready to declare war on the Japanese in a similar circumstance just twenty years ago, and when they collapsed under a load of bad investment encouraged and funded by us, we have presented the issue as having been the result of lack of free trade, recommending liberalization and more borrowing. No doubt the same bad advice is being given China. In trying to promote their development, by buying our bonds and real estate, they are promoting our ability to engage in foreign adventures that threaten them. The Chinese and America are truly an "odd couple."

winter  05/31/2011 01:22 PM Report

I don't think Kissinger wants you to understand what he's saying. He puts me to sleep every time -- then again it is late. Its that speech pattern. How many diplomats has he

lulled into agreeing with him with it? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ