Charlie Rose

Zhaoeu  06/29/2008 04:17 PM Report

Robert Zoellick is now very famous in China for his contribution to the US-China relationship. His framework of making China a "responsible stakeholder" on international stage has had very significant influence for Chinese foreign policy and is widely accepted by a lot of people in China.

Charlie's interview with him game me a chance to hear Mr. Zoellick speak. He came across as very intelligent, knowledgeable, and eloquent.

Pierre  11/16/2007 01:17 PM Report

Europeans do not hate the US because the US support Israël but criticise the US because the US supports exclusively Israël, without taking into account the suffering of the Palestinian peoples. Zoellick is twisting the reality on this matter.

Pierre, Canada  11/16/2007 01:12 PM Report

Cet interview me convainc encore une fois que les Etats-Uniens, quâ??ils soient conservateur ou liberaux, interventionnistes ou isolationnistes, veulent au bout du compte transformer le monde a leur propre image. Les idees varient quant a la façon de le faire, brutalement ou patiemment, ideologiquement ou pragmatiquement, et varient quant a ce quâ??il pourrait perdurer des style culturels des autres nations, mais lâ??intention est la meme au fond : universaliser les grands principes de la Revolution Americaine tels quâ??ils ont pris forme dans la culture Etats-Unienne actuelle et tels quâ??ils sont interpretes, dâ??une maniere culturellement specifique, par les Etats-Uniens actuels. Je pense que cela est motive en partie une bonne intention, humaniste et genereuse, et en partie par un besoin dâ??auto-justification nationaliste, resultant du fait que les Etats-Uniens definissent leur propre identite nationale en la referant a une nature humaine universelle, ce qui nâ??est pas commun chez dâ??autres nations qui distinguent leur identite culturelle nationale de la nature humaine universelle. Je crois que cette façon de penser aliene en partie les Etats-Unis de lâ??appuis sans reserve de nations qui croient a la liberte ou a la democratie ou a toute autre valeur moderne mais qui nâ??aiment pas que les Etats-Unis sâ??arrogent le droit, a eux seul, de definir la forme que doit prendre ces valeurs dans le monde. Et câ??est la quâ??il y a un grand malentendu que les Etats-Uniens ne saisissent pas. Les Etats-Unis ne possedent pas ces valeurs humaines et le privilege de les definir. Il ne faut pas confondre la puissance economique Etats-Unienne, qui a servi a defendre un certain nombre de ces valeurs par le passe, ce dont nous rendons grace, et lâ??appropriation de ces valeurs par les Etats-Unis, qui nâ??est jamais bien vu.

Artem  09/24/2007 02:36 PM Report

... we have reconciled Eastern and Western Germanies ... we don't lack people in the world who wants us to solve their problems ... we set standards for them ...

I have grown up in the Soviet Union and Robert Zoellick sounds to me pretty much like an excellent Communist propogandist.

The only thing, Zoellick is not right that the U.S. is an exceptional empire because it wants everybody else to change. This is really how empires work. Soviet Union was "helping" other nations to build the right (from the Soviet government's perspective) policical system, it spent huge amounts of money to support all kinds of regimes referring to them as friends (remember Bush's friend Saudi Arabia). Finally, this help cost the USSR too much and threatened its economy. And, all those friends turned their backs when the financing came to a halt.

This is exactly what Bush's government does. This is why so many people in the world do not like Americans.

zarrafeh  09/04/2007 11:22 PM Report

Great conversation. In regards to the middle east, unfortunately, it's the same old thing. Mr Zoellick explains what has been American policy for last 25 years. Judged by the results not great! Once again, he explains that US should support the people fighting against Shia Iran, even though they do it not for the same reasons as USA. Well, this was the reason behind supporting Saddam Hossein during Iran-Iraq war and Taliban during Soviet occupation. The experience showed it was short sighted and the results disastrous in long run. Instead of traditional American policy: try to open the economy etc, IMO, US needs to push for faster democratization of middle east and do more than slogans. But, I agree easier to say than to do. Anyway, the open economy can't be implemented in the middle east given the current level of corruption in these countries. People can't compete when they are afraid the competitors can jail them for political reasons (after bribing the right guy).

Barry O'Connell  08/19/2007 10:52 PM Report

"...explain your strategy, and the Chinese are taking some of those steps but it still has a long way to go because the PLA is a more isolated unit."

Oh really.

C L Mason  05/10/2007 05:07 PM Report

This was one of those times when I wished that the show was at least 60 minutes long. I yearn to hear intelligent conversation about our relationships with the rest of our world.

Mr Zoellick has CALMLY stated some very interesting facts about the real world.

Thanks again Charlie

Tom Robinson  05/10/2007 12:49 PM Report

Ask Mr. Zoellick if he's for free trade in drugs? He'll defend buying tainted grain from China, I'll bet my house on it. He'll defend buying toxic food to the death.

Tom Robinson

610 547 9009

Harrod  05/10/2007 12:29 PM Report

Much of what Bob Zoellick said impressed me except his cliched argument that we are engaged in a battle for the soul of Islam. He and many others do not take into account there is a struggle within every organised religion today. It is deeply insulting and saddening that terrorism is being committed in the name of religion, but we dont blame religion for everything else that is committed in its name now do we? Speaking of a fight for the soul of Islam is yes a bit more respectful than Bush's talk of Islamofascism, but what American officials need to start doing is to stop saying Islam and terrorism in the same sentence altogether.

We also use this term "Muslim world" so carelessly nowadays. Are we talking about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Malaysia, Sudan, etc? In speaking like this, we are lumping all their differnet histories, cultures and backgrounds in one component. After all, we donâ??t call France, US and UK and Germany the Christian world.

Islam itself has become the victim itself of this type of reductionist discourse and those who speak the loudest, the most violently and as a political ideology have been allowed to become representatives of the whole religion.

Naina  05/10/2007 12:04 PM Report

It was fascinating to hear Mr. Zoellick talk about his dealings with the Chinese. rather than lecturing other nations, the US needs to adopt Mr. Zoellick's approach in hearing the other side out and persuading them it is in their self interest to behave more responsibly. This conversation should be shown in the foreign service to aspiring diplomats... this is also the type of interview that one can only see on Charlie Rose and nowhere else on American television these days certainly not the Sunday shows, Wolf Blitzer or anywhere else. I agree that Mr. Rose should have brought up the issue of America's trade deficit given his previous role as the US trade representative but perhaps that is another reason to have Mr. Zoellick on again

Hobbie  05/10/2007 05:16 AM Report

Very nice interview. Chinese politics interests me greatly and this was a nice surprise as I hadn't heard of Robert Zoellick before.

The chinese also rated us in their documentary that Mr. Zoellick speaks about as a declining superpower. I thought it was interesting that he didn't mention this....... wonder why?????? Doesn't want to make Washington looks bad maybe?

I'll go with Robinson's sentiment, start throwing some fastballs at some of these ex-government officials. Thanks Charlie, loving your show!

ron smith  05/10/2007 03:13 AM Report

why didn't you ask mr.zoellick about the trade deficit? i was hoping you would ask about fair trade.

G. A. McCall  05/09/2007 08:10 PM Report

Thanks for bringing an excellent conversation with Mr. Zoellick. I did not know of him before, but am very impressed by the scope and detail of his knowledge. I'm very glad we had someone of his obvious caliber in negotiations around the world.

We certainly should advance the cause of human rights to world regimes, but repeated attempts to bash dictatorships of any stripe over the head, supposing they will somehow capitulate is naivete at its most simplistic. Working together with them, to solve technical problems of a general nature serves to lay a foundation for discussion on other matters. No person or regime, unless patently stupid, will accede to outright demands regardless of the rightness of the cause.

Thanks for continuing to bring thoughtful and thought provoking guests to your show.

tom Robinson  05/09/2007 12:24 AM Report

Love your show, hate some of your party line guests. Ask them when there will be free elections in South Korea. We've been there for fifty odd years to spread democracy and now we're in Iraq. C'mon Charlie, stop throwing softballs. Grow some balls buddy and you'll gain an audience.

Tom Robinson

610 547 9009

John Stout  05/08/2007 07:35 PM Report

Last week Charlie Rose discussed Donnersmarck's film. Our son went through "Check Point Charlie" 20 years ago and would be interested in purchase of that review.

John Stout

Adjunct Associate Professor of Geology

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO