Charlie Rose

writersblock25  12/04/2010 01:45 AM Report

Maria,

I am kind of surprised that you found Rose's interruptions gratuitous. Personally, I think he generally does a pretty good job when moderating an interview, especially when compared to some of his other journalistic counterparts. However, He Ya-fei is certainly such a mild-mannered person that I don't think he needs much moderation. Realize, though Maria, that one of the responsibilities of a good journalist is to interrupt the interviewee to move the conversation along. (Ideally, this is done only when necessary.) The need to moderate is especially true of Bill Clinton, who often takes the mildest critiques so personally that he insists on explaining his policies even at the cost of valuable air time.

beijingyank  11/07/2008 05:09 AM Report

He Yafei is one of the most intelligent, honorable and honest persons I have had the pleasure to have dealings with in my lifetime.

The man is Chairman material.

K. Anderson  08/30/2008 07:19 PM Report

Native American would not rebel because most of them were killed.

MalloryM in California  12/06/2007 02:18 PM Report

I don't understand the cynicism of so many commenters here. He Ya-Fei was brilliant in this interview. Was he overly sanguine about Sino-US relations? He's in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, you expect him to be pessimistic on TV? But what he's saying about China wanting peace I believe to be true, and what he's saying about China's relative benevolence in its foreign affairs is also true, as practically any reading of Chinese history will prove. The Mao's hardcore "revolutionary" regime was the exception, but as He explains the Cold War continues on the Korean peninsula. And he is right, I believe, that the best action we can take there is to sign a treaty with North Korea and end the legal state of war that exists. This is easy to do, it's free, and it will create important changes in North Korean ideology and politics, allowing and maybe even necessitating reform on their part. Without the state of war between the US and North Korea, the DPRK will lose much of its justification for its militarism and totalitarian restrictions on information. Kim Jong Il may be able to claim that the world has changed, and become less threatening, and that could give him an opportunity to believe (maybe within himself) that reforms would not be personally suicidal to him (as could be a collapse of his government). As Madeleine Albright said so well, people who build statues of themselves don't commit suicide. So we shouldn't plan our policy toward North Korea around Kim Jong Il committing suicide by letting his regime collapse some day because of our "benevolent neglect." Instead we must engage the North Korean leadership as well as North Korean businesspeople as they emerge, North Korean students, athletes, anyone we can. A North Korea that chooses to develop might do so very quickly -- they've got 50 million very entrepreneurially-minded cousins just south of them.

If North Korea develops economically this is de facto a good thing.

First, it means North Koreans will begin to rise out of poverty.

Also, the ideology, government and laws will have to change, because it will be impossible to develop without liberalizing and decentralizing.

Back to China, the Sino-US relationship just might be the most important one of our age, along with US-European relations. They can and should be peaceful and cooperative. I don't understand Americans' fears. If he Communist Party were to change its name tomorrow to the "Scholarly Party" but it were to remain the same in all other respects, would that make a difference? Are all non-democratic nations a threat? I disagree strongly with many of the restrictions on information and opinion, but don't you think that the Party's concerns about stability make some sense? What would happen if China had elections tomorrow? Meanwhile, locally, government *is* democratizing, little by little, slowly, with local elections, protests that are tolerated, and this could slowly fertilize the terrain for more.

It doesn't make sense to see China's rise primarily as a threat. It's a great opportunity. We need more engagement, especially on areas like pollution, global warming, trade standards and so on. China will become a fantastic market for the United States. I know I'll be involved.

inscrutable Chinese  10/19/2007 10:48 PM Report

Oh, by the way, dont worry about how the Chinese treat themselves. Enjoy your trailer park life style. Dont forget your confederate flag too.

inscrutable Chinese  10/19/2007 10:36 PM Report

There is indeed something about the inscrutable Chinese. And you and your white trash friends are trying very hard to learn to cope with it. That makes me very happy.

Mary Anne C.  10/16/2007 09:30 PM Report

I, too, was struck by Mr. Fe's grand talk about "no nation can dominate other nations". I related to what Sunny had to say about the appearance of the batterer. I didn't believe Mr. Fe for a minute; his body language and little smirky smile made me think of a sleazy salesman. It is the same ol' schtick we get from our politicians. He sounds good, pleasing to the eye and pleasing to the ear but take a look how the Chinese people treat their own people and the environment. In a brutal fashion. Isn't there a saying about the inscrutable Chinese?

If China's policy has been to silence their own people through suppresion of religious freedom and speech (Google), then why wouldn't they just as easily want to silence other countries? I immediately thought of how the Tibetan culture is being diminished by brutality and force. I was disappointed and shocked that Charlie didn't question Mr. Fe on this obvious hypocrisy. I visited Taiwan and know there is a sense of the Chinese threat looming on the horizon. Charlie, where were you?

Raymond  08/19/2007 11:32 PM Report

RE: Renquan, Bacdaw

Tibet and Xinjiang have been a part of China for longer than the existence of many modern countries. To claim that those people are forcibly assimilated into Han Chinese is a display of your lack of understanding for the Chinese society, which is composed of 56 different cultures and languages. Nearly very region of China, from Guangtong to Fujian to Shanghai, have their own languages and customs, and this fact doesn't make them any more or less Chinese.

worldmap  08/19/2007 11:30 PM Report

Reply to Renquan Wansui & Raymond:

Tibet was PEACEFULLY liberated in 1951, Dalai Lama signed the peace treaty, however, he staged a military uprising in 1956 trying to seperate Tibet from China, that's why there was crack down.

Tibaten language and Uyghur language are different than Chinese language, but this doesn't make Tibet or Xinjiang independet. China has Korean minority speaking Koreans, China has Russian minority speaking Russians and China has mogolian minority speaking mogolians, Tibetan and Uyghur are just two minority launguaes, that's all.

worldmap  08/19/2007 11:29 PM Report

Repost my deleted post, I wonder why delete? No free speech in Charlies' website?

Both Tibet and Xinjiang belong to China, so is Taiwan. Find a world map and have a good look of it.

For those who have problem(s) with such facts, you should ask The United Nations - there is a thing called INTERNATIONAL LAWS. For those who like to use ideology spin to substitute international laws, you should ask US why it recognizes Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan as part of China.

Yes, China not only has a long history but very diverse. China has 56 ethnic groups which include Tibetans, Uyghur, Koreans, Russians, Mogolians and 50 other minorities besides the majority of Han Chinese.

Learn about China before trying to fool American people.

Raymond  07/24/2007 03:00 PM Report

Renquan: I don't feel like degrading your logic further than you did yourself with those comments. But I'll just point out that if countries' boarders were defined by native languages, we'd sooner see the sovereignties of Spain, France, Britain, Russia divided into various larger and smaller states, than what's become of Xinjiang.

free voice  07/23/2007 06:39 PM Report

Charlie Rose has interviewed leaders/officials of different countries from every part of world, why can't he interview Chinese officials? Why "camera" and his alike don't want American people hear what China or Chinese officials present their views to Americans? It's our rights to have different opinions.

Camera  07/23/2007 12:58 PM Report

As I assume, required by the Chinese, the interviewed was staged. It presented a view of China that on the surface seems benign. These men are comfortable in their positions because they are employed and living well. It was very reminescent of talks we heard from Russians during the height of communism. It wasn't until Phil Donahue met Vadimir Pozner and we could see cracks in the system.

I do want to see more in hopes of learning more about those in charge, but would rather see the desidents who can give a more accurate view of what is happening in China.

carol feagan  07/23/2007 11:43 AM Report

Can you replay the He ya-fei show? It will not work on the website.

joe  07/22/2007 12:37 AM Report

Great shows. Keep up the good work.

Kamesh Sankaran  07/20/2007 07:45 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose,

As a regular enthusiastic viewer of your show, I'm generally impressed by your knowledge and grasp of wide range of subjects. However, I noticed what could be a conspicuous hole in that during your interview with He Ya-Fei, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs for China.

At one point in the interview, the foreign minister quoted a Confucius saying that was in effect the "Golden Rule". You responded by saying that "we have a similar American saying." Unfortunately, what you referred to as an American saying isn't really so ... I would've expected you to know that it is a saying of Jesus as recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Renquan Wansui  07/20/2007 11:40 AM Report

Dear Raymond- It is you who displays a complete lack of understanding about the languages spoken in the PRC (and the realities of various "minority" cultures within the PRC.) Just to touch on one small aspect of your ignorance, the relationship between Cantonese, Fukianese/Hakka, Shanghainese, and other dialects of Chinese to Mandarin/Putonghua simply cannot compare to the relationship between the Uyghur language and the Chinese language. Uyghur belongs to a completely different language family, the Turkic/Indo-European language family.

CharlieDR  07/20/2007 02:46 AM Report

I wouldn't shut down the CIA and the NSA just yet. I really liked Sunny's "domestic violent batterer" analogy though I must admit to getting lost when I wandered and started thinking he was talking about the current administration here.

There is no doubt Tibet is a tragedy but we can't throw out the baby with the bath water. Cautious optimism? The stated goals are reasonable even if some history might be massaged. Watch out though for the old ends and means trickery. Oh! Wait, I lost it again. Which country are we discussing?

Sarah Wong  07/19/2007 09:43 PM Report

Chandra's comment should be restored. The forum should be better monitored. A legitimate comment should not be removed just because somebody reported it as abusive. Those who utilize the forum for advertising purposes which are unrelated to the subject matters are considered abusive and thus should be removed.

Chandra  07/19/2007 04:06 PM Report

Debate is not open on Charlie Rose? My negative comment, but surely not abusive, about the interview is gone...Charlie takes only praise? So much for comment.

Hung  07/18/2007 11:02 PM Report

Great conversation. Charlie Rose has excellent intuition and normally really knows how to pry out the inner truths. However, in this interview, he seemed to be less in control. Perhaps it may have felt like so because of the single angle, but I mainly listen not watched. I suspect that he hasn't dealt much with the east asian culture and have not yet developed the intuition that he normally exibits. It looked as though He Ya-Fei was very willing. Personally quite confused at how willing He was surrending the figures. The confidence is intriguing. I look forward to future interviews with the chinese representatives to the world. Thank you Charlie Rose and Team for a peep of the new century.

Raymond  07/18/2007 03:50 PM Report

RE: Sun Tsu The Communists "liberated" many other regions of China (Nationalist held) as well. And they also had to purge those areas with an iron fist, which resulted in many unfortunate deaths. While this doesn't mean that their actions were right, it does give context to whole picture vis a vis Tibet.

Raymond  07/18/2007 03:43 PM Report

RE: Confucius + others... Two myth that need to be corrected: Tibet was never fully independent from China. And Tibet was never recognized as fully sovereign by the international community. It had semi-independence during the Chinese Civil War, but so were many other regions of China: Manchuria (puppet of Japan), the Guangxi Clique in Guantong and other regions controlled by warlords. But even during these chaotic times, China has never renounced its sovereignty over Tibet.

Lawrence Graves  07/18/2007 03:12 PM Report

Thank you very much for your outstanding show, we have had the pleasure to enjoy for so long.

The conversation with this Chinese Communist Diplomat was very interesting. (He reminded me

of our Republicans - reciting the Part-Line). Have we not been very aware of the plight of the Tibetans? China invaded Tibet . Tibet was a sovereign country. How does he explain that? The atrocities committed by the Chinese towards the Tibetans were ignored by the whole world, including the United States. It's a very sad story, and not one they (or we) should be proud of. Yet - we are buddies with them. If we wanted to do right, we would confront them about that, and for the sake of them not being seen as liars, suggest that they get out of Tibet in an honorable fashion.

Thank you, Bruny

Mariam  07/18/2007 03:24 AM Report

I love your show and i have learned many things,thanks.

Jack Sparrow  07/18/2007 01:20 AM Report

RE: Sunny: You made some 10 points to compare the "Communist China" to a "Domestic Batterer" through your imagination. Ridiculous. If China appears to be such an evil figure in your mind, the problem is yours. Sorry.

Confucius  07/17/2007 10:50 PM Report

RE: RAYMOND

China is both a victim of colonization and guilty of it as well.

Tibet's status at the time of the Chinese invasion in 1949 must be judged on the basis of the facts existing at that time and during the decades that preceded it, that is, on the basis of Tibet's modern history rather than, as China tries to do, its ancient history. Tibet was independent at the time of China's invasion: The country possessed all conditions of statehood under international law; there was a defined territory, a population inhabiting that territory; and a functioning Government exercising authority over that territory, and possessing the ability to enter into international relations.

Timo  07/17/2007 08:52 PM Report

Thanks Charlie & Team.

bystander  07/17/2007 07:19 PM Report

First of all, I really did not know what it meant

"Report Abuse" under the comment of Morpheus

so I clicked it & hope for a response, but it came

back with "Abuse Reported". Am truly sorry &

still don't know what it meant. But

I totally agreed with what Morpheus commented

though.

--------000-------

The comment of Sunny is what

I have in mind about Communist Chinese long

before you air the show last night. I could

not articulate it quite as good as he did.

Beware & be careful. Invest your time into

something worthwhile. Take care your own

backyard first before others. Start

with yourself FIRST, take real good care

of your own foundation first, things will

follow later.

You do not have enough insight about

China not even Mr. Kissinger.

Be humble to admit it. What causes

the Manchurian dynasty to fall after several

hundred years of intimidation & domination ?

Your concerns toward China have reflected

countless times in your programs, a reflection

of paranoid, unless you are aspiring to be a

Pulitzer prize or Nobel peace prize winner.

There's a saying, a fly does not realize he

is standing on the back shoulder of a donkey.

-----ooo------

Time after time, Charlie please do NOT interrupt

guests what they have to say or finish their expression or thought. You may already know

the answer & precious your time in the air,

but I, the audience do not have the same

wisdom as you do. It is really insulting,

annoying, & irritating. I thought I am the only one who has this kind of reaction, low & behold there are other viewers who have expressed the same reactions. I do switched to other channels.

More to comment but ................

Jacqueline Carroll  07/17/2007 07:05 PM Report

Excellent interview, Charlie.

Yes, of course any foreign diplomat will curb his answers to what we'd like to hear...he was very impressive.

I sincerely appreciate any steps taken to engage in dialogue with the Chinese. Thank you.

Sunny  07/17/2007 05:32 PM Report

Hi Dear Charlie Rose:

The conversation you have with a Chinese communist diplomat recently, was interesting. Thank you for conducting such a valuable interview with an China's official. I would like to add some prespectives to enhence a better understanding for the conversation.

Please think of bringing a domestic violent batterer to justice, then there are some similarities:

While you convict a domestic violent batterer, and while you try to have some "calm conversation" with the batterer, be aware that:

1. The batterer appears to be a very reasonable person during the conversation with you.

2. The batterer seems able to acknowledge his/her problems that you want to point out.

3. The batterer likes to convince you that he/she shares many same views with you.

4. The batterer likes to draw a line, such as: "I do not interfere with your family, so don't interfere with mine."

5. The batterer likes to tell you: "I am not agressive to you. I want peace. I am a peaceful figure in the neighbourhood."

6. The batterer likes to tell you: "I deal with my family in a way that is under a culture context of my family tradition."

7. The batterer likes to tell you: "perceive my existence as a threat in the neighbourhood is a misunderstanding."

8. The batterer likes to give you examples how he/she was a successful peace keeper in the neighborhood.

9. The batterer sometimes (if the facts allow) likes to emphasize that his/her family has a BIG problem (such as poverty, big family size, family needs authority to keep things in order...etc), and his/her way of dealing the problem has been handling the problem with progressive improvement. Look at the improvement, which the batterer has handled in his/her favored style, the batterer seems to be a benevolent, wise, and successful leader.

10. The batterer wiil make you feel that as long as he/she is "acting normal" in the society, his/her family affairs are extra burden to others. And thanks for the batterer, he/she is taking care of that problem for you.

While US government officials "enjoy" some "calm conversation" with China communist government's diplomat, do not forget:

1. They are diplomatic. They know what you want to hear.

2. They will not mock their faces to you.

3. They will say that they respect your interest.

4. They appear to be serious about that they are saying. You bet, they know better about what they are saying than you know what they are saying.

Please remember, while you see a batterer only believe in violence and bit up his/her wife, kids, relatives in home, and the batterer tells you that he/she will respects you. Do you believe it?

People who usually tend to accept batterer's statements, they are not very far from being a batterer themselves. Remember a word: sympathizer? How do poeple use "sympathizer" to discribe a person that look neutrual but just sympathizing? Allow me to say it, there is no grey area. "Sympathizer" is a term that means a person is already compromizing those principles which are not suppose to be sympathize with. This is not a extreme talk. This is just a thought process that reasons with facts.

Stand on which ground that the US would engage the communist Chinese government is foundamentaly important. If the US set aside some values in order to "enjoy" some "cool conversation" or even to share some under table interests with the communist China, the US will become the BIGGEST sympathizer to the communist China in the world ever in the human history. And this name will be very interesting for all American's founding fathers to bear with current president of the US.

If traditional interests including freedom, human rights are seriously ON THE STAKE, hey...will some sympathizers look good on the table letting some deceivers ochestra the rythem of lie?

Charlie, I am not trying to point any finger to you. I always enjoy your many interviews with important figures in our society. I just want to put some statements after that interview.

Sincerely,

Sunny

Shaft  07/17/2007 04:42 PM Report

Charlie,

Thank you for doing your show. There are very few shows I respect and follow closely from cable TV, your show is one of them. I am glad that you make them available on internet so we can see them again and again.

I have tremendous interest in China, I am young and would like to be a politician someday; the information I absorb from your show with respect to China is essential as the world is shifting its balance be it economically or/and politically. Understanding China is necessary in order to forcast the future, and programs like yours is important to give one a clue. I am not sure you asked a question I wanted to learn more about, such as China's ambition to be technologically advanced; the recent display of power shooting down a satellite from distance is not a show to promot peaceful development and progress. Thank you again.

deniselai  07/17/2007 04:09 PM Report

Agree with Backdaw. When are we going to stop pretending that China and the US are peaceful?? By definition, as a democracy, we should be but are not. The Iraq War is about corporate profiting off the oil in the longterm; how is this different than expanding territory by acquisition/takeover - which Mr. Fe speaks of as no longer an appropriate means of expansion. If this is China's new position, what can they do to return Tibet to the Tibetan people and government, and to begin to make rapartions for the genocide and sociecide?

Renquan Wansui  07/17/2007 01:53 PM Report

I agree with Bacdaw's comments, and I would love to listen to Mr. He talk more about the "peaceful development" of East Turkestan and the repression of the rights of more than 10 million Uyghurs, who have a culture and language completely different than those of the Han Chinese.

Bacdaw  07/17/2007 12:52 PM Report

Charlie, when he was going on and on about how peaceful China is and that they do not have any aspirations for foreign influence and never had... why didn't you ask him about Tibet?

After criticizing Europeans for taking colonies, how is that different than totally destroying the Tibetan culture and incorporating Tibet into China?

I also would have liked a question about why China sends escaped North Koreans back to North Korea and not to South Korea. They face years of prison for trying to escape North Korea. Why not give them a break and let them go to South Korea?

June Learmond-Criqui   07/17/2007 09:39 AM Report

Wow - that was a great show last night.

It was very interesting to hear

He Ya-fei articulate some of China's

foreign policy perspectives.

Learnt a lot... this has changed my previous view of China and its place in the world both from an economic and foreign policy perspective.

Even in the Caribbean the diplomas from China are making a more public representation of their country.

What I would love to hear more about

is the current perspective on democracy.

Maria Corfe  07/17/2007 09:36 AM Report

I totally agree with morpheus'comments. Yes Charlie, as much as like your program and delight in hearing what most of your guests have to say, I too find your interruptions and dominance of the conversation very annoying and irritating. Retierating what morpeus has conveyed to you; please be courteous to your guests and yield to their right to fully express their views uninterrupted. In essence, always keep in mind your mission statement and remember,that WE too, beleive that there is a place in television for really good conversation.

Odyssey