00:00: Charlie Rose: Journalist Fareed Zakaria is here. He is the international editor of Newsweek Magazine. His new book is called "The Future of Freedom." I am pleased to have him back at this table and to talk about this book but I want to set aside the book for a moment and talk about Iraq because those two things, freedom and Iraq, and this book, have some common themes that are worth exploring. Welcome back.
00:21: Fareed Zakaria: Thank you, Charlie.
00:24: Charlie Rose: Congratulations on the book. We'll talk more about that. Tell me how you feel about the possibility for Iraq now that the military victory has been successful.
00:34: Fareed Zakaria: Well, you know, Charlie, the common refrain now among pundits who are quickly replacing the generals embedded in television screens is to say very solemnly now is the hard part.
00:45: Charlie Rose: Exactly right.
00:47: Fareed Zakaria: Actually I think in an important sense that's wrong. Look, the first steps are going to be slightly messy getting rid of these guerilla warfare establishing order but it's not insurmountable. The most important issue is improving the lot of the Iraqi people is going to be easy. If the next government of Iraq does not rape, pillage and plunder, institute a reign of terror -- systematically persecute --
01:11: Charlie Rose: And spend all the money on weapons of mass destruction.
01:16: Fareed Zakaria: Exactly, you will have created a government of Iraq that is significantly better than they've had for the last three decades maybe for the last 70 years. Going a few steps up from Saddam Hussein is not going to be difficult. The real challenge is building genuine democracy in Iraq which I'm completely in favor of but I think that is going to be tough. This is a region of the world that has had very little experience with it. It has some obstacles along the way. So that, if you will, Phase 3 is going to be the tough part.
01:46: Charlie Rose: Has anything surprised you about this war?
01:49: Fareed Zakaria: Oh, absolutely. I think this will go down in the history books as probably the most inept defense of a country by any military leader. I assumed that Saddam Hussein is either dead or brain dead because it is simply inexplicable what he did. The Americans were coming in from a key hole, one small entry point in Kuwait. He has 400,000 men technically in his army. You would concentrate your forces there, bleed the United States and Britain, and then do a backward retreat -- blowing up the port in Umm Qasr, blowing up every bridge of the Euphrates, setting fire to the oil wells. It's not that he didn't do all of that. He did not do a single one of those things. I don't understand it. I mean, I think maybe shock and awe worked in the sense that the regime imploded. Command and control imploded. They just didn't do anything.
02:44: Charlie Rose: The other argument is he was fighting the Gulf War in 1991 and that Tommy Franks was fighting a different war.
02:52: Fareed Zakaria: I don't think that's quite true because even if he were fighting the Gulf War, if you remember he had his troops out in Kuwait where we were and he was fighting them. You would have had the troops at the point of entry. That would have been the way to fight the Gulf War. There wasn't anyone waiting for us. There were 250,000 American troops massed in this tiny postage stamp sized area and he did nothing. He could have even had a pre-emptive strike.
03:18: Charlie Rose: I mean, do we give more credit to-- on this ledger-- to the absence of a resistance by the Iraqis or a brilliant plan by the coalition forces?
03:26: Fareed Zakaria: I think it was a brilliant plan by the coalition forces but I think if Saddam had been smart, you would have had significant casualties because he could never have won, of course. But, as I say, if in that process of blocking the entry into Iraq, blowing up Umm Qasr, blowing up the bridges, you would have been able to exact significant casualties. I don't think it would have stopped us but I don't know how many, a few thousand at least. What the lesson may be, Charlie, is that many of these dictators, particularly the kind of ruthless megalomaniacal types are very bad at processing information, very bad at understanding the outside world. Maybe this guy was living in a kind of cocoon where he didn't really understand.
04:10: Charlie Rose: People like Primakov came to see him. He was looking from outside the cocoon. Clearly the message was sent by all of the neighbors that --.
04:18: Fareed Zakaria: Maybe but this is a guy who fundamentally has never traveled abroad.
04:23: Charlie Rose: And who has a messianic complex about being --.
04:27: Fareed Zakaria: I mean I took about this in the book some. Dictatorships have unique flaws. One of them is this ability to process information.
04:34: Charlie Rose: Dictatorships have those flaws.
04:36: Fareed Zakaria: Yeah, yeah.
04:38: Charlie Rose: Let's get to the book and we'll come back to Iraq. This is one question in terms of Iraq. This comes from Bill Kristol. He says it's not a question of whether the war is viewed as legitimate now by an irate Arab world, the test is whether five years from now the Middle East is move inning a positive direction, we see less extremism and we have Arab governments moderating their behavior. America has a huge stake in this -- is that the test? Is America and Iraq and the region likely to pass that test?
05:05: Fareed Zakaria: It's exactly the right test. People forget when we liberated Germany and Japan, people weren't sitting around and cheering certainly not in Germany and Japan but ten years later they were cheering because of what we had done. The test is not what happens in the next five months; it's what happens in the next five years and can we build a genuine more liberal, more democratic Iraq? I say more liberal, more democratic because I think we want to get the trends moving in the right direction. You don't want to try and make this happen overnight. I mean democracy is not macaroni and cheese that you just put water in and somehow it is all going to happen.
05:41: Charlie Rose: Tell me how this book came into being, "The Future of Freedom, Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad."
05:47: Fareed Zakaria: I wrote an article in Foreign Affairs a long time ago in '97 called the Rise of Illiberal Democracy, pointing out that if you looked around the world you were seeing this rise of democracy that everyone was ex-tolling but if you peeked beneath the covers you noticed that a lot of these regimes were elected but were systematically abusing human rights, systematically violating separation of powers and often persecuting minorities in ways that even dictatorships had long done.
06:14: Charlie Rose: Censorship and everything else.
06:17: Fareed Zakaria: Yeltsin was a perfect example of this prosecuting a war in Chechnya -- beating up on journalists prosecuting a war in Chechnya but elected. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Iranians. I wrote this article pointing out that what we think of democracy in the West is really two different things. It's constitutional liberalism, the rule of law, the separation of powers, private property, freedom of speech. But -- and then elections -- but that in the West all those other things constitutionalism, liberty if you will preceded democracy by hundreds of years. So they've infused in the West but that doesn't mean it's going to happen overnight in Iraq.
06:54: Charlie Rose: Here's what I want to know so we can get into this. What are you holding up to the light to see? What are we testing in this book? Are we testing idea of freedom or the idea of democracy?
07:05: Fareed Zakaria: The goal -- it's freedom. In other words, it seems to me democracy is a path to freedom. It's a way of getting to freedom. So you have to ask yourself, if you have democracy and you don't have freedom, what have you achieved? I think that the goal of government should be freedom, should be liberty.
07:25: Charlie Rose: That's the thing that burns passionately in people's hearts.
07:30: Fareed Zakaria: Exactly.
07:32: Charlie Rose: The idea of being free more so than the idea of being democratic.
07:37: Fareed Zakaria: If you think about whether you would rather live in Hong Kong, a place that, you know, certainly when it's ruled by the British as a crown colony for 150 years had no democracy but had almost total freedom, free press, all individual rights, you know, of speech, association, religion or would you rather live in one of these African countries that has held lots of elections, some thug wins, systematically persecutes other people? I think you know the answer. So, you know, of course you'd ideally want both. What I'm trying to get -- ask is how do you get there.
08:09: Charlie Rose: How do you get to freedom?
08:11: Fareed Zakaria: How do you get to liberal democracy, how do you get to the combination of the two? Someone says we've reached the end of history and the liberal democracy is the final form of government. I basically with their argument. The only problem is it's proved devilish difficult getting there outside of Western Europe and North America they're not a whole lot of examples. I mean outside of Europe really. Central Europe, Western Europe, North America, you have liberalism and democracy joined together, but around the rest of the world, you don't find these things together.
08:48: Charlie Rose: Is the theme here that democracy is imperfect?
08:51: Fareed Zakaria: The theme here is that getting to real genuine democracy is hard, and that you have to consider the inner stuffings of democracy. If that's what you're trying to get, you have to think a lot about the sequence. You have to think a lot about what path you choose and sometimes you have to be patient.
09:08: Charlie Rose: Okay. Patient clearly. What are the ideal conditions in order for democracy to produce the results we hope it delivers?
09:18: Fareed Zakaria: Well --.
09:21: Charlie Rose: The question of freedom, the questions of respect for the individual, the questions of human rights -- respect for human rights, the question of market forces at work, all of that?
09:33: Fareed Zakaria: Patty Ashdown the guy who runs Bosnia, the czar of Bosnia says that the one mistake they made in Bosnia was that they overemphasized elections. They held the elections before they instituted the rule of law, before they instituted the court system, before they instituted the administrative system. So it seems to me the key is getting those conditions right because you want to do that before the power contest begins, before people start getting into power because once they do that, they have no interest in the rule of law. They want to pack the courts.
10:02: Charlie Rose: Look at for example the end of the Soviet Union. People will argue with you there was no --.
10:09: Fareed Zakaria: Sequencing.
10:12: Charlie Rose: A, no sequencing, b, no institutions, c, no historical memory -- none of those things in order to create a democracy.
10:19: Fareed Zakaria: You're quite right. What I would say is look at the former Soviet Union. The places that have had consolidated their democracy were places that were historically part of Europe have had the whole experience --.
10:29: Charlie Rose: For example, Czech Republic, Poland.
10:30: Fareed Zakaria: Yes, Poland, and Hungary. They have had all the whole experience historical that I go through in the book of the separation of church and state, renaissance, capitalism and for 50 years they had communism. If you've got to take the whole history and totality outside of that in central Asia, the elections led to dictatorships, even in Ukraine and Belarus the elections led to dictatorship. If you get the sequence wrong, if you're historically part of Europe, you probably do all right because you have 2,000 history to fall back on and you'll do all right. The others haven't done so well.
11:10: Charlie Rose: What do you say to the Chinese?
11:13: Fareed Zakaria: I think China is basically on the right path, that it is moving toward liberalizing its economy. It is moving toward much more administrative and legal reform than people realize. But it has --.
11:25: Charlie Rose: And democracy at the local level in many cases.
11:27: Fareed Zakaria: Exactly. Democracy at the local level -- but it is doing that slowly and in a controlled manner. What I will say is China will reach a moment of truth in 15 years or so where they will have to start doing genuine political reform because I mean the Chinese Communists mead to read Karl Marx who said when the economics base of a country changes the political, what he called the super structure, has to change as well. At some point you will have created a large enough middle class. You will have created the conditions for democracy. Then you can't hold out. You see, every liberalizing autocracy wants to be Singapore's Lee Kwan Uwe where he's liberalized the economy created a modern society but no political democracy. Singapore is the exception that proves the rule.
12:13: Charlie Rose: What does it prove?
12:16: Fareed Zakaria: It proves that at some point, to give you an example.
12:22: Charlie Rose: It proves that if you create a vital economy, if you clean the streets and you improve the quality of life and you make people happy, then they will not be so excited if you begin or if you encroach on liberty.
12:33: Fareed Zakaria: No it proves the opposite. That's why I mean it's the exception that proves the rule. That is to say Singapore is the only case where that's true. In every other case where you've modernized the economy -- created a middle class they've wanted democracy. You've had to do political reform. If you think of Taiwan, you think of South Korea, you think of Malaysia and Chile. Singapore is weird. It's a tiny country very well run. It is the only country over $10,000 per capita GDP that is not a democracy.
13:03: Charlie Rose: Look at the Middle East or the Gulf region right now, this whole idea argued by the neo conservatives and people, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Kristol and others is simply the hope, the hope that they can create a democracy in Iraq and that it will affect neighbors, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Jordan. Is it likely to happen? Does it have those kinds of wheels?
13:28: Fareed Zakaria: Their hearts are in the right place. I think it has a possibility.
13:33: Charlie Rose: The dreamers here in America.
13:36: Fareed Zakaria: Yeah. The neo conservative argument that the ripple effect of democracy could prove to be right, as I said their hearts are in the right place. I hope it works. But I think that the most important thing will be creating a viable successful democracy in Iraq. The big problem for the Middle East is not that they're Arab. It's that there's too much oil there. People keep talking about Iraqi oil as though it's going to be the great salvation. In fact, oil is the curse for democracy. There is not one oil democracy in the world.
14:07: Charlie Rose: Why isn't that true?
14:09: Fareed Zakaria: Because I call them in the book trust fund states. The money doesn't have to be earned so when a state doesn't have to create the laws, the framework, the policies that produce the -- that generate wealth, when all they have is drill in the ground you end up with this weird thing. A rich country but --.
14:27: Charlie Rose: Few in control.
14:29: Fareed Zakaria: The people in control and it's feudal, un-modernized.
14:34: Charlie Rose: You don't create an entrepreneurial spirit which enables an economy so that you. The interesting thing about Israel I think you'll probably argue, a democracy which has created, you know, an amazing entrepreneurial spirit within its people because.
14:46: Fareed Zakaria: Because it has nothing. There's no resources.
14:50: Charlie Rose: They're looking for a way --.
14:52: Fareed Zakaria: That's right. If you do a plot of the countries that have, you know natural resources versus economic growth, it is what economists call a perfect negative correlation. That is to say, the fewer resources you have, the faster you've grown in the last 30 years.
15:05: Charlie Rose: Is that true?
15:07: Fareed Zakaria: Think of the highest growth rate countries, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,.
15:11: Charlie Rose: None of them have any natural resources.
15:13: Fareed Zakaria: Nothing - zero - and the lowest scoring countries in the world -- Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, all rich bursting with natural resources. No it's a curse.
15:24: Charlie Rose: What's the best example of someone who does not necessarily follow the lead, who has natural resources but has not done as badly, that has -
15:31: Fareed Zakaria: You're living in it. The United States.
15:35: Charlie Rose: I know.
15:37: Fareed Zakaria: There's a reason.
15:38: Charlie Rose: But what about, say, I mean -- go ahead.
15:40: Fareed Zakaria: I mean generally speaking there are few examples. There's --.
15:45: Charlie Rose: Somebody has got to have managed natural resources well and created -- and had an entrepreneur spirit.
15:51: Fareed Zakaria: Malaysia has done all right. Norway has done all right with the -- with its oil. But by and large it's a curse because it means that there are two things that happen. One as you said you don't develop an entrepreneurial culture and class and spirit. Secondly there's massive political corruption because what business is valued for is not the ideas it generates, it's the political contacts you have.
16:15: Charlie Rose: And it's also about trading rather than creating wealth.
16:20: Fareed Zakaria: If you think about it the entire Middle East all of the Middle East if you take oil out, the total exports of the Middle East are equal to the exports of Finland.
16:27: Charlie Rose: Russia has a huge amount of natural resources. Yes?
16:32: Fareed Zakaria: Yes. Probably the richest, the most richly endowed country in the world in natural resources.
16:40: Charlie Rose: Does that mean that if they had been really smart that they could have created something extraordinary coming out of the end of communism?
16:46: Fareed Zakaria: If they had been really smart and recognized that natural resources have to be very carefully managed.
16:52: Charlie Rose: What happens is they ended up with massive corruption and --.
16:56: Fareed Zakaria: I mean --.
16:59: Charlie Rose: The equivalent robber barons took over the natural wealth of the country.
17:03: Fareed Zakaria: The robber barons are not like our robber barons. These are robber barons who had connections to the state, manipulated and transferred state assets to themselves. Basically what does it take to be a robber baron in Russia? You own the nickel, you own the diamonds, you own the oil. One model of successfully dealing with natural resources is Alaska. The state of Alaska basically has oil and what it does is it gives it back to the people. They write a dividend check $8,000 to every resident of Alaska. It's a great idea because what you're doing it's like land reform you're just getting it out of the hands of the state or the oligarchs or politicians and putting it into the economy. They should do that in Iraq. If they were smart what you would do is create a natural trust all oil revenues going to that. Pays off whatever debt has to be paid off. There are limits to multilateralism.
18:02: Charlie Rose: Exactly. Everybody gets paid but the Russians and the French.
18:10: Fareed Zakaria: Right.
18:13: Charlie Rose: Speaking of democracy, Turkey. How many other Islamic countries is there a democracy?
18:18: Fareed Zakaria: Well, technically if you mean by elections, you have more. I mean you have Indonesia. You have Nigeria.
18:26: Charlie Rose: Malaysia or not?
18:28: Fareed Zakaria: Yeah, I would count Malaysia. There are some. It's the Arab world that is particularly undemocratic. The Islamic world actually there are a number of countries.
18:36: Charlie Rose: Algeria.
18:38: Fareed Zakaria: Algeria doesn't have elections. It had elections and then the military blocked them. Bangladesh, Pakistan is sort of quasi-democratic.
18:44: Charlie Rose: Speak to the issue of in a sense the tradition of Islam and the tradition of democracy.
18:52: Fareed Zakaria: I think it's not as bad as people think. If you think of the countries that were just listed, the problem is really more in the Arab world where you have not a single democracy.
19:01: Charlie Rose: I know. Turkey is not Arab but it's in the -
19:05: Fareed Zakaria: It's in the Middle East. The Turks don't consider themselves part of the Arab world in any sense and vice versa. And that part of the world needs some kind of a jolt. That's why I do think that trying very hard to push in Iraq which will require enormous American attention, I mean, if we're really going to try to bring democracy to Iraq or help Iraq build a democracy, this is the largest foreign policy project America will have taken on in 30 years. Since the Vietnam War we will never have done something so ambitious where we are genuinely trying to transform a society.
19:39: Charlie Rose: Here's the question. Is it worth it?
19:44: Fareed Zakaria: It is worth it.
19:46: Charlie Rose: Balancing it in terms of how else we might expend our energy and resources number one and balancing it against the likelihood of success versus doing something else, you are saying that the president is right to have made the bet that he did with respect to Iraq?
20:01: Fareed Zakaria: I'll tell you why. First of all, the Middle East is a very difficult place to have much influence. What are we going to do to push the Saudi government toward reform? We don't give Saudi Arabia aid. What is the level we have? So these places are countries where they're very good at saying yes and then doing nothing. So Iraq is a place we would have tangible influence. There is a blank slate aspect to it. That's obviously an exaggeration. Secondly the best way to create some energy in that part of the world, in any region, is to have a successful model. What worked in -- the reason it worked was the Japan succeeded. Then all the other countries said, look, we can copy Japan. You don't have to --.
20:48: Charlie Rose: There's a model there that works.
20:50: Fareed Zakaria: There's a model there and it's ours. It's not that we have to borrow western ideas. That's very important in other parts of the world that people feel that they have some connection to the model of success. I think in the Arab world if people could look at Iraq and say, hey, you know, these guys did it. They haven't sold out. They're not Zionists or imperialists. Maybe we should just do what Iraq is doing.
21:14: Charlie Rose: Interesting. Take the Egyptians, let's look with a more skeptical eye. Are the Egyptians likely to say that?
21:21: Fareed Zakaria: It depends on what you mean by the Egyptians.
21:24: Charlie Rose: Who the Egyptians are.
21:26: Fareed Zakaria: My point would be there will be a 40-something year old deputy minister of economics in Egypt who will look at what the Iraqi --.
21:34: Charlie Rose: Find evidence in Iraq he'll take to Egypt.
21:37: Fareed Zakaria: Right. He'll say why don't we restructure our steel industry.
21:41: Charlie Rose: Who would he say that to?
21:44: Fareed Zakaria: His boss. One day he'll become the minister of economics. In other words, there are people who, look, every country wants to get rich. If Iraq works it will not only be democratic but it will also be prosperous. Many of these -- think about the model I mentioned which I love. A lot of these guys were nasty dictators. They didn't want to bring democracy to them. But they wanted to modernize their countries and create wealth. So they start copying what seems to be working.
22:14: Charlie Rose: Here is the question too. For the United States and coalition forces, certainly the United States and the United Kingdom as they look at Iraq, it has always been said that America has been admired for its values, all the things you're talking about in here, respect for individuals, freedom, human rights, lots of things. Far from a perfect nation but there is something that people from around the world admire certainly and has been called into question by some during this war but the majority of people still have great admiration for those values. What do they mean when they say America can't push its brand of democracy on to another place? What is it our brand of democracy that might not work?
22:59: Fareed Zakaria: That's a very good question because it means nothing. Here's what it means.
23:05: Charlie Rose: They say it all the time.
23:08: Fareed Zakaria: They say it all the time.
23:09: Charlie Rose: I say what do you mean?
23:11: Fareed Zakaria: You're very right to pick up on it. Here's what I think it means. It means you can't be pushy. You can't be imperial it stick. You can't be overbearing but when it comes time to develop a plan for a central bank they come to us and say how do you organize yours? So I don't know what it means I think what they're really talking about is the manner in which we do it. I think in fact I'm a heretic on this. I think the American Constitution and the concerns it has are precisely the ones that many countries in the world need. The basic concern of James Madison was a fear of concentrated power. That is the principal problem with all these third world countries.
23:52: Charlie Rose: The worst examples of where a democracy is abused is where somebody through a whole range of skills consolidates power from a democracy and then begins to subvert democracy.
24:04: Fareed Zakaria: Precisely. If you think about what Madison says in Federalist 51. He says that the most difficult task in creating representative government is that you have to do two things. First, the government has to control the governed. Second, it has to control itself. In other words, you have to create order and then you have to create limitations on governmental authority. This is going to be the challenge in Iraq: First, creating order, and then creating limited government so that a free economy, civil society can flourish.
24:33: Charlie Rose: Let me come back to -- I had a program last night which I think you saw and spoke to me about.
24:39: Fareed Zakaria: I always see your programs, Charlie.
24:41: Charlie Rose: Thank you. We need every viewer we can find. We beg you to stay with us. It is this notion - Leon Wieseltier made the point - the next great challenge for America is to confront anti-Americanism. How do you see that idea of America, anti-Americanism? Where does it come from? You wrote a piece that you sort of tested this thesis on this show before you wrote this piece, remember?
25:05: Fareed Zakaria: I get all my best ideas on this show.
25:08: Charlie Rose: Why America scares the world and what to do it about it? What do you think is at the heart of anti-Americanism for the lack of a better word? It is a very simplistic term.
25:19: Fareed Zakaria: There's no question it's fear.
25:21: Charlie Rose: Fear?
25:23: Fareed Zakaria: A fear of American power. When the world looks at what just happened, for example, a number of people in Washington are saying, well, won't this show them that, you know, we can just --.
25:33: Charlie Rose: Won't they be quaking in their boots and do exactly what they're interested in having them do?
25:38: Fareed Zakaria: They look at the ability to invade a country 6,000 miles in three weeks topple the regime and they're even more scared. They're even more fearful of what this means to live in a world where this one country has the kind of power that no one country has ever had. So a lot of it is a American power. My argument has always been that's -- you take that for granted that a lot of it is not what you do but who you are and how much power you have. But because we have so much power, it's all the more reason to couple that power with a certain kind of generosity of spirit and a certain reassurance so that people don't worry about us because they're going to worry anyway. You have to try to calm them down. Where the Bush administration has tended to go wrong is in the sort of -- the idea that shock and awe, which is good as a military strategy, should also be the diplomatic strategy.
26:31: Charlie Rose: You said it developed a language and a diplomatic style that seemed calculated to offend the world.
26:36: Fareed Zakaria: It was I think the idea was --.
26:38: Charlie Rose: This was not the secretary of state you're talking about.
26:43: Fareed Zakaria: I think the idea was intimidate the world -- intimidate allies, you know, make them sort of fearful. The problem with that is, people quote the line of Machiavelli, it's better to be feared than loved. The problem with that is it's how the Soviet Union ran its alliance system. We have always taught that the best way to do it is to make our allies feel that we take care of their interests as well as ours, that we create a kind of common cooperative interest. That spirit particularly now in this post war is going to be one of the things we have to work very hard at.
27:15: Charlie Rose: What do we do? Do we go to them and say don't be fearful of us, we're not going to hurt you or do we --.
27:23: Fareed Zakaria: Look a lot of what we did in the post World War II era is a great model where, you know, we went around creating alliances. We went around hand holding. We told the Europeans you develop the marshal plan. We're just going to give you the money. It's all yours. The ideas must be yours. The control must be yours. We had joint military exercises with countries where it made no sense for us to have them because it made them feel important. We invited people to the White House and had state dinners for countries that you wouldn't normally have state dinners for. The whole process of diplomacy for the last 50 years has been a process of assuring the world that, you know, don't worry about this 800-pound gorilla.
28:01: Charlie Rose: You can create a new cabinet position, secretary of --.
28:05: Fareed Zakaria: Reassurance.
28:07: Charlie Rose: That's right. Secretary of reassurance or secretary in charge of feeling good about yourself.
28:13: Fareed Zakaria: Precisely. I think in a odd way that will get you more. I'm all for getting our way. All I'm saying is it will get you more to have people not fear for their life. The point is to scare your enemies, not frighten the whole world.
28:28: Charlie Rose: Yeah. And deeds will do that more than words.
28:32: Fareed Zakaria: Deeds will do that. I think how we handle the post war business is very important.
28:36: Charlie Rose: The first test, there are those who say how much of the U.N. do we bring in? Everybody is perfectly prepared for the U.N. to take a humanitarian role. No one is prepared for the U.N. to take the ultimate security role. Some want them to take a more governance role. Others don't them to take a governance role. What do you think? Or does it become a gradual --.
29:00: Fareed Zakaria: You have the spectrum exactly right. It seems to me nobody is arguing that they should take security and they shouldn't. My view would be involve them as much as you can. They shouldn't have the controlling role but, look, do we want to be the only people, does the United States want to be the only country determining which Shia leader will be the ruler of the Nasiriyah or the ruler of Basra.
29:22: Charlie Rose: I will tell you what I do want. I want the Shia leaders to know that we think about them and we care about them and we respect them and that we have admiration for their religion.
29:30: Fareed Zakaria: Precisely but my point is when you pick one Shia leader you're not picking another 39.
29:36: Charlie Rose: Exactly.
29:38: Fareed Zakaria: And you want to be the only person making this decision because I guarantee you the other 39 will call it American imperialism. So the way we have structured it now, the debate is well we do the political stuff and the U.N. does the humanitarian. It seems to me that's not great for us. Why should the U.N. get to distribute food and electricity and we have to make all these political calls? Why not mix it up?
30:00: Charlie Rose: Fareed Zakaria is the editor of Newsweek International; he is a columnist for that magazine. He also appears on ABC News Weekend with George Stephanopoulos, this week I think the program is called. He was educated at Yale and then went to Harvard where he got his Ph.D. These are ideas about values that America cares about. And most of us believe in. "The Future of Freedom, Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad." It shows I also think that we must always be vigilant about the notion of our ideas and make sure wherever they're here or wherever they are that we cherish them and protect them and make sure they do not go off course. "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria. Thank you.
30:45: Fareed Zakaria: Thank you, Charlie.
30:47: Charlie Rose: Back in a moment. Stay with us.