Skip to main content

tv   Piers Morgan Tonight  CNN  May 26, 2011 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT

9:00 pm
that's it for "360." thanks for watching. two very different views of america. former british prime minister gordon brown, and the former president of pakistan, pervez musharraf. >> you think he's arrogant? >> well, i think so. >> i think he is a great president. >> on president obama. >> if you look what president obama has achieved in half a decade of leadership that has been white in the recent years on behalf of the results of americans. >> no country has the right to intrude on any other country. gordon brown on former president pervez musharraf.
9:01 pm
>> the situation in pakistan is more complicated in that there's al qaeda, there's taliban, and taliban spreading talibanization. >> they were two of the most powerful men in the world. now they can speak freely. this is "piers morgan tonight." >> a special relationship between the u.s. and the u.k. has been showing some strains lately, and president obama's state visit is meant to smooth over any rough patches. but is it working? joining me now is a man who knows about that special relationship, former british prime minister gordon brown. thank you for joining me. >> a pleasure. >> david cameron and president obama wrote a piece jointly where they describe the relationship as not just special but essential. and they went on to say that the united states and britain stand together, and people around the world will become more secure and more prosperous. what do you say to that? >> i think it's an indispensable
9:02 pm
relationship, and it's based on values. not just on history and common actions together. it's based on a shared approach to the world that's about liberty, the dignity of the individual, about fairness, about opportunity. and, you know, i think that the new and relationship of the last 50 years, because after all, you kicked us out 200 years ago, the americans. and now they love the monarchy. i think over the last 50 years, what's really happened is when you have in almost every single battlefield of europe and every single war cemetery british and americans lying side-by-side who were part of that amazing sacrifice of what we called the greatest generation, that is what has cemented our relationship so well. so when an american soldier dies, the british people mourn. when a british soldier dies, the american people mourn. and i think that is at the heart of why we are so close, this joint shared sacrifice that was made so many years ago for the liberty of the world. >> when you were british prime minister, did you get a sense
9:03 pm
that britain was special to the american administration or is that just a form of words these days? how important are we in this scheme of things? >> i think when britain and america work together, and actually now i think it's britain as part of europe and america work together, there's very little we cannot do. if you look at the success of nato and ending the cold war, europe and america work together. when europe and america with britain right of the center of europe don't work well together, then things start to go wrong. so i think the indispensability of the relationship is shown. we haven't managed to move forward on trade. if europe and america, but particularly britain and america, worked more closely together, you could see more results that i think would benefit the world. and i think the lesson of the last 60 years is when we work together, and britain is the bridge really here, you can actually achieve so much. >> president obama has been in britain this week. and created quite a storm. he is an incredibly charismatic
9:04 pm
guy. how do you think he's doing as president? >> i think he is a great president. and not only, you know, historic presidency, the first black president, the first one who has shown that america can repair all the wounds of civil rights and the civil war. he is actually a person of great personality, great intellect, very charismatic and very reflective. i think he understands america's role in history. he understands where america wants to be. and it's a huge change from 50 years ago. i was telling someone a story just a day or two ago, john f. kennedy came to britain to meet harold mcmillan, the then prime minister. and they had a great relationship, one younger, one older. and john f. kennedy arrived, and howard wilson -- and harold mcmillan was still asleep. he had slept in. and john f. kennedy had to sit in downing street reading his newspaper in the waiting room for half an hour. >> is that right? >> if that had happened now or
9:05 pm
on any presidential visit that i was involved in or now is happening, you know, the slick second nature of these visits, if anything goes wrong like that, there would be an international outcry. >> he would have had to have resigned. >> and then you have harry truman invited atlee across to washington, and of course they were deep in the nato creation and he was invited by atlee to the washington residence of the british ambassador. and i think it was near christmas. and hthey spent the time singin. atlee played the piano. truman did the singing. >> did you ever do this when president bush and you ever around a piano? >> i don't think he would have appreciated my singing talents. but president bush and i used to talk a huge amount about history. he was a very avid reader of the history. the image presented of him in america and around the world was
9:06 pm
quite different from his real life, where he read -- he would that you can to you about history books. he had read american history, european history. and when we brought him to downing street and we had a dinner for him, we discussed who he would like to have invited. and you might have thought he would have wanted celebrities or something. he wanted a group of historians to talk to them about american and british history. and he enjoyed that evening. >> given events as they have been unfolding in the middle east in particular, do you think that president bush's legacy will improve over time? obviously, he was a very unpopular president both in his own country and here in britain. >> i think there was a big decision made in 2001, and really we're seeing it played through with the death of osama bin laden. how great was this terrorist threat. and i think bush -- people will look back and say that president bush, george w. bush, did make the right decision to recognize this was a major threat to the civilization of the world, that it had to be taken on. the next set of decisions are controversial, but i don't think that people can doubt the first
9:07 pm
decision that when you have the bombings in new york, the planes going into the buildings, and you have america trying to recover from that, it had to be the right decision to say, we are going to take this terrorist threat on. and i think that president bush will be remembered actually for taking that thrift threat on. now, in afghanistan, he kicked al qaeda out of afghanistan. perhaps we should have spent more time following that through. but equally at the same time, we now have osama bin laden is no longer alive. al qaeda is in disarray. if you look at what president obama has achieved that half of the al qaeda leadership has been wiped out in recent years because of the efforts of the americans, so it was an historic time for the americans. >> given all we now know, was it a mistake to into iraq? >> i think you have to distinguish between the rightness of the case and of
9:08 pm
course the u.n. and the whole world supported the rightness of the case. and then the follow-through. and i think the follow-through became very difficult, because in the modern world, you can't just have a just war. you've got to have a just peace. and if you cannot plan through a reconstruction that leaves a country in a position where it can build for the future, quickly, then you've got to question what was going on. so i think when all of these inquiries are finished, people will conclude that the justness of the case against saddam hussein was proven by husbais unwillingness to comply with the united nations. >> it's been one of those state dinners here with the majesty and the queen and the huge royal wedding in britain as well. is part of the special relationship in britain and america connected to the royal family, do you think? >> i think the royal family is incredibly popular in america. i was speaking in america, and it was an economics speech. but i think when they were asking me what i was going to
9:09 pm
say they would have preferred a speech about the history of the royal family. >> why do you think americans are so fascinated by the british royal family? >> i think it's about britain. it's about our heritage. it's about the fact that so many people in america have descended either from britain or ireland. >> you were heavily involved in the princess diana memorial fund. with the princes and other members of the royal family. when you saw what happened to princess diana, who you knew, and i knew for that matter, and we saw the attention that she got and the relentlessness of it, leading to the terrible events of her death, do you worry about kate and william and the superstars of the royal family? >> i think it was a tragedy what happened to princess diana, and i did not know her really. but i do know that the pressure on her family and on her children has been immense. and i think it's remarkable tribute to these two young men that despite all the publicity and the attempts to catch them out and everything else, they have grown up to be very good i
9:10 pm
would say citizens but very good members of the royal family. and i think it's true to say that prince william has a special place in the affections of people, not least because of the success of his wedding. >> i was there covering it, and it was an incredible success, the wedding. to me it felt like we were getting a huge reenergizing of the british monarchy particularly around the world. did you get that sense? >> i think that was important. but i think you have to look forward as well. and it's going to have to be a modern monarchy in the future. now i think our alliance is about economic cooperation and cultural cooperation and how we deal with some of the other problems in the world. climate change, trade, and i think we could be a bit more successful in the way we deal with these in the future. and i think this common partnership of europe and america and africa working together, that would be something i think could achieve a lot of things. >> when we come back from break, i aren't to talk to you about the imf, the scandal, what it means for the global economy, and what you would do to restore
9:11 pm
the global economy to what it was precrisis. building up our wireless network all across america. we're adding new cell sites... increasing network capacity, and investing billions of dollars to improve your wireless network experience. from a single phone call to the most advanced data download, we're covering more people in more places than ever before in an effort to give you the best network possible. at&t. rethink possible. pants pockets... and anyone, anywhere who would hide our precious coins. we're coming for what's ours. maybe you didn't hear. but dimes, nickels, even pennies have power now. because the volt charges for about a buck fifty a day. making most commutes gas-free for just a handful of change. so we're taking it back. all of it. we have some driving to do. the 2011 chevrolet volt. it's more car than electric.
9:12 pm
what's the most amazing thi♪ ou ever saw?'s something you haven't seen yet. the 2nd generation of intel core processors. this is visibly smart. her morning begins with artitis pain. that's a cofe and two s. . back to sore knees. back to moreills.
9:13 pm
the day one but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. st 2il can keep arthritis pain awaall day fewerillshan tylenol. th is laraho chose 2leve anfewells r day free opain. and get the all day pain relief ofleven liquid gels. two of the most important are energy security and economic growth. north america actually has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. a large part of that is oil sands. this resource has the ability to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. at our kearl project in canada, we'll be able to produce these oil sands with the same emissions as many other oils and that's a huge breakthrough. that's good for our country's energy security and our economy. right now with the british former prime minister gordon brown. huge events going on involving
9:14 pm
the imf. you knew dominique strauss-kahn very well. you worked alongside him for a long time. what did you make of the scandal that's erupted, and what does it mean for the imf in terms of the global economy? >> it's a personal strategy. dominique strauss-kahn was steering the imf through what you might call the difficult post-crisis period where you are trying to avoid a world depression. and -- very successfully, i think, g-20, imf, world bank came together to do that. you know, the next stage is quite different. and the next stage is about this decade. americans must look at this decade with some insecurity because unemployment is high and youth unemployment is high. living standards are not rising. and america can't consume a huge amount more. it has to export to the rest of the world for its prosperity. the same problem exists for europe. you need some global growth arrangement, some expansion of trade, expansion of growth. that would suit america and europe and china. that's the first challenge. second challenge that dominique was starting to face is we are
9:15 pm
not certain that we have financial stability. nobody can say we have done enough yet to avoid a future crisis. we have the other problems because we have the middle east and africa. and you have massive youth u unemployment. you have 35% of young people in egypt out of work. >> you also have a massively higher population. this is -- being in that lower age bracket. you so have many more young people and many of those are unemployed. getting information to social networking to a better world, aren't they? creates its own problems. >> absolutely. expectations and aspirations are so high what the experience is and we know economic discontent started again in egypt. even with the change of regime. we know that there's real problems because young people feel they haven't got the opportunities. we know that you need to create about 50 million jobs in the about 50 million jobs in the middle east, north africa to
9:16 pm
meet that population. and you know that if they don't get jobs there, then this migration will spread across to europe and cause social problems there or become a security problem in africa. that's why you need the sort of major initiatives that i think the g-8 and 20 would have to look at. need something equivalent, middle east and north africa development bank that will make it its business to reduce the youth unemployment and build the infrastructure as necessary. it's a major project for the world. >> back to the imf for a moment. how important is it to the global economy? >> you see, for 50 years, the imf was dealing with national problems. if a country, argentina, brazil, indonesia, britain in one case, fell into problems, imf would take action to bail it out and to -- rescue it and say what it had to do. now you are dealing with something quite different since the financial crisis. you have what you might call a global problem that cannot be solved without a global institution or a global action. financial instability affects all of us. you cannot have financial stability now in one country and if you have instability in
9:17 pm
another country. >> so the imf is much more important. >> yes. it has got to coordinate the approach to financial stability. it has to make possible greater global growth and trade. otherwise america and europe as i say who have to export will lose out. and, of courses, has this responsibility to the poorer countries with the world bank. >> given how important the imf now is, these are big blows -- guy running it, has been involved in this huge scandal. from all i hear -- interested in your observation on this, he was very good at the job. >> dominique strauss-kahn is an old friend of mine. we worked very well together when he was finance minister. i think what happened in the last three years, you have now the g20, which president obama helped to create. global growth plan which is imf is hoping to administer. you have trade negotiations faltering. you have the climate change that's never actually happened. so your international -- whether the imf or g-20, world bank, going to become far more important in future years.
9:18 pm
it is to the benefit of america and countries like britain we have strong international institutions that carry legitimacy. but also that are efficient and effective. >> people listening to you, mr. brown, saying what you say perfect guy for the job. why don't you take over the imf? >> i was actually -- i was -- i was in charge of the selection process when i was chairman of the imf committee in the early 2000s. and this is a long, prolonged selection process, which is being administered, if you like, into a few days. but the whole of the world has to be consulted. you can't have one country without listening to another country and another country. you will get in the next few weeks views from india and china and africa and from -- >> if you were offered the job would you take it? >> i don't think it comes to that to be honest. i'm not interested in running a campaign for a job. i'm more interested in saying what the proper agenda is for the future. you know, i was offered the job on one occasion previously. and i think the issue for me is how you can get the world to
9:19 pm
work together. this candidate, whoever does it, has to be able to bring consensus of the world together. i think that's going to be very important. >> when we come back we will talk about the world since you left office. not from necessarily an economic point of view, but just what is happening to this planet of ours.
9:20 pm
9:21 pm
9:22 pm
the former british prime minister gordon brown. talked earlier about the economics of the world.
9:23 pm
you were at the forefront of trying to save the world from this familiar crash. in terms of the world generally, you could say markets need morals. and it struck me that actually what the financial crisis taught us was probably the world could do with better moral leadership. there was a kind of fundamental breakdown in moral guidance, i felt, from many countries and from many people in positions of power. would you agree with that? >> i think we have these big problems that require people to take a longer term view than just their own self i shall individual or national interests. you have climate change that's a big problem. you have terrorism that's a big problem. you have the massive migration that could take place at any time from the middle east, north africa, and africa. and problems arising from financial instability, which is basically a market failure. what are the values we share in common? can you build your institutions on a stronger basis? i think you would then conclude
9:24 pm
that there had to be greater cooperation between the major countries. you would have to have a -- not just g-20 type organization. you have to have a constituency system that every country felt it was represented. and you would have to build a number of better and multilateral institutions where people could find that at least they were addressing the problems that we face. >> has the internet eroded political power in conventional sense? because as you are seeing all over the middle east, these young, oppressed people, unemployed and angry, but also able to get information about how other people live, and saying that's what i want. that didn't exist before. so you are saying now people power driven from the floor up. >> it is because of the internet that we know about events in burma, we knew about the fraudulent elections in zimbabwe. many of the things that were going on in egypt. some of the things going on in iran. >> is this the end of despottic rule as we know it? >> it's no longer just the few
9:25 pm
elites that talk to each other and never consult the public. those days are over. the diplomacy which is just a few privileged people carving up the world around them, popular protests, now the internet has been called a shouting match without an umpire. so you've got people shouting at each other across the world. what will happen over the next few years is that social organizations will emerge. and you will have people across frontiers able to communicate with each other to organize with each other, including russia and china and many other countries, and they will come to common causes that they want to promote. now, whether that's an end to torture or where that's an environmental campaign, you will find worldwide campaigns that build up and suddenly the elite leaders of a few countries are under enormous pressure to do something about it without them having realized that this movement was even starting in the first place. and that really is very significant, because it will change economic policy. it will change environmental policy. and it will change the way we see the world. >> it would also mean that trust between countries will never be more important. and you saw a real breakdown, i
9:26 pm
think, when osama bin laden was found to have been living right in the middle of pakistan for five years, in a compound next to a military intelligence base. i mean, were you surprised when you heard that? >> no, because pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism. we've got to recognize that even in britain, we were following perhaps 2,000 potential terrorists who were living in britain. 20 or 30 groups that were operating within britain. and most of them, some from somalia from some yemen, but most were taking their orders from pakistan. and i think that will be true of any western european country, true of america itself. >> do you think anybody at high level in pakistan would have known that osama bin laden was there? >> well, the question in pakistan is you've got the army, you've got the security services, you've got the politicians, the business class, a very divided political system. until there is unity in pakistan, until people come together, then the attack on terrorism, the fight against terrorism, will be ineffective. and this is the real problem
9:27 pm
that we face. afghanistan is soluble if we had stability in pakistan. terrorism in pakistan needs the local government, the local people, to come together with these -- almost with nonsec tarrian politics and with the army and political services to work with them to deal with this threat. there is too much division in pakistan for the fight against terrorism to be effective. >> finally, what do you miss most about being prime minister? >> i can tell you what i don't miss. >> yeah, do that. >> well, what you don't misis the british newspapers. [ laughter ] >> of course. >> what you don't miss is your ability to, you know, travel -- you now have the ability to travel abroad without people asking lots of questions. i enjoy my time coming to america in particular. i don't miss the pomp and circumstance. i suppose i miss -- you know, we had started a big project to reform the world economy. i mean, we had started to deal with the banking crisis. >> do you feel personally that
9:28 pm
you were given a bad rap on this? because the americans when i talk to them about your role in essentially saving the world's economy, are very effusive in their praise. including the president. when you're here, you get such a battering, when many in other countries consider you one of the people who saved the economy. >> well, 90% of the british media as you know is conservative. look, we made two big decisions that i think were important. one is we decided the problems of the bank were structural. it wasn't just cyclical or a passing problem. we had to completely restructure the banks. and every other country then recognized that to be the case. and we have got to follow that through. and the second thing we realized is that the world couldn't solve the problem without coming together. so we created an organization, the g20, which met in london to do that. i think the issue now is the follow-through. because if i'm right, that global problems cannot be solved by simply one country or two countries working together on their own, whether it's climate
9:29 pm
change or security or terrorism itself or whether it's population and migration, but particularly when it's economics and financial stability, we have got to find a way of working together better. and people look to america for leadership. and america is the leading country in the world. whatever america is in a position advocate, working with other countries, it can achieve. and i think the real lesson of this is america's role is still absolutely central to everything that happens in the world. and i want to back the leadership of america and what they try to do to make the world a safer place, as president obama has done with the death of osama bin laden. to also make the world a more prosperous place. and i think the verdict has still got to be passed on how we have done in coming out of this crisis. >> mr. brown, thank you very much indeed. >> thank you. >> lovely to see you again. next up, pervez musharraf. he was the president of pakistan. could he be again? we're adding new cell sites...
9:30 pm
increasing network capacity, and investing billions of dollars to improve your wireless network experience. from a single phone call to the most advanced data download, we're covering more people in more places than ever before in an effort to give you the best network possible. at&t. rethink possible. you know that comes with a private island. really? no. it comes with a hat. you see, airline credit cards promise flights for 25,000 miles, but... [ man ] there's never any seats for 25,000 miles. frustrating, isn't it? but that won't happen with the capital one venture card. you can book any airline anytime. hey, i just said that. after all, isn't traveling hard enough? ow. [ male announcer ] to get the flights you want, sign up for a venture card at what's in your wallet? uh, it's okay. i've played a pilot before. ♪
9:31 pm
[ male announcer ] doctors have been saying it forever. let's take a look. but they've never actually been able to do it like this. let's take a look. v-scan from ge healthcare. a pocket sized imaging device that will help change the way doctors see patients. that's better health for more people.
9:32 pm
and started earning loads of points. you got a weather balloon with points? yes i did. [ man ] points i could use for just about anything. ♪ ♪ there it is. [ man ] so i used mine to get a whole new perspective. ♪ [ male announcer ] the new citi thankyou premier card gives you more ways to earn points. what's your story? citi can help you write it.
9:33 pm
pakistan is one of the united states' most crucial allies in the war on terror. but now there are tough questions on both sides about that relationship. joining me now, the once and perhaps future president of pakistan, general pervez musharraf. mr. president, thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> quite clearly, there is a problem in the relationship between america and pakistan now. a lot of it centers around the discovery that osama bin laden was living right in the middle of what appeared to be a military intelligence compound for all this time.
9:34 pm
how would you describe the relationship as it stands? >> there certainly is a trust deficit. but it has been persistent since the last one year. not because of osama alone. there were incidents of mistrust in the past. and therefore, it led to the final culmination was this, that there was total mistrust, and therefore pakistan was not even told. and as people take it that it was a violation of pakistan's sophreen -- sovereignty. therefore, it has led to a lot more misunderstanding, which i think is extremely detrimental to the cause of fighting against terror. >> i mean, there's no doubt that most world leaders now say that pakistan has become the center for world terror. do you accept that? >> to an extent, yes. but the real fight is in afghanistan. if we can win in afghanistan, we
9:35 pm
will win in pakistan also. it's not vicea versa. if we win in afghanistan. there's no doubt that the situation in pakistan is more complicated in that there is al qaeda, there is taliban, and taliban spreading talibanization into settled districts. and then there is extremists in our society. and then there are mujahideen who are involved in cashmir in india. so the situation is more complicated in pakistan all right. >> but there is obvious frustration and concern in america, not least because of course pakistan has a reputed at least 100 nuclear weapons. if the country continues to deteriorate in terms of stability, this becomes a very dangerous situation for the world. >> if pakistan disintegrates, then it can be dangerous. otherwise, if pakistan's integrity is there, which i am
9:36 pm
sure it will be there, as long as the armed forces of pakistan are there, there is no danger of the nuclear assets or the strategic assets falling into any terrorist hands. >> we talk about disintegration. it's all relative, isn't? 35,000 pakistani people have been killed in terror related incidents since 9/11. there are suicide bombings every week now in pakistan. to a neutral observer, it does appear that your country, pakistan, is going through a form of disintegration. >> well, i wouldn't call it dint congratulations. as ied -- disintegration. as i said, the armed forces of pakistan keep the unity and the four provinces of pakistan certainly are not looking for separation. so therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that the disintegration will not be possible. and therefore, and if the outside world, i would like to say also understands that the disintegration of pakistan or
9:37 pm
any harm to the integrity of pakistan will really be extremely dangerous for the world, for the region and for the world. >> but you understand why president obama and his administration feel pretty angry when they discover that the most wanted terrorist in american history is living right in the heart of pakistan, right next to a military base. i mean, you know, it defies credibility that -- i'm not saying that you knew anything, but certainly that nobody at any high level in pakistan had any idea that osama bin laden was there. >> yes. i don't think anyone had an idea. >> you don't? >> i don't think so. >> and you worked in that compound. you worked in the base, didn't you, next to the compound? for about 2 1/2 years? >> yes. but that -- >> it's incredible that no one else in that base, in all this time, would have had any idea? >> well, when you say i worked there, no, i was trained there. i was a cadet there. >> well, that means that you know it very well.
9:38 pm
>> yes. >> you know where that house is. you know the approximate. >> yes. >> i'm not suggesting that you knew for a moment. what i'm suggesting does it seem likely to you, with all of the military intelligence people around this compound, that nobody knew anything? >> it is normal. there must have been a detachment headed by a major or a lieutenant colonel and a few people about eight or 10 people that that is their detachment anywhere, all over pakistan. it's not like they are swarming with intelligence people around. not at all. and the issue, yes, indeed, it's a terrible mishap. it's a terrible failure. but to think that there was complicity at the strategic level, at the government level, is certainly not there. the people around, thousands of them, living around this house, they also didn't know that osama bin laden is inside. so i really -- i have certain
9:39 pm
reservations on this issue whether he was there for five years. i can't imagine that. but if he was there, well, again, it was a great failure. failure of the intelligence. detachments over there who should have known. >> hold that thought, mr. president. coming up, more on the relationship between the u.s. and pakistan.
9:40 pm
naomi pryce: i am. i'm in the name your own price division. i find empty hotel rooms and help people save - >> - up to 60% off. i am familiar. your name? > naomi pryce. >> what other "negotiating" skills do you have? > i'm a fifth-degree black belt.
9:41 pm
>> as am i. > i'm fluent in 37 languages. >> (indistinct clicking) > and i'm a master of disguise >> as am i. > as am i. >> as am i. > as am i. >> well played naomi pryce.
9:42 pm
right now i'm with pervez musharraf, the former president of pakistan. if you had been the president of pakistan when the raid took place, would you have been entirely comfortable with what the americans did in terms of dropping navy s.e.a.l.s into the compound, killing osama bin laden on the sovereign soil, not telling anybody in the pakistani
9:43 pm
government? would have you been happy about that? >> no, not at all. not at all. not the least. in fact, in my time, it was very, very clear that we don't want anybody to intrude across borders. no force. we decided on intelligence cooperation. and all of the dozens of al qaeda people that we caught, all the important ones, with intelligence cooperation, locate them, identify them. but the action was invariably by pakistan forces. never did any outside or any american -- >> how would you have reacted if you had been pakistan president? >> well, i would have certainly reacted very angry. i mean, this is violation of our sovereignty. and most of all -- >> is it therefore illegal what the americans did? >> it is absolutely illegal, yes. >> it was not lawful assassination? >> well, now you're getting into the legalities of -- he was a world class terrorist. i mean, he has caused tremendous -- >> i'm referring to the mission itself. if as you say it was an illegal
9:44 pm
raid on sovereign territory, therefore it becomes an illegal, unlawful assassination. >> well, i think that -- >> it can't be anything else. >> well, i mean, i don't want to get involved in these legalities of the issue. >> well, you did say it was -- that's why i asked you if you thought it was illegal. if it's illegal, then the killing of bin laden becomes an unlawful assassination. >> technically, theoretically, i'll agree. >> so what would you have done if you had been president? you have this unlawful assassination as you said on your sovereign soil. what could pakistan -- what should pakistan have done? >> well, i don't think i would have looked at it from international law point of view or legalities or jurisprudence points of view. there is a terrorist who needed to be dealt with. there's no doubt. he should have been dealt with. the modality used was wrong. it should have been pakistan forces to deal with it.
9:45 pm
u.s. forces violated our sovereignty. and certainly it would have -- it would certainly have brought a very bad name, my reputation within my own people, would have gone down. and therefore, any leader in pakistan allowing this, his own reputation is at stake, and rightly so. so therefore i wouldn't have liked it. objected. but i would not have objected to the killing of osama bin laden, whether it was a violation of any law or -- >> what you would have liked is the american administration to have informed you? >> yes. >> and possibly included pakistani forces in the raid. is that what you're saying? >> no. well i would have certainly insisted that it would be pakistan's special forces who were going to deal with it. >> but here is the problem. you're president obama. you know there's a breakdown in trust between pakistan and america. at a high level. the trust is not what it used to be. and there are good reasons for that. you get intelligence that osama bin laden is in his compound. and you have to make a choice.
9:46 pm
either we tell the authorities, the government of a country that country we do not trust, and who we may think, we may suspect, know that osama bin laden is there. that some of them knew this. why if you're president obama could you possibly take the risk, under those circumstances, of not acting unilaterally? >> well, no pakistani and no leader in pakistan will allow this as a justification for intrusion into pakistan. nobody can do that. and no country's leader, would america allow such an action by mexico or somebody? i mean, let's treat all countries with sovereign equality. >> president obama said this week on british television, first state visit to britain, that if the same event arose again, he would do the same. and if it happens in the future with other known terrorists in al qaeda, he'll take the same action. so we have it clear now flashpoint between pakistan and america. >> yeah.
9:47 pm
i think this is putting the pakistan leadership and government on the dock. and i think it's not a very responsible statement. >> you think it's irresponsible of president obama to say that? >> yes, indeed. >> because it basically implies that america has rights in terms of taking action on this sovereign soil, with regard to bin laden, that it has a right to do that when you say it has no right to do that. >> certainly no country has a right to intrude into any other country. i mean actually or technically if you see it, it's an act of war. so therefore i think it is an irresponsible statement. and i think that such arrogance should not be shown. publicly, to the world. >> you think it was arrogant? >> well, i think so. i think it is arrogance that we don't care. we don't care for your national opinion. we don't care for your people. we will come in and do the same thing. i mean, this is arrogance. >> when you say an act of war, that's pretty serious language.
9:48 pm
would you see another raid by the americans to get rid of another al qaeda terrorist in exactly the same circumstances, without informing tpakistani government, would that be an act of war? >>y this >> theoretically, technically, yes, indeed. any violation of a country's sovereignty is an act of war. now how to deal with it is another question. and i leave it to the government there how they want to do with it. through diplomatic, protest, or military action and military response. i mean, it could be a serious situation. we must all understand that. the world should understand it. and president obama should understand it. >> let's take a short break now. when we come back, i want to talk to you about your political future and the rumors that you may well launch a new bid to become president again of pakistan. what's so special about
9:49 pm
web browsing on the new blackberry playbook? ♪lash! ah ahh... that's right, it runs flash. so unlike some tablets we could mention, you get the best of the internet, not just part of it. ♪ flash! ah ahh... ♪
9:50 pm
desperate for nighttime heartburn relief? for many, nexium helps relieve heartburn symptoms caused by acid reflux disease. talk to your doctor about your risk for osteoporosis-related bone fractures if you take multiple daily doses of nexium for a long time. possible side effects include headache, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. other serious stomach conditions may still exist. talk to your doctor about nexium. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
9:51 pm
9:52 pm
mr. president, there is a growing clamor in pakistan for you to possibly return in this next election in 2013. would you consider doing that? >> yes, i have already taken a decision. i did consider the situation in pakistan. and i saw that there is a
9:53 pm
requirement of creating another political option. otherwise, pakistan is going in the wrong direction. and therefore, i have made my -- formed my own party, and i do intend absolutely to return to pakistan. 23rd march of 2012, well before the election in 2013. i will -- >> do you believe you can win? >> well, i have entered politics because i do believe i can win. and as far as going back as president, that's a decision of the people. if my party wins and has a majority, then has has to decide whether one becomes a prime minister or a president. >> you have been quite outspoken about president obama. called him arrogant in terms of what happened with the raid on bin laden. you say it would be an act of war if it happens again. if you become president, you of course will know that pakistan is very reliant on at the moment on american aid. $3 billion a year is a lot of
9:54 pm
money. are you worried that if you ran the rhetoric over the search for the terrorists in pakistan against the americans, they might respond and say, we're yanking our money? >> well, first of all, i didn't say act of war. yes, technically and theoretically, it is. any intrusion is an act of war theoretically. anybody coming in with force into another country is an act of war, theoretically. but i didn't say that one would like to declare it as an act of war. i think it has some very serious repercussions. >> but the point i was making is if you create too much of a rift with america, with president obama, if you go back into power, they won't forget that. and pakistan is reliant on this aid money. it's a lot of money every year. >> well, money is coming. it is there. it assists pakistan, there is no doubt about that. but that doesn't mean that pakistan can give up its sovereignty, its national interest.
9:55 pm
now this has to be dealt with in a diplomatic manner. we have to reduce the trust deficit. we have to restore trust. it was there for six or seven years when i was there. we had good trust. and we were taking action. and we were very frank and straight and direct. >> have you always personally been 100% honest with america? >> 500% honest. i don't believe in dishonesty. i believe in telling a person right straight, because then that is how trust is given up. the moment you are hiding or telling or distorting facts, that is an area that the trust deficit starts. >> do you believe the current pakistan administration has been 100% honest? >> i don't know. i don't know. i can't comment on that. certainly there is a mistrust there that pakistan army or the isi assists the taliban. and the bone of contention lies
9:56 pm
in not with the leaders being attacked, and the leaders of this taliban, is not being dealt with. now i don't know what discussions take place. but if i was there, i would certainly -- there has to be a reason why it is not being done. a strategic reason. or maybe it will be done a little later. so what i would consider is the concerns of the united states and the coalition must be given straight and clearly to the united states. what is the reason that this is not happening. and there must be dealt with whatever the concerns of pakistan is, absolutely directly. and that is what diplomacy is really. and we must do that. we go to pakistan i know will -- wants to address this issue against al qaeda and taliban. i mean, all that is happening, isn't there a disconnect? that while everyone is accusing
9:57 pm
the army and the isi that we are involved with the taliban, and look at what they are doing. look at what happened on this naval base. and look at what has been happening all around. so yet we are being blamed, that we are with the taliban. and the taliban are doing this to the army. they have attacked our general headquarters. isn't there some disconnect? isn't there something wrong in this logic? so obviously there is something wrong in the logic. the problem is that there is maybe -- maybe i am saying, people are not talking straight and up front. >> the problem in the logic comes when you discover that osama bin laden is in the middle of pakistan, because clearly to the americans, a lot of them will be thinking, this is not a coincidence. he has either been harbored there or somebody somewhere knew he was there, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. i think the problem with the taliban relationship with pakistan is that it becomes suspicious. >> if this was the case, it doesn't stand to logic. if there was complicity, and he is there since five years, i get directly involved. that means i was complicit.
9:58 pm
>> now, let me ask you -- >> no. i would like to give a logical -- >> had you been president -- >> let me complete this. now, if that was the case, i would like -- i would have wanted to take liberty out of it. when i was at the receiving end of it in 2008, i should have done something with this osama bin laden card and gained advantage. so what -- obviously it is illogical. it is not the case. and may i also add -- >> you mean you would have traded the information that you had osama bin laden? >> i would have done something to turn the tables in my favor. >> you haven't have just handed him over to the americans? >> i don't know. >> well, wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do? >> i would have used this card to my favor. that is what i am saying. i wouldn't have left it to the next government. you hand him over to the next government. >> i understand that. but can i just question the ethics of that for a moment? >> well, i mean -- >> i mean to a layman like you, when you say you would have used the existence of bin laden in
9:59 pm
pakistan to your advantage -- >> you must understand my logic. i'm saying if i was complicit, if i knew, i would have done that. now if i knew and i'm harboring and hiding it, i would have done this maybe. obviously. >> if you had known for a fact where bin laden was, would you have handed him over to america? >> let's not get into details of something which didn't happen. obviously, it needs a lot of -- >> well, that's why i'm asking. >> well, i can't answer you right away. a simple -- it's not a simple question and answer issue. it's a very difficult issue. >> let me make it simple. bin laden is dead. if you go back into power and you become president again, and you discover that a senior member of al qaeda who is without any doubt has been committing atrocities is living in another compound near karachi or somewhere, would you tell the americans? >> no. i would like to take action. why should i tell the americans? however, there is