Transcripts For BLOOMBERG Charlie Rose 20140531

From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Susan rice is here. See is the National Security adviser to be president of the United States rate of previously, she was the United States ambassador to the United Nations. She has received criticism for perceived entrenchment and Foreign Policy. Ultimately, glover leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all of its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency. But American Leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be, a place for the aspirations of individual human beings really matters. Where hopes him and not just fears, governor. Where the truths written into the founding documents can steer the currents of justice. Welcome. It is great to be back. The president making a series of speeches. Is he defining Obama Doctrine . For good reason, one is wary of the term doctrine. I think what he is saying is really crystallizing what has animated his Foreign Policy from the outset. The United States is the most powerful and important country in the world. We have been for a long time and will be for a long time. In recent years, our power has increased when you consider our military has no peer, when you consider our economy is strong and growing. We are becoming more and more Energy Independent each year. We have a vibrant, diverse population that is attracting immigrants and is demographically strong. We have a network of alliances around the world that is unmatched from asia to europe. We have all of the most powerful tools of leadership in the world looks to us for help, whether it is a typhoon in the philippines or searching for the kidnapped nigerian girls. What he was discussing was how we should lead, not whether we should lead. He outlined a viewpoint that is important for the American People to understand. We will use our military might when necessary to defend our core interests, which are security, of people and facilities overseas, when it is necessary to preserve the economic wellbeing of americans, when it is necessary to protect our partners. Where is our core interest attack now . Nowhere, except through the persistent threat of terrorist activity, which we see overseas. The president talked about the fight of al qaeda and its affiliates. We dont face a nationstate that poses a direct threat to the United States. There are countries that are rising that have strong militaries. There are countries that are irresponsible, like north korea, that could pose a threat. As he said yesterday, the most direct threat we face for the foreseeable future comes from extremists, particularly al qaeda and its various affiliates around the world, that they wish to attack our interests or personnel. What has changed is that we had previously in afghanistan and pakistan, the al qaeda core, the senior leadership. Very strong and controlling. They have been largely dealt very severe blows and are much weekend from where they were in the past. What happened is we have successfully degraded al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan. Affiliated groups, some loosely affiliated, some really indigenous in their origin, groups like alshabaab in somalia or al qaeda in the arabia peninsula in yemen or in places like mali or boko haram, which is affiliated with al qaeda in nigeria. Or we see in syria with the rise of extremist groups in the context of the civil war. These smaller, weaker, regionalbased groups are still dangerous and have aspirations to attack american personnel, american embassies, american facilities, and some are trying to develop the capacity to potentially attack the homeland. What is a strategy against them . That is what the president outlined yesterday. We will continue to work to ensure that the al qaeda core in afghanistan and pakistan is degraded, but at the same time, we need to devote attention to these regionalbased al qaeda affiliates. Yesterday, the president announced the establishment of working with congress with what we hope will be up to 5 billion for a Counterterrorism Partnership. The key word is partnership, because what the longterm strategy must be for dealing with these dispersed groups in various countries that often have a regional or local agenda in the first instance, is to enlist and build the capacity of partners themselves to take on the fight in their own backyards, not us theyre on their behalf, but sometimes supporting thats providing the support they need, whether it is capacity building, whether it is material support, and sometimes it will be support for airlift, refueling, as we have done with the french. This Counterterrorism Partnership fund will be the foundation of an evolving strategy that will allow the eye and states to be effective against these groups on a global basis without having to resort to u. S. Direct action. As you said, you decimated the ranks of the original al qaeda led by bin laden. These other groups have grown during the years of the Obama Administration . They have evolved and they have become more diffuse. These groups have been around. It is not new that we have a terrorism threat emanating from the portion of africa that borders on the sahara. That has been there since the 1990s and beyond. We have had a terrorism concern based in africa back to 1998, when air embassies in kenya and tanzania were bombed. What is the case is where you have weak states, fragile states, that are not able to control all of their territory and where you have conflict zones such as in syria, you have the potential, and indeed in some is uses, the reality, of extremist filling the void. Will we seek them out regardless of the wishes of where they are located or do we have to get the permission of those governments were there located in order to go after them with drones and other measures . Is our preference to work with the host government. Where we see a continuing threat to United States and we can act with near certainty of avoiding civilian categories, we will do so if necessary to defend the United States. What is their threat to us . Do we have intelligence that they are trying to launch an attack against the United States or against United States embassies and the like around the world . That would be the definition of the continuing imminent threat. It would be to the United States, whether to personnel deployed overseas, embassies, diplomatic facilities, or whether to the homeland. All of those constitute threats to the United States. The president seems to be articulating a point of view around the world and the world is changing, as he said in that speech, and he said this a couple of times. The most important thing i can do is not screw it up and not make huge mistakes, because i think he perceives iraq and afghanistan as serious mistakes that drained the United States. I would not put it that way. I dont think that is how he put it yesterday, either. The president affirmed yesterday his you that what we have been doing in afghanistan has been absolutely essential to our National Security. It was necessary after 9 11. From yesterday, the surge that he ordered in 2009 was necessary. We think it serves our interest to bring the war in afghanistan to a responsible and bring there are times where we must do what would must do. He seems to be concerned that we would get sucked into a war. Let me finish the thought. He said two things. Yet when circumstances where it may be necessary for the United States to act unilaterally. In those circumstances, we have to ask tough questions and be mindful of international opinion. We will not ask permission to do what we must to defend the United States and our interests. He also outlined at some length is you as to when we ought to use force or not to address issues of global concern that are not directly implicating the security and the economic wellbeing of the United States or our allies. He spent time talking about those concerns. When the issues global, and syria is a good example of that, or libya, there are others, that our strong preference and our aim should be to act multilaterally to the greatest extent possible because they are global concerns. And when we do, it has more legitimacy and is more likely to succeed. In interview was just done with Prime Minister netanyahu. It suggested that the president is motivated to speak on these issues because he feared he was losing grip on the narrative of americas role. I would put it differently. I dont think it is a question of losing grip on a narrative. I know the president was looking very much forward to the opportunity presented by the occasion of the commitment at west point, which had long planned to do, to lay out in clear terms his view of American Leadership and to make it clear that there is no question that america must and lead on the world stage. No one else will if we do not. There is no question we are retreating from the world. Of course we are not. It is not whether we will lead, but how we will leave. What he essentially said is that we have to lead with our brains. We have to use our logic and wisdom and not just our impulses. When we do, sometimes that means acting with restraint. Always it means acting to the greatest extent possible, consistent with our values, our laws, and our leadership role. The other thing he said is our leadership role is not defined solely by our military might. It is defined by the strength of our economy, alliances our moral leadership, our values. When you look at how we lead in the world, we are the nation above all they can rally other countries to achieve the goals that we desire, whether it is trying to bring iran to the negotiating table do you accept the fact that after the president , after what happened in syria, with respect to the redline line and the threat of military force, that some people in the region, people who are enemies of iran, had some question about america and where it stood and how it was prepared to lead . And that made the president have to go to those countries and reassure them . I am thinking of Saudi Arabian king abdullah. I think at the time there were friends and partners of the United States in the middle east that reacted with concern and skepticism. I was just out in the region a few weeks ago. I was in israel and i met with Prime Minister and the senior National Security team. You know what they said . They said that president obama was right. They never anticipated that we would be able to get cymer to it knowledge that it had a chemical weapons program, much less get 92 of their declared stockpile out of the country. We will get the last 8 out. They said that that was the president s choice and decision to threaten credibly the use of force, but when the syrians back down and it knowledge the stockpile and offered to dismantle it, and we took them up on that, that was the right choice. I also think, having spoken to other key American Allies and partners in the gulf, including the saudis, that they too understand that that turned out to be a wise choice because the goal was to protect not only the people of syria, but israel that was directly threatened. Prime minister netanyahu also said that to jeffrey goldberg. He said it was a smart move by the president of United States and i applaud what he did with respect to the agreements to give the chemical weapons out of syria. Are you saying that whatever reservations that our friends in the monarchies in other places had about u. S. Leadership in the world, they have been reassured and it is no longer an issue . I cant speak for them. I did speak to them, i wont speak for them. I think they probably appreciated that. I will say this the notion that the United States is unprepared to use military force is belied by the facts. It was president obama that surged our forces into afghanistan. We will bring to a close at the end of 2014 our combat mission in afghanistan after the longest war in u. S. History. This president has been willing to use force to defend our interests. We used force collectively in the context of International Law and libya, to deal with the threat that qaddafi posed. The via is having a difficult time today. What is our role to influence libya . In libya, we have tried hard to help a government come to the floor that is legitimate and has staying power. For a while, that was the case and now they have had a series of Prime Ministers andy over to another. They have a Rebellious Congress that is at odds with the government. We have tried very hard to help them build their security apparatus. Gaddafi ran that plays for 40 years as a oneman band. There were no ministries that function. There are no institutions of the state. They were starting from scratch with no history of how to govern. Unfortunately, the various militia in libya but came to the fore during the revolution have turned on each other and there are extremists within libya that have gained some prominence and they are now being countered by those that are antiextremist. It is a messy situation. With respect to the question of understanding with the present strategy was, i want to read two editorial opinions. The address did not match. The hype was largely unexpired, and was unlikely to quiet detractors on the right or left. You will not be surprised to hear that i think that is rather ungenerous and also inaccurate. If you read the scope of that speech, and i encourage people to read it, not just listen to it, it lays out, in very clear terms, a vision of American Leadership. It is assertive, it is strong, it indicates when and how and whether the United States ought to be using force. It defines the counterterrorism strategy in updated terms and unveils a new set of tools to deal with that threat that has evolved and diffused. It then turns to the critical question of how the United States leads by mobilizing nations of partners towards our collective ends. That piece has gotten less attention. It is vitally important. Most of the problems we face on the international stage, whether trying to prevent iran from acquiring a Nuclear Weapon through sanctions and diplomacy, or punishing and isolating russia for its actions in crimea in its effort to destabilize he did not mention crimea. He mentioned ukraine. Not crimea. Crimea, we believe, is part of ukraine. They had a referendum today announced that it is russia offered it is not. Are they going to say, we will withdraw . I dont know if the sanctions, in the nearterm, cause russia to be crimea. Several things have happened that are important. First of all, russias economy as a result of the sanctions, has stopped growing. It is close to negative growth. The capital outflow was unprecedented. Over 100 billion in just the first few months of this year. The major banks in russia are losing value and profit. At the same time, they just signed a 30 year gas deal with china. Which had been long in the works. It will be very interesting to learn what price the chinese agreed to pay for that gas. Im willing to bet money was a bargain for the chinese. Beyond that, russia is paying a significant price in terms of this International Standing and also in terms of its economy. How is that affecting them . It is paying a price and International Standing preisnt affecting their standing. Is it affecting their action . I think it must be to a certain extent. Russia has taken some different steps along the way that could have gone either way. It had more than 40,000 troops amassed on ukraines border and for a moment of time, we thought there was a risk they might cross over into eastern or southern ukraine if they head into crimea. They have not done so. In the last week or 10 days, we have seen incredible indications that those forces are redeploying to their home barracks. I cannot tell you with certainty why putin took that decision. It is notable that he did. In addition, we have now a successful election in ukraine, which was certainly not assured several weeks ago. Firstround winner, decisively, and all parts of the country, mr. Poroshenko, who is wellknown to the russians, wellknown to the west. He served in more than one previous government in ukraine. What is the hope that he might do . What is your hope that this election will achieve . I will answer that, but let me say that if the russians hope you make an election that was credible in the eyes of the International Community possible, they did not succeed. I do think that the collective action of the United States and our partners has had an impact. With respect to ukraine, we have had an impact. We have mobilize the resources of europe, of the imf, of our own treasury, to help support ukraine through this very difficult economic period. Now mr. Poroshenko hopes to unite the country and take advantage of the economic moment that the International Support revives, and find a balance so ukraine can choose as it wants to, both to have close ties to europe but also to recognize that russian is his neighbor and it has to live sidebyside. You know and have access to intelligence information that we know. What do you think they want with respect to ukraine . Russia . I think they want a ukraine that is maximally influenced by russia. And we want . We want a ukraine that can chart its own future. What is that is as simple as letting them choose their leadership, choose whether they want to apply for never shipped to the eu, whether they want to apply for russias original coordination. Our view is that sovereign countries ought to be sovereign. They should not have to be invaded or threatened by their neighbors. Did europe make a mistake . Did europe, the eu and the member countries, should they have responded quicker to ukraine and made a deal earlier so this might not have happened . I dont know that it is as simple as making a deal earlier. In fact, when it occurred, the chain of events unfolded very quickly. I think that going back many, many months at the point where the yanukovich government was flirting with greater immigration and the europeans were offering that, but this whole period will be an interesting Fertile Ground for historians to delve into. I think that if you look at it carefully, there were many miscalculations made on all side. Did we see it coming . I think we saw that ukraine was fragile, that there was a real chance that the popular sentiment could be unpredictable. I dont think we saw that russia was going to make a play on crimea. I dont think the russians had an idea to make a play that far in advance. And yanukovich . I dont think it was longplan. I think it was a substantial measure of what happened to him. What do you think will happen . How will this unfold in your judgment, in terms of the future of ukraine . Most countries still. If you look at the vote down the road in the United Nations, it was overwhelmingly rejected, the russian effort to annex and occupy crimea. The International Community utterly rejects this. They cannot have any legitimacy because in the 21st century, if we start to acknowledge that countries can take bites out of each other, we are on the road to a anarchy. Your policy is that it was an illegal action by the russian government and we have to exercise every amount of pressure we have on russia to get them to pull out of crimea . You are now putting words in my mouth. I said it was an illegal act. We do not recognize it. We have exerted significant sanctions on russia as a consequence of that decision. You think that will if it does not cause russia to change its mind, what will we do . This is not an issue from a United States perspective for the use of force is contemplated or implicated. It is we want to strengthen the government in kiev economically. We want to hold the pressure on russia through economic means. This well may be an issue that we wrestled with for some time, the issue of crimea. Do you have any information that suggests that Vladimir Putin active in part because he believed president obama was unprepared to stop him . None whatsoever. There is nothing to indicate that he thought he could get away with it and therefore, he did. Those are two different things. Did putin calculate that the west would not go to war over crimea . Perhaps. That is different from, did we have information that he thought president obama was weak . President obama was strong and let the International Committee to punish russia. Russia is suffering significant economic consequences. Is all of europe on the same page with the president , including germany, which has extensive commercial relationships with russia . Are they on the same page on what we ought to do . Germany is very much on the same page. The president has met with and spoken to chancellor merkel all throughout this crisis. Almost every couple of weeks, if not more frequently. When she came to washington earlier this month, it was there that they reaffirmed, the two of them, and other european leaders join suit, and saying that if russia were to destabilize the election last week, such that it could not be conducted credibly, then we were prepared to lead europe and the west, respectively, towards sectoral sanctions. What has changed in syria that makes the administration seem to want to do more than it was prepared to do several years ago in supporting rebels . Has the nature of the opposition change so you can identify who is good and who is bad . As whatever you have done to the cia had an impact so you know how to support good guys and not support bad guys . What is the dynamic that makes the administration seem to be more willing to do more . There are several answers to that. First of all, the situation itself in syria is getting worse, not better. Lets be honest. The humanitarian situation is appalling. And heartbreaking. The outflow of refugees, the number of displaced, the use of chemical weapons early on, the use of barrel bombs on a daily basis now, snipers shooting at children it wrenches every human heart that is paying attention. That is not a unique situation to syria. We have seen it in the congo, sudan, and many other places. It is getting worse, not better. Secondly, as the conflict has evolved and assad has continued to prosecute the war, he has lost control of significant swaths of his territory and in that would have come increasingly very extreme terrorist groups. The group called , which is active in syria and iraq is so radical that al qaeda had a split from it. They go to zoo far in terms of their tactics. According to al qaeda. There are al qaeda elements that we worry about a great deal as well. Would they have been there in the numbers they are if we had done more . Charlie, i think the answer to that is there is not a degree of military involvement or military support for the opposition short of direct u. S. Military involvement, which the president , in terms of boots on the ground, has excluded. That could have necessarily countered the investment that hezbollah, iran, russia, and others have made on behalf of assad. My own view is that the answer to your question is no, that this it may have changed in some respects the trajectory of the conflict, but it would still be a raging battle to this day and we would still have the phenomenon of areas outside of the governments control that were attractive to extremist groups. How hard are we prepared now to support those in opposition to the government . I want to answer a prior question about the opposition itself. The United States government has been actively supported the active and on active parts of the opposition. I dont know how much you know we are doing. Im not going to get into that. Let me just say that we have been providing support and increasing it for quite some while over the last couple of years. Has the quality, the quantity, and i believe the efficacy of our support, it has increased and it will continue to because in part we have been able to identify who, among be moderate vetted opposition, or the partners that we want to work with. We can arm them and supply them without those arms falling into the hands of people who are at the most extreme that remains a risk but it is a risk we are learning to manage. That was the reason in part for not doing more earlier. The other challenge is that other friends and partners who have been supporting the opposition have not been, and every instance over the years, particularly discriminating in terms of who they give their support. Youre talking about the qataris . Among others. The good news is we have not gotten to a point where all the partners involved in the enterprise of supporting the opposition are now of the same view that we have to be very careful as to who we support and that we want to support those elements that are not extreme, that are moderate. We are now coordinating a cooperating in a much more effective way. That is another thing that has changed. The situation is worse and the ability to have an impact is greater with them. Are we going to look at a stalemate there . Things will go from an increasing number of refugees in jordan and turkey and assad will seem to get a bit stronger in terms of his relationship with there is no military solution to the crisis. Is russia prepared to play a positive role in finding a diplomatic solution and does what is happening in ukraine hinder that . These things are connected. They could be. Whether they are not let me tell you why i say that. Let me reiterate there has to be a political solution. There is no medical solution. It is a negotiated solution that we and russia and the United Nations Security Council envisioned being implemented in. We tried this in geneva, did we not . And it failed. It did because assad was not prepared to negotiate seriously. He will only negotiate seriously if he is losing on the ground. Or if he is not winning. When i say there is no military solution, when i say there will not be a clearcut victor, either the opposition our government. In all likelihood, and we have points in the past where we seemed to be approaching this, the two sides will be ready for negotiation, write for a negotiated solution, when both sides dont see that they have the prospect of military success. If you recall, about a year ago in may of 2013, secretary kerry was in moscow and agreed l with president putin and lavrov that we ought to push the two parties to a negotiating table. It took the parties and took the russians and indeed, the opposition, a long time, many months to be able to be willing to come to the negotiating table. By that time, and the opposition was very fragmented, very unprepared initially to come to the table. By the time they came, they performed admirably. In the months that ensued, the tide turned further in assads favor. There needs to be a negotiated solution in which the institutions of the state art preserved. We do not want to see them dismantled as a hasbeen the case in other situation. Assad cannot be part of a transition government. You say to him, there is no way that anyone will complete a negotiation where you will remain in power . I dont see a settlement where a opposition would accept what assad empower. Those who are close to assad, in terms of the sack and others, certainly will have a place in the transition so you are asking him to negotiate and youre saying at the same time, there is no future for you here . No. There is no leadership role for you here. What the odds he will agree to that . Not high. But if you thought the alternative was worse, and that is the point which you might. How to we make the alternative worse . It becomes worse when one of several things happen. His backers back off their support. His economy because untenable. Iran wont do that, will they . They dont seem to be doing a nearterm. What about the russians . All of them. Thus far, they have not indicated a readiness to do that. I am just giving you analytically the elements here. That is one thing that can turn the tide. The economic circumstances could change dramatically, or the situation on the ground, or the International Community, the sighting as it has been unable to do so to date, that there is a basis for collective action. Is he using chlorine gas, assad . There are disturbing reports that he may be using chlorine gas and we are concerned about it. We have passed the chemical weapons inspectors of the opcw to inspect that and they are. The chlorine gas is unlike the sarin gas which was used earlier to deadly effect. It is not actually a band substance under the chemical weapons convention. But, its use in combat, or its use against civilians, is banned. If they are doing that, is illegal. It is in violation of the chemical weapons convention, which they have signed onto and that is why the investigation of the opcw is doing is important and we attach great significance to what it may be able to find. A quick question about russia. Someone said that they may be entering a new cold war. I dont think it is a new cold war. Russia does not lead an ideological bloc. It only leads itself in the 21st century. For another thing, the United States is not a dual superpower world anymore. Our leadership and strength are not matched by any country. Certainly not russia. Not even china. Whether you look at our military, our economy, our demography, our natural resources, our enormous diversity, our partnerships and alliances, the United States does not have a peer. The cold war was premised on a divided world, ideological camps and there is no ideology behind putins russia, other than it seems, power and money. Money meaning . Money. [laughter] money meaning a crony capitalism. Before i leave that region and go to china, i want to ask this question. The setting of dates for the takedown of troops, 9000 by the end of 2015, zero by the end of 2016. Some have criticized you as saying, why did you have to set numbers . Why is that necessary . What is the incentive to do that . I appreciate that question. Let me explain. In the first instance, remember that we have been at war in afghanistan for 13 years, the longest war in american history. I dont think any american in the fall of 2001 would have thought that in 2014, we would still be in combat in afghanistan. Our combat mission will and at the end of 2014 and what remains are two tasks. One is to continue the training and advising of afghan National Security forces. The army and the police are over 350,000. We and our nato partners have painstakingly invested in their establishment, their training, and professionalization. I cant tell you from having been there repeatedly that the quality and efficacy of those Afghan Forces are vastly improved. They are not yet at the point where they can do every function yet independently. Interestingly, a lot of what they need to do are the highend logistic functions, making sure that their supply chains work, that they can pay their forces. That is the level of training and advice now that we are getting. That is one aspect. The other is ensuring that we are able to support continued counterterrorism actions against al qaeda remnants in afghanistan. When our commanders on the ground in afghanistan, in the region and in the attic on in washington made their recommendations to the president , it was they also who said we ought to have a rampeddown plan. We should continue at the beginning of 2015 to train and advise the afghans at what they call the core level. The corps level. There are four corps. We will be able to be at those headquarters at the number of 9800 and we will use the duration of most of 2015 to complete the corpslevel training our commanders think is so important. You know the question that arises, the taliban will wait us out. Here is why we ran down. The afghans need to see the horizon at which they will be required to stand on their own. They have made enormous progress over the last two or three years and our commanders believe that by the end of 2016, they will not need the level of support that they will need at the beginning of 2015. They have recommended this gradual drawdown of u. S. Forces are in at some point, the people that say, you will just tell the taliban how long to wait, at some point we will be gone. 15 years will be a long time. If the idea is if you ever say when you are gone, you will give the taliban warning, we will be there forever. That is not the view of the afghans. It is not the view of the commanders. Do you think angst will change for the better with a new president . Yes, i think. [laughter] i think that is a fair bet. I hope so. Fair enough. If we had been able to make an agreement similar to what you hope to make in afghanistan, would we be looking an iraq that was not so divided between sunni and shiite . If there had been antiterrorist troops remaining in iraq . Recall what happened in iraq. There was a lot of revisionist history going on. It was president was that signed an agreement with the iraqis to end our military presence at the end of 2011. That was signed before he left office. For those people that say, why would you tell the enemy when you are gone, that was the first such instance, which frankly, i am not sure was wrong. He decided on a date when our combat mission would end and it ended. What president obama said that if we are able to negotiate with the new Iraqi Government and understanding that they approve that allows us to stay with the forces they need wherever they deploy, then we would be willing to leave behind a small residual to help you counterterrorism with the iraqis. They didnt make it and maybe they regret that now. They advise the afghans not to make the same mistake they did, right . I dont know that to be true but i have heard that. Here is the point. It was not that the United States did not make a deal with the iraqis. I know that. My point is supposed the american Counterterrorism Forces had been there. Would we be looking at a resurgence of al qaeda . No one can argue the we would be looking at that because that is largely a function of what is happening in syria. You mean they go off and come back . They started in and moved back into iraq. There were remnants and iraq. I dont want to say there were none. Syria has constantly been a large factor in fueling what has arisen in iraq. I think the United States has maintained an advisory presence in iraq in our embassy, hundreds if not up to 1000 personnel, which is roughly the sort of arrangement we would have in afghanistan after 2016. That advisory role has been valued by the iraqis as they have to deal with this threat. The iraqis the question you pose is one for the iraqis. What do they think would have been a wiser choice . We were not ever going to be doing the fighting for them. It would have been them and we are still able to offer support and advice and indeed, we are doing so today. What the president said yesterday as part of this Counterterrorism Partnership initiative is we are going to ramp up our support not only to the opposition in syria, but to the neighbors of syria who are battling this challenge. Two last question. Edward snowden said he had been trained as a spy. And nothing that he had disclosed, that there was no evidence that there had been damage done to any person. The government has not cited one person that was damaged cousin of his disclosures. Was he trained as a spy . Has his information damaged any person we can identify . He was not trained as a spy. We have no idea where that assertion comes from. As edward done damage . He has done immense damage to the National Security of the United States in ways that i wish i could describe in public, but i cannot. The revelations of snowden have given our enemies particularly terrorists, including al qaeda, insights into how we gain information and intelligence on them that have enabled them to change the way they operate and be much more difficult to track. That is one example. Are we in negotiations to bring him back . Further considerations that he would do something and we would allow him to come back . What are our conditions for him coming back . That he stand trial. Nothing else . No. By the way, we have the best Justice System in the world with all the protections for defendants that anyone, anywhere could hope for. He faces very serious charges. He should come back and face them in court. If his intentions are honorable, as he claims, which is hard to imagine given the damage he has done, then he ought to be brave enough to face the Justice System that is the foundation of the country he loves. Let me turn to a note. As a north carolinian who knew maya angelou well, she was an inspiration to so many people, including young africanamerican women who have gone on to have enormous success like you have. What did she mean to you . I appreciate you asking that question. She was a huge figure for me, personally. Part of the reason being, not just because she was an African American woman, but in my youth, before i was corrupted by the business of National Security, i was a poet. You were a poet . And i love writing and studying poetry. She was from my earliest days as a steward of poetry, one of my very favorites. As i grew up and had more opportunities and exposure, i got to meet her on a number of occasions. She had such grace and warmth and dignity. She was extraordinarily affirming of everyone she touched. As a woman and as an African American, i had a great deal of fondness and appreciation for her. Her loss is huge. She left so much for so many. In her poetry and her novels, in her teaching of students down in north carolina. She was a great one. Thank you. Thank you. A pleasure to have you here. Susan rice, National Security advisor to president obama. Thank you for joining us. We will see you tomorrow night. Live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to bloomberg west where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. I am emily chang. Ahead this hour, Steve Ballmer has reached a deal to buy the l. A. Clippers for a whopping 2 billion. Shattering the record for an nba team. The Sterling Trust agreed to sell after owner, donald sterling, was banned from the nba after making racist comments. Ballmer has vowed to keep the team in l. A. Elon musk showed off the capsule saying it