War with the israelis. Those are role american interests. We continue with a look at social media, politics and history. Jonathan karl talks with the historian Michael Beschloss about his twitter feed full of incredible historical photos. I always felt that in history images tend to be underrated. We write books and theyre based on letters and documents, the usual sources. But oftentimes i like it to look at pictures from the time or about people im wroiing about because i think they can tell you an awful lot. Thats why i think it works on twitter. And to teddy goth, the former digital director of the 2012 Obama Campaign, about the role of social media and modern politics. You mentioned that the president had 34 million facebook fans on election day, a little higher now. Those people were friends with 98 of the u. S. Facebook population. Thats actually more than the number of people who vote in this country. So we knew that if we talked to them in the right way, served them with an experience that they enjoyed, gave them reason to feel inspired and stick with us and maybe hit the share button every once in a while we could reach almost everybody that way. Foreign policy and social media next. Funding for charlie rose was provided by the following . Additional funding provided by these funders. And by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Welcome to the broadcast. Im richard haass, president of the council on foreign relations. And im sitting in for charlie rose who is traveling on assignment. I should say that charlie has been away for about three days now. The stock market has gone up every one of those days. Make of that what you will. We begin tonight though with a conversation about the United States and the world. This is a rare moment in history. Its also a unique time for this country. Many of us, many of you watching came of age during the cold war when america mostly faced one overarching challenge, the soviet union. But the situation now is obviously quite different. The United States has to content with dozens of small and med why sized problems. New tensions in asia including rising competition between china and japan. Instability in egypt, civil war in syria, and an inn iran apparently seeking nuclear weapons. Then theres continuing turbulence in the eurozone. Climate change, terrorism, and cybersecurity. And all of this at a time when the United States faces considerable challenges here at home. From inadequate immigration policy and failing schools to crumbling infrastructure and an underperforming economy. So the big question is this how do we as a country navigate this world . What is to be our compass . Big questions, and joining me tonight to discuss all of this are two of the freshest voices in International Relations that i know. Michael fullilove has come from halfway around the world to be with us tonight. Michael is the executive director of the Lowe Institute for International Policy in sydney, australia, also the author of a new book, rendezvous with destiny, how Franklin D Roosevelt and five extraordinary men took america into the war and into the world. Also here is brett stevens, Deputy Editor of the wall street journals editorial page, also the author of a weekly column on Foreign Policy for which for good reason he won a Pulitzer Prize earlier this year, bretts columns are always worth reading. That said, you dont need to agree with them to learn something. Which is good since i only agree with some of them. But i would like to thank him since it has been more than a week since he has called me an isolationist. And i simply hope hes to the going wobbling. Let me begin with michael because he has traveled farlt from across the world rather than simply from across town. Asia, tremendous things going on. Indeed there are those of us who think we are seeing in some ways the return of history to asia. The United States has talked about a pivot making a greater emphasis of this part of world. How does it look from up close, how does it look, if you will, from down under . Well, as you know, australia is probably americas lost reliable apply. We fought beside the united so you guys always look good to us. We see you as a very important force for stability. Of course our strategic situation is getting more complicated. Our largest economic partner is how now a competitor of the United States, china. And region is become more intense. That is change the debate in australia. But i think a Strong Majority of answers see the alliance with the United States critical to our security. And i think if we have any concern it is that america doubles down on asia. We know that u. S. Policymakers are drawn to the middle east like irons following to a magnetment but were here to tell you many of marks opportunities and challenges are in our part of the world and we hope you retain your presence there. So when we tack about a pivot to asia, a rebalancing in asia what is it you would like to see that you are not seeing now. What would make you feel even better about the United States in. I think its about a concentrated presence in our part of the world. I think when obama announced rebalance, i think was terrific. I think secretary clinton was great in that she was out and about in asia but i think a lot of people in asia are now asking whether the pivot was last years story we have a secretary of state more concerned in bringing peace to the holy land. He spends not a lot of time in our part of the world. The trips tend to be brief an unremashable. The military elements of the rebalance are important but to the overwhelming. And i think its important for america to make it mare but a sustained effort at the president ial level, the secretary of state level, that americas here to stay an its here to continue to bring balance to our region. Dow want to see more planes, more ships, do you want to see more diplomats, trade negotiations . What is it that again you get up in the morning, you would say okay, these americans, theyre really serious about our part of the world. I think the diplomatic elements of the rebalance are the ones that need the most work. I think, for example, the more ship visits in southeast asia, theyre good. The marines, thats also good. Obviously america has to play a careful game where it shows its presence without being overintim tory. But i think on the diplomatic level we need a more sustained focus on the region. Because if you dont do that, if your allies such as south korea and japan start to doubt americas will to stay, then what will happen is that they will take it on their you know, theyll put their own hands to this sort of thing. Theyll start to arc up and that could be dang rouchls i think also if you dont project that presence in the region, then i think china might interpret that, misinterpret that as weakness. Last question, when people like me say that there is a danger, the 21st century asia could go the way of 20th century europe and the way that early on in the 20th century the great powers of europe began to jockey and it lead to two world wars and a cold war, do you think im way off the mark that that is a serious exaggeration or is that in some ways your Worst Nightmare . I think there is a very 20th century quality to my part of the world, very strong states. Very focused on maximizing the National Interests and their power. A lot of people spending a lot of money on arms. And i think the other element, of course, that you elude to is that in the first half of the 20th century isolationism was a pretty powerful force in the United States. And to me we need to make sure that america retains its international and doesnt sort of swing back to that old style. Come back to isolationism in a few minutes. Let me turn to brett. This new emphasis on asia to some extent rhetorical to some extent real. Are you worried that that pulls us out of the middle east. Weve already left iraq completely. Theres just been the story of the last few days. Were probably now going to accelerate or draw down, do you think the United States essentially is making the mistake of doing too little in the middle east . I think the moment that you signal are you pivoting to asia you are telling a large swathe of the world that were less interested in you. We should be interested in asia. If going on there is massively porn, above all, whether china is going to be a specific rise pog we are or whether its going to be a spoiler state on the model kaiser will hell number the early 20th century germany. But i think is a mistake. In the geographic sense. In both senses, as a matter of fact. But its important to say we still have incredibly important Strategic Interests in the middle east. We dont want chemical weapons to find their way out of syria to boston to say. We dont iran to develop nuclear weapons. We still want a powerful transatlantic partnership. And one of the things i applaud the Obama Administration for doing, believe it or not, is pursuing this idea of a transatlantic freetrade agreement. We should, by the way, be doing that across pacific as well. Wherever we can show that there are gains for all sides in joining in the kind of free trading, prospering system, we will be putting threats like Chinese Nationalist and chinese militarism to rest. But if you ares going to say pivot to asia, then the most important thing you can do is demonstrate to beijing that their attempts to increase their influence militarily will be met with demonstrations of deterence and willnd close cohesion between our respective allies. Tell them that they have two paths to go down, one is a nationalist mill tarristic path. The other is the deng ping path of growing economically and encourage them to go down that second path. One of the aferkts for doing more in asia is not simply that you have great powers there and there are maybe useful things the United States can do but in the middle east now there is fundamental questions that no matter what we do, we wont have a lot to show for it. Isnt it possible to argue that there is something simply fundamentally wrong with the middle east that unlike europe, unlike asia, even unlike now large parts of latin america and after ca, the middle east is not succeeding and no amount of greater american involvement will necessarily bring better results . Look, thats a fair and intelligent argument. What i would say is this. When we look to asia, we see possibilities where we can have real victories in asia with japan, even you know n a case i was just in burma, the other month. Thats a country that is changing in interesting ways, moving in a more proamerican direction. In the middle east, no, you dont want to expect that these countries are going to become blossoming democracies that egypt will find its way out of its travails, similarly with syria. What you want to do is keep the nightmare scenarios at bay. You want to make sure that the things you fear the most dont come to pass. You dont want saudi arabia enticed into gaining a nuclear cap ability of its own because it fears it fears iran. You want to be able to at least contain syria to syria. And not have it spill over to lebanon to turkey, to destabilize the monarchy in jordan to create a regional war with the israelis. Those are real american interests. So its hard to tell the american public, look w what we want to do in its middle east is avoid total disaster but that is a real interest. How is it we get our friends to stand up to china, take japan, south korea, without encouraging them to act recklessly. The economists have a phrase, moral hazard and you want basically to encourage people to invest but you dont want them to invest recklessly. So how is it we tell our friends were there, we want what the chinese do, act badly towards you. On the other hand we dont want to necessarily give them a blank check to challenge the chinese on every issue, how do we get that right . Thats an extremely good question and very tough to do. Here you have taiwan which has some of the lowest, spends a pittance on its military. Extremely wealthy economy. The japanese are now finally beginning to increase their military spending after a yearonyear declines. We certainly dont want to tell the japanese, by the way, were not really interested in your security, you have all this spent plutonium, maybe you want to do something with it, i think what you do is you show there is a workable alliance, a commonality of values that the United States does intend to check chinese power within reasonable limits. And where you can, you show that america is willing to act. I think one of the places that gets neglected but is massively important is the South China Sea. The chinese have been planting their flags on little holes and islands throughout the South China Sea. This is a sea over which one third of the worlds commerce, sea traffic travels. A sea that sits on Something Like 230 billion barrels of energy. The chinese are trying to assert that its answer their own link that is correct they own it based on 1949 map. The u. S. Could help itself a great deal, help itself in the philippines, in vietnam, by saying we intend intend clearly to keep the South China Sea open to all the players. And this is not simply a chinese territorial water. You would like that but not at the point of the United States and china having something that again looks like a new version of a cold war. Exactly. No, you dont want a destabilizing rival roe in the region. As you say, you want to reassure American Allies that america is to the going anywhere without emboldening them. I think we can learn a lesson from obamas china policy. It seems in his first year n particular, he went too far in trying to accommodate chinese interests. And you know, gifts to rise pog we ares are rarely reciprocated, they are just pocketed. He thought the chinese would help him in copenhagen and all these issues. They said we are not interested in that or your fine speeches. We care about our National Interests. At that point obama toughened up his Foreign Policy. He met with the dahl aye lama. Approved the arm sales to taiwan. I think the chinese respected thatment i have never heard a say the one thing the chinese respect is weakness. Thats not true. They want to be a strong power and they respect powers that show strength towards other powers that show strength towards them. At the risk of putting you in a position of speaking for all conservatives i have been dying to ask a certain question. Which is why is it that so many conservative analysts are so ambitious at times about what they think we can do in remaking other societies, iraq, afghanistan, potentially syria. Yet theyre off sown modest about what it is they think we can accomplish here at home. Why is it that there seems to be that inconsistency running throughout some of the debate . Look, i think a lot of conservatives have learned that you have to modify your ambitions. And that when president bush in 2005 gave that second inaugural speech, you know, saying you know, our goal is freedom throughout the world, that was not only ambitious t was utopian. And utopian schemes tend to fail. And i wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs saying that we need in a sense a rebalancing of Foreign Policy views within the Republican Party to understand that we have vital interests that we cant simply pretend that investing in the world is somehow is our loss, but we have to be modestly realistic about what it is that we can achieve. That being said, i think we could have achieved more in iraq and afghanistan had president obama not been so keen to withdraw so quickly. You mentioned the Republican Party. You almost now have three camps or schools. You have the rand paul who basically are extromly narrow view, a limited view about what the United States can and should try to accomplish. You have the quote unquo theyo cons elements of bush 43 and the more traditionalist, 9 bush 41 who believe more in international institutions. A different form of internationalism, how do you see this playing out . I think, well, i think this is the great debate being played out within the Republican Party. And when rand paul filibustered for 12 hours on the theory that the American Government was going to be sending drones to your local starbucks, it was sending you received tremendous support, certain kind of tea party quarters, kind of conspiracy minded. Also some democrats across party lines. Yeah, because it is a cooky idea that your government is out to get you in black helicopters, and all the rest of it. I think the argument is being waged right now about what kind of Foreign Policy the Republican Party should support. And my own view is that it has to understand that we cannot simply go back to a view that the rest of the world can take care of its own business and well mind ours. Do you worry about there . You see this debate and its not just the Republican Party, Democratic Party