Return to Transcripts main page

FAREED ZAKARIA GPS

President Barack Obama's Options in Syria; Interview with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Importance of Humanitarian Education; Future of Europe; Rats Helping Humans to Get Rid of Mice; 70th Anniversary of the United Nations. Aired 10-11a ET.

Aired October 4, 2015 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[10:00:10] FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

We have a terrific show for you today starting with an important interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel. On Syria. And Russia. And Vladimir Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We certainly don't want an adversarial relationship.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: On the Iran deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: Check your enthusiasm at the door.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: What options are left for its biggest opponent?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: They're trying to encircle Israel with a noose of death.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: On peace in the Middle East. Are the Oslo accords over and done with?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: There's only one way to get a peace process done. You've got to sit down and negotiate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: Also, former U.S. president Bill Clinton and the man who has been called the Bill Clinton of Italy. That nation's prime minister, Mateo Renzi, along with billionaire investor George Soros. On refugees. The economy. And the future of Europe.

Finally, you've seen the pizza pulling ramp. But I will introduce you to rat who is far more impressive.

But first, here's my take. Vladimir Putin has been able to act forcefully in Syria not because he's bolder or more decisive than Barack Obama but because he has a clearer strategy. Putin has an ally, the Assad government. He has enemies, the opponent of that government. He supports his ally and fights those enemies.

By comparison Washington and the West are fundamentally confused. Who is America for in this struggle? We know whom it's against. The Assad regime. Also the regime's principal opponent, ISIS. Also all the other jihadi groups fighting in Syria, like Jabhat al-Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate, and Ahrar ash-Sham, perhaps the largest one besides ISIS. Oh, and it's also opposed to the Hezbollah forces and the Iranian advisers who have been supporting the Syrian government.

Now Russia's move is not as brilliant as it's being made out. It's a desperate effort to shore up one of the Kremlin's only foreign allies and it risks making Russia the great Satan in the eyes of jihadists everywhere. But at least Putin has a coherent plan. The United States by contrast is closely allied with the Iraqi government in its fight against militant Sunnis in that country, but it finds itself on the same side of these same militant Sunnis just across the border in Syria as they battle the Assad regime.

Washington does have some groups it backs. The Syrian Kurds close to Turkey, moderate forces supported by Jordan close to its border, and a small number of other moderate Syrians. But if you consider the major groups vying for control of Damascus, the United States is against almost all of them which makes for moral clarity but strategic incoherence.

The American army could in my view easily defeat ISIS. A likely armed force of less than 30,000 men. But here's the fundamental problem. Then it would own real estate in Syria. And who wants to govern that territory, protect the population and be seen by locals as legitimate?

A senior Turkish official told me recently, "We watched you trying to run Iraqi towns and we will not make America's mistake."

If one looks back over the many American interventions around the globe, one factor looms large. When Washington allied with a local force that was capable and viewed as legitimate, it succeeded. But without such locals all the outside effort, aid, fire power and training can only do so much whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

If Obama's goal is a peaceful, stable, multi-sectarian democracy in Syria, then it requires a vast American commitment on the scale of Iraq. If not, Washington has to accept reality and make some tough choices. The two big ones are whether to stop opposing Assad and whether to accept that Syria will have to be partitioned.

If defeating ISIS is important, then it has to become the overriding priority, allying with any outside forces that will join the fight. And let's be honest, if Assad falls and jihadists take Damascus, that would be worse than if Assad stays in power in Damascus. That doesn't mean providing Assad with any support but rather allowing him to create an Alawite enclave in Syria of the kind that is already forming.

[10:05:16] The Kurds and moderate Syrians are creating their own safe spaces as well. Even if the civil war ends and a country called Syria remains, these groups will not live intermingled together ever again. So far in Syria the West has combined maximalist uncompromising rhetoric with minimalist, ineffective efforts. It is the yawning gap between those two that is making Putin look smart.

For more go to CNN.com/fareed and read my "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.

Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in New York this week to deliver a fiery speech on Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly. On Friday I sat down with him to talk about many topics, all hot buttons of the U.N. this week, Syria, ISIS, the Iran nuclear deal and the future of Middle East peace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Prime Minister, pleasure to have you on.

NETANYAHU: Good to be back with you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: You have painted often a situation that Israel faces that is pretty tough. But I'm now looking at what's going on in Syria. And I see Iran all in to try to defend the Assad regime. I see Hezbollah strained, stressed. There are reports that they've lost hundreds, maybe thousands of fighters. Iranian militias are mired there, fighting against ISIS.

Aren't your enemies drained and bleeding right now? Doesn't that give you some space in security terms?

NETANYAHU: Well, that's not exactly what we see. What I see is Iran pushing into Lebanon, into Hezbollah as they're fighting for Assad. They're putting inside Lebanon the most devastating weapons on earth. They're trying to turn Iran's rockets that they supplied Hezbollah into precision guided missiles that can hit any spot in Israel. Hezbollah is putting in SA2219 aircraft missiles that can shoot down our planes. They haunt anti-ship missiles that can shoot down our gas reserves.

That's what we're seeing. And we see Iran trying to establish a second front with the Iranian generals in the Golan Heights against Israel. So we see a different picture. And I've made it very clear what our policy in Syria is. I haven't intervened in the Syrian internal conflict, but I've said that if anybody wants to use Syrian territory to attack us, we'll take action. If anybody is trying to build a second front against Israel from the Golan, we'll take action.

And if anybody wants to use Syrian territory to transfer lethal weapons to Hezbollah, we'll take action. And we continue to do that. ZAKARIA: Donald Trump says between Assad and ISIS, he thinks Assad

better. Is Assad better for Israel?

NETANYAHU: Look, I don't know who's better. You know what you have there in Syria. You've got Assad, you've got Iran, you've got Hezbollah, you've got Daesh, ISIS, you've got these rebels and those rebels. And now you've got Russia. You know, what's better? I don't know. I know what I have to do to protect the security of Israel. And the thing that I do is I draw red lines and any time we have the intel we just keep them. We do not let those actions of aggression against Israel go unpunished.

ZAKARIA: Do you think that Russia's involvement is potentially stabilizing or destabilizing?

NETANYAHU: I don't know. I think time will tell. But I did go to Moscow and spoke very candidly to President Putin and just told him exactly what I just told you. I said these are our policies. We don't want to go back to the days when, you know, Russia and Israel were in an adversarial position. I think we've changed the relationship. And it's -- on the whole good, it's not like the one we have with the United States. Nothing will ever equal that. But we certainly don't want an adversarial relationship.

So we agreed in a few days time our deputy chiefs of staff will meet to arrange deconfliction to make sure that we don't bump into Iran. We have different goals. In Syria I've defined my goals. They're to protect the security of my people and my country. Russia has different goals, but they shouldn't clash.

ZAKARIA: You're a man who has often spoken out against aggression, against -- you know, particularly against small countries. One place you have been studiously quiet is Russia's, what many people call aggression Crimea. And when you're asked about you said well, I've got a lot on my plate. But you are an international statesman. What is your view of what Russia, what Vladimir Putin did in annexing Crimea?

[10:10:19] NETANYAHU: We went along with the provisions that the American government put forward. I think it's very clear we don't approve of the -- this Russian action. But I think we're also cognizant of the fact that we have -- we're bordering Russia now. And we are -- Israel is a strong country. It's a small, strong country, but we also know that we have to make sure that we don't get into unnecessary conflicts. We have a lot on our plate.

I went to Moscow to make it clear that we should avoid a clash between Russian forces and Israeli forces. That's about as responsible, I think, and statesmanly as I think we should act at this point.

ZAKARIA: What's your view of Putin?

NETANYAHU: Look, there's mutual respect. But it doesn't mean that we have mutual coherence of interest. It's not the relationship we have with the United States of America. It never can be. But I think it's important that we make every effort right now to avoid a concussion. (END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: When we come back, I will ask Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Iran nuclear deal's biggest opponent, what if any options he has left.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:16:13] ZAKARIA: Back now to more of my interview with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who was in New York this week for the U.N. General Assembly.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Prime Minister, let me show you a chart. You presented a graphic when you came to the U.N. and you detailed exactly what was dangerous about Iran's quest to enrich uranium. And you said this was the key, how much enriched uranium they had. And you drew a line. So I'm going to show you this. This was the line you put. This is a chart put out by the White House. And they say you're right, that Iran was at this point, the red line that you described. But they say with this deal before the sanctions are lifted, Iran has to destroy 98 percent of its enriched uranium. Of course the plutonium pathway which is the most common way as blocked. And that the line would have to be drawn way down here.

So, I'm asking you, are they right?

NETANYAHU: Look, I'm not going to rehash the deal. I summarized yesterday our main opposition. I'm going to -- the question of centrifuges or R&D or --

ZAKARIA: But are they right? This seems to me -- I mean, I ask experts and they said yes. If Iran does in the first year before the sanctions are lifted, what it is required to do, it goes -- it goes way down.

NETANYAHU: Well, there are a lot of question that will remain open on this question. But there's one that isn't. And that is that after your 10 and after your 15, all these limitations are lifted. Therefore Iran will be free to get to the point where it's at the threshold level of producing the fissile material. The nuclear -- the indispensible nuclear material for enrichment to make an arsenal of a nuclear bomb.

ZAKARIA: But they're there right now, as for Bibi Netanyahu's speech two years ago.

NETANYAHU: But they were -- but they were held back because of fighting sanctions that are now going to be removed. So I don't want to rehash this. And I was very clear about that. I ain't going to the details. I said, OK, now that it's done, let's look forward. Let's keep Iran's feet to the fire. Let's make sure that they keep all their obligations under the nuclear deal. That's the first thing.

Second thing let's block Iran's other aggression in the region because they're doing everything. They're trying to encircle Israel with a noose of death. They are sending weapons to the Houthis, they're in Iraq, they're in Afghanistan, they're all over the place, and Yemen of course. Let's bolster those forces to stand up to Iran's aggression in the region and none is stronger, none is more reliable than Israel. So I look forward to discussing President Obama's offer to bolster Israel security when I visit the United States in November.

And the third thing I said and I lose attention to something that is not well known, let's tear down Iran's global terror network. They're over 30 countries. They're establishing terror cells in the western hemisphere, alongside the eastern hemisphere. These are things that we agree on. Yes, we have a disagreement and families, President Obama and I both said.

But we have no disagreement about blocking Iran's aggression and working against terrorism. And I think that's what we should focus on.

ZAKARIA: Last week Bill Clinton on this program said that he thought your speech to the United States Congress at the invitation of John Boehner was unprecedented. And I asked him then, was it unwise. He said you'll have to ask Prime Minister Netanyahu that. Was it unwise?

NETANYAHU: I'll ask you a question. If the president of the United States thought a deal was being forged that would endanger the security, the very survival of the United States, wouldn't you expect him to speak up at every place, at every forum? The answer is of course you would. And that was my obligation.

Again, I don't think that we should rehash this but I think we should focus on what we do agree must be done right now. President Obama was calling me up at the time that the deal was being debated. And he said I'd like to talk to you about bolstering Israel's security, about maintaining its qualitative military edge, about preventing things from going into Iran's boxes. Would you like to do that now or would you like to do it later?

And I said I'd like to do it later, a day after. Well, today in my conversation with John Kerry this is the day after. And we began that conversation. Our secretary -- our minister of Defense will be coming to Washington to meet Secretary Carter in a few weeks. After that I'll meet President Obama. I look forward to discussing this with the president. I think it's a very important stage to help us face the challenges that we face.

ZAKARIA: If two years from now, Iran has in fact destroyed 98 percent of its highly enriched uranium if the Fordor and Iraq facilities have been rendered inoperable, will you call President Obama and say, you know what, maybe this worked a little better than I thought it did?

NETANYAHU: I'll be the happiest person in the world if my concerns prove to be wrong. You know, the opposite can also happen. You know. But I think the issue right now is it's a practical question right now. It's not an ideological question. It's not a political question, it's a practical question. Do they keep the agreement? And second, what happens 15 years from now, 10 years from now when they're basically absolved of any restrictions which is the main point I've been making. Because they get all these restrictions lifted regardless of their policy. If they continue their aggression --

ZAKARIA: But you get 15 years with a no nuclear -- with a non nuclear --

NETANYAHU: Well, assuming they don't cheat. And second you're also assuming that they would have gone and continued in the face of very strong sanctions and a military threat. We can argue that but that's not my purpose now. My purpose is to focus on what we do agree on. And we absolutely agree on the need to block Iran's aggression in the region. That was never part of the deal that you let them have a free reign.

And the second thing is how to bolster Israel's security. And by the way, other allies that are facing the same Iranian threat. And I also draw attention to their global terror network. These are things that we can concentrate on and we agree on and we should cooperate on and we will cooperate on.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: When we come back, did any lingering hopes for Middle East peace just blow up at the U.N. this week? I'll ask the prime minister when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:26:36] ZAKARIA: And we are back with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Prime Minister, you know that the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has said he's essentially not going to follow the Oslo process, they will not abide by it anymore. You mentioned it in your speech. I want to ask you since it does feel like the peace process is dead, you know, if it ever had much life in it, about his son.

NETANYAHU: His son.

ZAKARIA: His son has -- there are a couple of reports which talked about -- a "New York Times" report where he gave an interview, and he said, I'm not for my father's plan. I think the peace process is dead. I don't want a two-state solution. I want a one-state solution. I just want rights. I just want political rights. If you're not going to give me a state, give me political rights.

You know that there are other Palestinians who feel this way. In fact there's a -- Khalil Shikaki, a pollster, says about a third of Palestinians now, and it is more for younger Palestinians, want just political rights. Will they get them?

NETANYAHU: Well, I think that the right solution is a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. They want a Palestinian state, we have a Jewish state. We should have mutual recognition of these two-nation states and provisions on the ground by which Israel can defend itself by itself. And I think that's eminently preferable to the idea of a unitary state which I don't want.

I think the reason the peace process doesn't move forward is because the Palestinians have two provisions there. One is you've got to renounce terrorism and act against it. And unfortunately that's not what they're doing. We just had, you know, a young mother and a young father brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Four little orphans in the back of the car. And President Abbas is yet to denounce this.

I mean, on the rare occasions that we have and we do have on certain occasions acts of terrorism by Jews, we all go there like gang busters. We condemn it. We do everything we can to find them, and to fight them. I expect President Abbas to do the same. So, one is, we have to stop this incitement against Israel because incitement leads to acts of terrorism. But the second thing is, you've got to stay in the process. You've got to come and sit on the table.

ZAKARIA: Why not use this opportunity to make a bold counter offer, not just a process one but an actual proposal for a Palestinian state?

NETANYAHU: Well, I've made several offers but, you know, the only way -- his offers and my offers obviously don't cohere. And I said, look, the only way you're going to do this is let's sit around the table. Here's the litmus test for you.

ZAKARIA: But he says the problem was you're building settlements even in areas --

NETANYAHU: I think the problem is he's inciting terrorism. I think the problem is he's spreading lies about the Temple Mount and what we're doing there. We're the guardians of the Temple Mount. For God's sake without Israel, you know, what will happen on those sacred sites would be what happened in Palmyra in Syria.

But you saw, I have complaints. He has complaints. There's only one way to get peace process going, peace negotiations going, you've got to sit down and negotiate. Yet in the seven years that I've been sitting in the prime minister's office in Israel, we haven't had seven hours that he was willing to talk. And it's not because of me. The fact is I'm willing to have this conversation. He's not.

ZAKARIA: Well, he says you're creating facts on the ground by building settlements --

NETANYAHU: Well, so is he. So is he. He's creating a lot of facts on the ground.

ZAKARIA: Last question. You talked about terrorism against Palestinians, terrorism by Israelis. The president of Israel says wonders, he posed this question, why is this cultural of extremism flourishing in Israel right now? Do you think that there's an atmosphere that has - that is incited or allowed this kind of extremism to flourish?

NETANYAHU: No. I think the test is not whether the societies have extremists, of course, what does the mainstream do about it? And in our case we go wild against them. Every part of our society unites against any example of terrorism in our mix. But what I see in Ramallah is that President Abbas calls public squares in honor of mass murderers. And that's not - it's a tragedy, I think, for us and the Palestinians, too. The culture of peace, the culture of acceptance, the culture of diversify, you know, for women, for Christians, for gays and so on is very much engrained in our culture.

And that's why we don't educate our people that we have to destroy the Palestinians. We want peace for the Palestinians, but for that we have to sit down. And I think that's one order of the day. And the other order of the day is what I said before. I think we have to protect ourselves against the rising, rising tide of militant Islam, religious fanaticism that is threatening all of us. And Israel is there. It's standing in the breach. And I appreciate the fact that despite our disagreement on the Iran nuclear deal, both the supporters of the deal and the opponents of the deal, those who supported it, those who oppose it, they all agree now we have to strengthen Israel. And I think that's the best guarantor of peace.

ZAKARIA: Prime Minister Netanyahu, thank you so much.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Up next, why reading a novel might better prepare you for the job market than learning how to write computer code. Really? I'll explain when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:36:14]

ZAKARIA: Now, for a "What in the World" segment. Recently, Australia announced a bold new curriculum for its schools. When children are about 12 years old they will learn how to write computer programs. Coding will be given much more prominence in the curriculum in contrast to history and geography, which will be removed as stand- alone subjects, according to the Australian.

Meanwhile, in Japan, humanities and social science departments are the closing or scaling back at 26 national universities according to "The Times" higher education. Before we start firing all the history professors let's examine the ideas behind these moves. It's certainly true that today's high-tech economy needs people who are computer savvy. Code.org, a group that's been pushing computer science in schools estimates that by 2020, there will be 1.4 million computing jobs in the U.S., but only 400,000 computer science students to fill them. So, it's smart and intellectually rewarding to understand how computers work.

But succeeding at work and in life is more complicated than simply learning to code. In my book, "In Defense of a Liberal Education" I showed how important the liberal arts were to teaching creativity, analytic thought and the joy of learning. All of which help you even in the tech world. Just think of Steve Jobs. A recently released book called "Humans Are Underrated" by Fortune's Jeff Colvin, explains that studying the humanities could be actually be as valuable as a science degree in the future, perhaps even more so. Colvin points out that it's anybody's guess which jobs will become automated next from driving cars to preparing food. But human beings will always insist on some jobs being done by other human beings even if computers are capable of doing those jobs. These jobs that will emphasize social interaction are going to be the jobs of the future.

Humans are social animals. Colvin points out that the need to interact with others is connected to our very survival. That's why we would prefer to see a real doctor for a diagnosis rather than a computer or choose to work in teams with other humans, not just with computer monitors.

So, Colvin says that those who thrive at interacting with others, he calls them "relationship workers" will be the most valuable people in the future. More so than the knowledge workers of the 20th century who might more likely be replaced by a computer.

The demand for relationship workers has actually already been on the rise, Colvin argues. From 2001 to 2009, jobs involving human interaction like nurses and lawyers went up by nearly 5 million in the U.S. according to the McKenzie Global Institute compared to transaction jobs and production jobs which went down, Colvin points out.

So, what is the best way to educate our children to become relationship workers? Science and technology disciplines are still crucial, Colvin says, but far more than engineering or computer science the humanities strengthen the deep human abilities that will be critical to the success of most people. For example, reading fiction with complex characters and stories trains us to observe others and empathize with other people, Colvin points out, which is why many medical schools are requiring that their students read fiction to become better doctors. To repeat, coding is important, computers are important, but the jobs of the future and life in the future will be about how technology interacts with human beings and for that you need all kinds of knowledge, scientific as well as humanistic.

[10:40:04]

Next on GPS, President Bill Clinton and the man who has been called Italy's Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: I have a treat for you now. An all-star panel having a blockbuster discussion on Europe at the Clinton Global Initiative this week. Joining President Clinton himself was the man who has been called Italy's Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and the billionaire, businessman and philanthropist George Soros. It was a terrific wide ranging conversation. I want to show you the best parts. I started off by asking Soros for an overall analysis of just how bad things look in Europe today.

[20:45:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE SOROS: Unfortunately, Europe is state of disintegration. It started in 2008. And it continues to progress and it's actually become non-linear. The disintegration in the last two months, has accelerated, because you've got not the one crisis, but multiple, at least five or six crises.

ZAKARIA: What are the main ones? Describe the ...

SOROS: Well, you started Europe crisis at just the root of it all. It came to fruition in the Greek crisis at the beginning of 2010. Then you have the Ukrainian situation and, of course, now the migration crisis. And the most important thing, of course, is that there's also an external threat namely from Putin's Russia. And the internal threats or crises are dividing Europe, this external threat ought to unite Europe because everybody has to pull together to resist and to stand up to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: The rising Russian bear on Europe's borders and growling in so many different directions. I asked Prime Minister Matteo Renzi if Russian threats would cause Europe to find some common ground and common identity and coalesce and unite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTEO RENZI, ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER: I think it could be a tragic mistake to consider identity, a Europe against Russia. I think we must defend integrity and the sovereignty of Ukraine. I think we must continue in a character support to Poroshenko's government. But if we think the future of Europe is creating identity, not in our values and our ideals, but against Russia, I think this is a tragic mistake. First because I think we must involve Russia in every dossier, in Syria and Libya, Mediterranean. Secondly, because I think it's impossible for a place as Europe with a place, in which in the past we won, we won only when we decide to open the borders, not close. Europe and the President Clinton, obviously, he is the number one to verify this point. Europe has the identity when the Berlin Walls fell out. Now the risk of Europe is not the problem of Russia for me. It's not the problem of austerity for me. Is there Hungary who built a new wall? Because for my mother, the moment of identity of Europe was when Berlin walls fell out, for my children, I really wanted if I think between Hungarian and the Croatia, we can build a new wall.

ZAKARIA: President Clinton, can you tell us what do you think about the main crisis that has been in the news recently, which is the migration crisis? And it's accelerated, but as you well know, you mentioned to me earlier, this year we have seen the largest number of displaced people since World War II, 60 million people. It seems to me we have gotten to a point where because technology and media, and a certain degree of means allow people to see a better life and to find way to leave their countries, they can get -- they're not taken in anywhere, and so you have 60 million people around the world trapped in this no man's land. How do we solve this? What happens? BILL CLINTON: Well, first, I'll do my best to answer that. But if

you think about what George said and what the prime minister said, it wasn't so very long ago that Europeans were killing each other in large numbers. The European Union itself is a miracle. The Eurozone assumed great economic significance as long as the economy was growing. As soon as it turned down the problems of the Eurozone became apparent. The world is no less interdependent than it was five years ago, ten years ago. It's more interdependent.

[10:50:00]

But in times of insecurity, fueled by both political problems and the absence of economic growth, negative identity politics tend to trump positive identity politics. The European idea requires a level of security, personal and collective security to embrace. It doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for or that the battle is over. You know, we didn't repeal the laws of human nature. We didn't all of a sudden elevate human consciousness overnight. This is a long battle. But I'm with you, it's worth fighting. It's worth fighting for. So ...

ZAKARIA: Can I ask you one corollary?

CLINTON: Yeah.

ZAKARIA: Do you think that that issue of negative versus positive identity when you have slow growth is true in America as well?

CLINTON: Absolutely. Absolutely. You get these -- that's the Republican presidential debates. You have people who live in cold country who lost 20,000 jobs before Barack Obama took the Oath of Office responding to Mr. Trump saying that if I just throw the immigrants out who are undocumented and stop the Chinese products from coming in, you'll be honky dory. But the truth, they are physically isolated in an industry where employment peaked in 1920, 95 years ago. And nobody has done anything for them. It is a microcosm of what you see in Greece, what you see in parts of Italy, what you see in parts of Spain. The whole deal. And we need all just to take a step back, and so if this is worth fighting for let's just take this thing piece by piece. But I don't think you should give up on the European dream, nor do I think you can get it back as it was in the hay day of the '90s, overnight. You have to build it back and you have to realize, oh, this is really terrible. Compared to what? What Europe was in the 1940s? I don't think so. What it was in the 1870s? No. So, we just have to keep going. We can't get away from each other so the world is going to be defined by positive identity politics or negative identity politics. In insecure times the negative always has the advantage. You have to fight it. And you don't win in a day. You won a long, long battle.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, something completely different. The world went crazy recently over the so-called pizza rat. But I say these rats should be the real heroes. They can actually save lives.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ZAKARIA: Yesterday marked the end of the United Nations General Assembly annual debate. It's a landmark year for the U.N., which is celebrating its 70th anniversary. And it brings me to my question: What country was the first to sign the U.N. Charter on June 26th, 1945? The United States, China, Switzerland or the United Kingdom? Stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer.

This week's book of the week is Neil Ferguson's "Kissinger, the Idealist." Ferguson's who's been often been on GPS, has produced a fascinating, deep and wonderfully written biography of Henry Kissinger that ranges from his childhood as an orthodox Jew in Germany to his roles as an adviser to John Kennedy, Nelson Rockefeller and finally Richard Nixon. The book is 1,000 pages long and ends just with Kissinger's appointment as national security advisor in 1968. Admittedly this is like candy for me, but I found myself deeply interested despite the detail.

And now for the last look. Brutal battlefield, sinking ships and kicking camera women are just a few of the obstacles refugees face during that treacherous journeys to Europe. They're also facing potential threats that have been lying in wait for decades. Facing border closures and fewer paths to Germany, refugees are traveling through Croatia to get to their perceived promise land. And if they stray from marked paths there, danger awaits, thanks to an estimated 51,000 active landmines left over from the Balkan wars. Now, removing that many mines may seem like an impossible feat, well it isn't. Just last month the government of Mozambique, once one of the most land mined countries in the world, announced that it is now land mine free. A British organization, Halo Trust, says it oversaw the removal of 171,000 mines. The Mozambiquan men and women who cleared the mines had help from an unlikely source. These giant MDRs, mine detection rats, that is, went through extensive training with the Belgian NGO called A propos, to help their human friends sniff out mines. In under an hour these critters could check an area that would take a human two days to cover. And to think last week the world of Twitter was impressed by a rat that merely carried a slice of pizza. We think these rats should go viral instead.

The correct answer to the GPS challenge question is B. China as "the first victim of aggression by an access power," unquote was given the opportunity to sign the charter first. 49 other countries also signed that day. Happy 70th anniversary to the U.N. Be sure to tune in next Sunday as I'll be talking to even more of the world leaders who are in New York for that general assembly. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week.

[11:00:00]

ZAKARIA: I'll see you next week.