"THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP" HOST: JOHN MCLAUGHLIN PANEL: PATRICK BUCHANAN, MSNBC; ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK; MONICA CROWLEY, SYNDICATED RADIO COMMENTATOR; MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT TAPED: FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2009 BROADCAST: WEEKEND OF AUGUST 22-23, 2009
Copyright (c) 2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500 1000 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please visit http://www.fednews.com or call(202)347-1400
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue One: A Whole New World.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: (From videotape.) I come to Berlin, as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight I speak to you not as a candidate for president but as a citizen, a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: One year and six weeks ago, candidate Obama traveled to Europe and said that he was not appearing as a candidate for U.S. president but as a fellow citizen of the world. Mr. Obama sees America, under his leadership, as an active and interactive player in the international community. Apparently the international community believes that we are and that Obama sees himself on center stage of that great world amphitheater. A side effect of this transformation is that America's popularity is now soaring. The percent of Germans who view the U.S. favorably today is 64 percent, up 31 percent from 2008, according to the Pew Global Attitudes poll; the U.K., 69 percent, up 16 percent last year; the French, three-quarters -- 75 percent of Frenchmen now see America favorably, versus 42 percent in 2008.
So what is the big lever that has moved the seesaw of America's popularity so radically upward? Acknowledgement of world citizenship, yes. But was it also this public apologetic admission uttered in Strasbourg by President Obama?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, ever derisive.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: The U.S. has a long-standing tradition of not criticizing a former president in front of foreign audiences. Did Obama violate this protocol, using terms like "arrogant," "dismissive," "derisive"? Pat Buchanan.
MR. BUCHANAN: John, yes, he did at that point. I think that was a mistake, and I think he has been scoring off his country repeatedly abroad, and I think it has hurt him very much with the American people.
There's no doubt he's enormously popular and people welcome the first African-American president. But he's gone abroad repeatedly, to Trinidad in front of the Latin Americans, with the Ortega thing, and Cairo and elsewhere, and in effect apologizing for the record of the United States of America, which actually in those years won the Cold War for the West and the world.
I think this is hurting him, quite frankly. I've talked to sort of middle Americans who kind of like him, and they say, "Why is this guy going abroad and apologizing?" He's the leader. He's the head of the American family. He's the leader of the nation. He's not only head of government, but chief of state. He's got a duty to defend his country abroad, and that's one duty he has not fulfilled.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, before we get carried away, let's go on to this: Bush versus Obama.
Mr. Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush, was presented by the press as highly unpopular abroad. But the world demonstratively has greater faith that President Obama will do the right thing when it comes to foreign affairs.
The breakout. Britain: Bush, 16 percent; Obama, 86 percent. France: Bush, 13 percent; Obama, 91 percent. Germany: Bush, 14 percent; Obama, 93 percent. Turkey: Bush, 2; Obama, 33. Russia: Bush, 22; Obama, 37. China: Bush, 30; Obama, 62. Japan: Bush, 25; Obama, 85. Argentina: Bush, 7; Obama, 61. Brazil: Bush, 17; Obama, 76. Mexico: Bush, 16; Obama, 55. The big skeptic in the group, Israel: Bush, 57; Obama, 56.
By the way, the United States' popularity rating: Bush, 37; Obama, 74.
Question for Mort -- and I'm going back to you, Eleanor. Israel, a traditional American ally, is odd country out. By a small margin, it favors Bush over Obama. Why is that?
MS. CLIFT: Well, first, I'm not going to let Pat's diatribe go unchallenged. President Obama, candidate Obama, was acknowledging attitudes that were widely held. Much of the world was delighted to see George W. Bush go, as was America. The secretary of Defense under Bush talked about old Europe, talked about how we didn't need Europe.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: What was his name?
MS. CLIFT: Donald Rumsfeld.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Right.
MS. CLIFT: So the president has restored America's standing in the world to where it was before Bush came in and wrecked it.
Now, in terms of Israel, Israel is the exception here, although Obama is certainly popular there too, but not as differentially popular than Bush, because Israel did very well under President Bush. Bush basically gave them a green light for their policies, and this president has challenged them on the settlements issue in particular, which is a controversial issue in Israel as well, where you have about half the public, you know, siding with what Obama has said. Plus the president's Cairo speech, which he made after he was elected, I think we can credit that for denying Hezbollah a majority in Lebanon. And he may have helped precipitate the Iranian dissent that we're seeing.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Monica.
MS. CLIFT: So he's made a positive impact in many places.
MS. CROWLEY: Well, I have to answer all of those. First of all, in terms of apologizing for the United States, no American president should stand on foreign soil and apologize for anything. No other country in the history of the world has done so much for so many and asked for so little in return.
Also, the United States should not apologize for defending our national interests, especially after we were hit and the attacks were brought to us on 9/11. Thirdly, those international popularity numbers that you put up on the screen, I mean, that and $5 will get you a Starbucks.
It doesn't matter if the Mexican people or the Indian people like us a little bit more. What matters to the global superpower, the United States, is that we are respected, not that we are liked. Leaders change, but national interests do not.
So is it great that the German people like us a little bit more? Yeah. But the German government and the German country still has national interests that will come right up against the United States, and we hire an American president to represent us, not to represent the world.
The other thing you didn't put up are those Pew poll numbers on the Muslim world, because Obama has not improved the United States's image in countries like Pakistan and Egypt.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Mort, can you improve on that?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, I think I support a lot of what Monica has just said. I do think that there's a big difference in terms of the way Obama is perceived by the leadership, including of Europe, and certainly by the leadership of the Arab world, who are very critical of him and his approach to the Middle East, primarily because they think it's very naive and is going to be counterproductive. So I think he's got a long way to go before he makes any progress.
If you look at Europe, they did not help us on increasing the stimulus program when we asked them to do that. They did not help us with Afghanistan in terms of providing additional troops. They wouldn't even take any of the prisoners on Guantanamo.
The Arab world is absolutely convinced that the big threat to their world is Iran and not Israel. They know that Iran is trying to overthrow them. Egypt is unbelievably publicly hostile. Morocco has broken relations with Iran. And I've been in those countries in the last couple of months, and they all speak very differently privately, the leaders do, compared to what they're saying publicly.
And as far as Israel is concerned, who can blame them at this stage of the game? What he has done -- whether it was the right policy or not is a different issue -- the way he did it shows that he doesn't know how to play the game in that part of the world. DR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean admonishing Israel about removing Palestinian settlements --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Without --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- and a couple of --
MS. CLIFT: Israeli settlements.
MS. CROWLEY: Israeli settlements.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: This was something that could have been settled privately, which is the way it's always been done. There's no intimacy in that relationship, no consultation. It's just public dictat that is an attempt to impose it on them, and it proves to be counterproductive. The Palestinians, who were prepared to negotiate without resolving these issues, now will not negotiate unless they are resolved.
MR. BUCHANAN: John --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: The Israelis now are in a position where only 6 percent of the Israeli public believes that Obama is pro-Israel.
MR. BUCHANAN: John, the question is -- and everybody's raised it -- is these numbers -- there's no doubt that Obama is enormously popular in a lot of places where Bush was not. How does this translate into support for United States policies in areas where --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'll tell you how.
MR. BUCHANAN: -- there's real conflict?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: I'll tell you how.
MR. BUCHANAN: I haven't seen it show up anywhere.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: You don't think that we're easier to deal with because of Obama? And by reason of that, we can have military negotiations, we can have economic negotiations, much more easily, readily and --
MR. BUCHANAN: Give me an example of how this has really translated into great benefit for American policy?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: If a country is unpopular, you don't think it --
MR. BUCHANAN: Give me an example.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: It doesn't filter down into --
MR. BUCHANAN: Give me an example. DR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- a stiffness in diplomatic relations?
MR. BUCHANAN: John, he's got -- look, Mort pointed out, Europe hasn't done a thing that Obama wanted, not one thing.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Nor has Russia. Nor has Russia, for example. Nor has China, which would not support the dollar. I mean, you could go around the world and you will find that. This isn't to diminish the value of his popularity.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: It sounds like it.
MS. CLIFT: It sure does. This is --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: That's because he doesn't know how to play the game. That's my point. He doesn't know how to translate this properly. Look, let me tell you, Angela Merkel, when she was to come here, he agreed to give her a 45-minute meeting, no press conference. She canceled the visit. Sarkozy -- Obama wanted to be the sole person walking along the beaches of Normandy. Sarkozy went through the roof on that. This was in their own country. There are a lot of things that are going on behind the scenes that do not reflect well on the way Obama is handling this.
MS. CLIFT: The Europeans often find things to complain about, but we have just --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: You can dismiss everything that happens because it's not pro-Obama.
MS. CLIFT: Excuse me, please. Excuse me, please. We have just gone through an enormous economic downturn. And the fact that he is liked and respected by much of the world has blunted the impact of that downturn, which many of these countries believe the U.S. led them into. And I can't believe that you can sit here and turn positive numbers into a negative. (Laughter.) He has been in office for six months.
MS. CLIFT: I gave you two examples -- the elections in Lebanon and the uprising in Iran.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: The elections in Lebanon had nothing to do with the United States. The elections in Lebanon had to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia funded a huge amount of effort, including, just to give you an illustration --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you remember when --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: -- Saudi Arabia was --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you remember when we were pouring -- MR. BUCHANAN: The sanctions --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Hold on, please.
Do you remember when we were pouring French wine down the sewer?
MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: And we were forbidding French fries to be served in the House of Representatives?
MR. BUCHANAN: Look, Bush -- I understand --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you remember Rumsfeld saying, "I like new Europe; I don't like old Europe"?
MR. BUCHANAN: Old Europe. Look, I'll tell you what Bush's problems are: Iraq war, "axis of evil," in your face, moving NATO into Georgia and Ukraine. All of these things, I agree with that. And he does have an asset. But again, it is not being translated into the benefit --
MS. CLIFT: He has been -- excuse me.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Quickly.
MR. BUCHANAN: -- of the United States.
MS. CLIFT: He has been in office for six months. It's a little difficult to convert all these --
MS. CROWLEY: Come on.
MS. CLIFT: Excuse me.
MS. CROWLEY: (Inaudible.)
MS. CLIFT: -- convert all these good feelings into actual (time ?).
MS. CROWLEY: Obama --
MS. CLIFT: The other thing -- excuse me, Monica. I intend to finish this.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Hold on. MS. CLIFT: The other thing he has done is taken -- has changed the language on the war against terror. We are no longer fighting a war against terrorism.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Make a quick point.
MS. CROWLEY: Come on.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Make a quick point.
MS. CROWLEY: If he can't parlay his personal popularity into real traction in American foreign policy in the first six months, he's sunk. He's never going to be able to do it. He sold himself during the campaign as a guy who could transform our relationships with the rest of the world, including in the Muslim world. Those numbers have not changed.
MS. CLIFT: He is not going to transform them the way you want them transformed.
MS. CROWLEY: (Inaudible) --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Hold on, Eleanor.
MS. CROWLEY: -- because my points are inconvenient to you, but they're true.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: If we're looking for a true yardstick, do you think Afghanistan will be a true yardstick of where the rest of the world --
MR. BUCHANAN: I think Afghanistan is an excellent yardstick in this sense, and Mort is exactly right. They haven't ponied up a thing. We need thousands and thousands of troops.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: Obama's approval rating in the U.S. has dropped to 52 percent. Will his international support also drop, Pat?
MR. BUCHANAN: Much more slowly. I do think they see him from a distance. There's no doubt they admire the guy. They say this is great for America. It just hasn't been translated.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think?
MS. CLIFT: The high approval ratings never last at that level. But he has the respect of the world and he has some opportunities here that did not exist over the last eight years. You can't change the world in six months.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Monica. MS. CROWLEY: Look, the rest of the world saw his apology tour and read that as weakness. Of course they envy the United States. We're the world's greatest superpower. That apology tour signaled a real vulnerability. And if they believe that they can roll this president, that's why he's so popular.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, the international standing will continue to be very strong as long as he continues to apologize for the United States, right?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, no, I think --
MS. CLIFT: He's not apologizing.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: As long as he's helping the other countries.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes. No, I agree with you.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: So he can sustain that rating.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Right. Well, maybe not quite at those levels. But I do think it is an asset, and I think in part because he's not Bush that he became very popular. But at some point his policies and whether or not they work internationally will determine whether he remains as popular as he is now.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: I can't improve on that, Mort.
Issue Two: Ecuador's Isolation.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) History tells us that turning inward can help turn a downturn into a depression. Protectionism is a classic example.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: There are exceptions to every rule, Mr. President. Protectionism may be the classic exception. In Ecuador, at least, protectionism is the hero, not the villain.
Background: The nation of Ecuador is on the western side of South America, with Colombia to the north, Peru to the south, Brazil to the east, roughly the size of Nevada, with a population of 14 million. Ecuador's key industries are oil and agriculture. On the global wealth scale, Ecuador ranks high, with a total GDP of over $107 billion. It ranks 66th out of 228 countries, well ahead of Syria, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Iceland, et cetera.
But the current economic meltdown threatened to hit Ecuador hard nevertheless. And this led Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, a University of Illinois Ph.D., to choose protectionism as the way to escape the economic crisis that now ravages the world. Correa levied tariffs on over 600 products, over one-fifth of Ecuador's total imports, at rates of up to 35 percent. And when Correa did admit imports, he sharply limited them with quotas, cutting the inflow of foreign products by over one-third. As a result, Ecuador's trade deficit narrowed from $1.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 to an $820 million deficit in the first quarter of '09. Ecuador's overall economic outlook is also solid. The unemployment rate is 8.3 percent, roughly the same as before the downturn. And Ecuador's economy will grow by 1 percent for 2009 and by 2.5 percent for 2010.
Protectionism, by the way, is not only in vogue in Ecuador.
The World Trade Organization, the WTO, reports that protectionist measures have been enacted in 24 nations, plus the additional 27 nations of the European Union. That's 51 nations in total.
Question: If the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, were to give economic advice to President Obama, what would Correa say? Mort Zuckerman.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: He would say, "I hope you have an economy that did as well under protectionist pressure as mine," because it's a very, very different kind of economy when you --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Would he talk to him about China, do you think?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Oh, I mean, I don't see why. Why would he be interested in talking to Obama about China?
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Flooding the world with exports.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Oh, but China is not just flooding the world with -- we have a huge export business to China as well, and China's whole economy is based on exports, without question. But our economy is not based on that.
MR. BUCHANAN: John, you're exactly right.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Nor is Ecuador's.
MR. BUCHANAN: You know, China is behaving like 19th century America. It is very protectionist, protecting its markets, sending its goods out to capture the whole world. Between 1860 and 1928, John, the United States was the most protectionist nation in history. And at the end of 1928, we produced 42 percent of all the world's manufacturers. Protectionism worked. The Smoot-Hawley myth is what destroyed it. And frankly, it's going to be what destroys this country.
MS. CLIFT: Right. Pat Buchanan is going to lead the cause to bring back Smoot-Hawley.
Look, I hope that the tourism board of Ecuador can sponsor this show, because that was actually a very nice little sequence you did on them. They can't print money like we do. They use the U.S. dollar. So they didn't really have much choice but to try to beef up their domestic industries, try to keep employment up and have less consuming of western frills. So, I mean, he's doing the right thing for Ecuador.
But as Ecuador goes, not the United States. It's like looking at Chile and saying Chile privatized social security. That was all the rage on this set a few years ago. I'm glad we didn't do that.
MS. CROWLEY: Ecuador is a completely different kind of economy. We're talking about a wholly different kind of animal than the United States of America. They've got a relatively small economy. It's a mere fraction of the United States. You can't expect the world's global economic superpower to put in the kind of protectionist measures that President Correa put in. The horse has left the barn on that.
Now, the United States has still engaged in some protectionism, but not to the extent that you're talking about in Ecuador.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Even protectionism that is against our interest. Take Pakistan. The one thing that Pakistan wanted was to have more opportunity to export textiles to the United States. Why? Because it would employ a lot of women and it would be a very good thing for them politically at home, for the governments we want to support. I was directly involved in that. And you speak to our people, and what do they say? Congress will never let that happen.
MR. BUCHANAN: What does that do for our balance of trade and balance of payments? It sends dollars out of this country to Pakistan. We're sending them all over the world. We had an $800 billion trade deficit for 20 years. That's why the dollar is collapsing.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: To restore job growth, will President Obama resort to tariffs against China?
MR. BUCHANAN: No.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Absolutely not.
MS. CLIFT: No.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: He has no choice.
MS. CLIFT: No. And we need to be sending some dollars to Pakistan, but I don't necessarily favor taking them out of the pockets of the textile workers in the South. Get them from the Pentagon. (Laughs.)
MS. CROWLEY: No, President Obama is not going to resort to tariffs, no. He is a newfound free trader. DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Even though China has no OSHA standards, has no --
MS. CROWLEY: Despite how he campaigned, he is a newfound free trader. He's not going to engage in this.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: No worker safety rules over there. They don't follow our rules.
MR. BUCHANAN: Of course not. They want to beat us, for heaven's sakes.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: But you can't see a tariff policy against --
MR. BUCHANAN: Now, look, I'd be in favor of it. There's one up on the Hill, but they won't do it.
MS. CROWLEY: He's not going to start a trade war, John.
MR. BUCHANAN: A trade war would --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: There's no way that could happen. Look, we are also dependent -- not as dependent as China is on exports, but our economy is also dependent on exports. You start a world-class trade war and every country in the world will get into serious --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: (Inaudible) -- the holding of our debt.
MS. CLIFT: Well, that's it -- not while they're our banker.
MR. BUCHANAN: Mort --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: It's more than a trillion dollars. But that's not the point.
MR. BUCHANAN: Two trillion.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yeah, it's about $2 trillion.
MR. BUCHANAN: What do you think they're waging against us if not a trade war, Mort?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: It is not a trade war. They're trying to develop their economy.
MR. BUCHANAN: At our expense.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Well, it is not only at our expense. It's also to our benefit.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: You know that our safety rules for the worker and so forth, the whole environmental picture too -- MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- that's the production cost. We can't compete with China in that regard.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: That's not the basis on which we can compete with China. They have wage costs and, frankly, human capabilities that are not -- we are not going to be a manufacturing economy anymore.
That is out.
MR. BUCHANAN: We're not?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, we're not. We're going to be --
MR. BUCHANAN: Do you know any great power that's not --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: We're going to be a high-tech economy.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: I predict tariffs against China --
MR. BUCHANAN: John, we are exporting our --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- controlled but important tariffs against China in 2010.
Issue Three: Arm the U.N.?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: (From videotape.) I think the United Nations can be an extraordinarily constructive, important partner in bringing about peace and stability and security to people around the world.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: The United Nations is a global amphitheater, a stage for diplomats to engage in international diplomacy. But there's another side of the U.N. -- a military side. Currently there are 116,000 United Nations peacekeepers throughout the world. Only the U.S. has more troops deployed globally.
But despite this mandate, the U.N. has no standing army. Member states contribute troops on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. Has the time come for the United Nations to have a permanent military of its own? The U.N. Charter, Article 43, calls on, quote, "all members of the United Nations to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces assistance and facilities necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security," unquote.
Question: Assume that the U.N. is authorized to have its own standing army. Who or what should have control over that U.N. army deployment? Monica. MS. CROWLEY: You know, this would be a command-and-control nightmare. I can think of very few worse ideas than arming the United Nations. The U.N. is a cesspool of corruption. They are constantly embracing dictatorships and tyrannies of the world while aligning against the United States and Israel and the western democracies. There is no way that an armed United Nations would be a fair arbiter of any kind of peace.
MR. BUCHANAN: John --
MS. CLIFT: The U.N. is so hated probably by most everybody on this side -- certainly this side, I believe -- that the notion that they would have anything nice to say about arming the U.N. is just off the charts.
Now, I haven't personally thought about this much, but I went on the Internet and I discovered that George McGovern and Kofi Annan both support a standing army, which means so do I -- (laughs) -- except when --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: And not for -- (inaudible).
MS. CLIFT: That's right -- except when you start exploring how you would do it. Would you have troops from various nations rotating in and out? Where would their loyalties be once they were dispatched from this army? But the notion of kids graduating all over the world from high school and joining an army of the United Nations to go into conflicts before they get to the point where somebody or other on the Security Council vetoes any kind of -- it's a nice concept, but very difficult to implement.
MR. BUCHANAN: Eleanor has pointed to a couple of problems. But, look, even the United States of America, even NATO, which is, you know, an alliance of all these countries, when we went into Afghanistan, the United States said, in effect, to NATO, "Look, please get out of the way. You're just going to interfere. We have 15 countries or 30 countries helping out. We can do it ourselves."
The United States of America, we want to do it ourselves, because a single army with a single loyalty is much, much more effective. Secondly, where does it get its airlift, its sealift capacity? Only one nation on earth has that. Maybe the Russians have some of it. But only the United States has the ability to move troops. And to move troops around to various armies, various forces, is preposterous. If you have to do a major job like South Korea, the Americans do it.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: The complexity of it would be so massive, it would probably collapse under its own weight. Do you know how much trouble the EU has had trying to form a military force?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes. And, look, but -- DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, why are you behind this idea? Are you connected with arms merchants? (Laughter.) Is that how you made your billions?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: You're confusing me with somebody else who has the same common name of Zuckerman.
MR. BUCHANAN: (Laughs.)
MR. ZUCKERMAN: I don't know -- I am not in favor of it at all.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think the arms that they have --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: They do have a symbolic role, under certain very defined circumstances, where they do not have to engage in combat, where they can keep parties apart and not have combat obligations. They are incompetent to do that. They don't want to fight.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Suppose --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: And they generally confuse an issue rather than resolve it.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Suppose -- (inaudible) -- that there were such an army. Who would deploy them? Who would have the executive responsibility?
MR. ZUCKERMAN: You'd have to have an agreement of the Security Council, and then you'd have all kinds of arguments.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: You're talking about the big Security Council, with the veto power for the small Security Council.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: That's right. That's right. No, I'm talking about the Security Council is still, what, 14 or 15 members, and five of them --
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's the one you're talking about --
MR. ZUCKERMAN: Yes.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: -- not the five permanent members.
MR. ZUCKERMAN: No, the P-5 would have to retain their veto power.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN: Out of time. Bye-bye.