♪ MUSIC ♪ >>GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.

FROM OUR HOME STUDIOS, I'M DAVID DUMKE.

>>AND I'M KATIE CORONADO.

WELCOME.

>>TODAY, WE ARE JOINED BY AMBASSADOR RICK BARTON WHO TEACHES AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY'S SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, WHERE HE SERVES AS CO-DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOLARS IN THE NATION'S SERVICE INITIATIVE.

AMBASSADOR BARTON IS THE AUTHOR OF PEACEWORKS AMERICA'S UNIFYING ROLE IN A TURBULENT WORLD.

HE WAS THE FIRST ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONFLICT AND STABILIZATION OPERATIONS.

HE ALSO HELPED ESTABLISH USAID'S OFFICE OF TRANSITION INITIATIVES AND HAS DONE A NUMBER OF PROJECTS IN 40 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES RESPONDING TO CRISIS.

WELCOME TO THE SHOW AMBASSADOR BARTON.

>>THANKS SO MUCH, DAVID AND KATIE.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU.

>>AMBASSADOR WELCOME AGAIN, AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS AND FOR HELPING US EDUCATE OUR AUDIENCE HERE IN CENTRAL FLORIDA, ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE AND YOUR BACKGROUND.

WE KNOW THAT IT'S VERY IMPRESSIVE AND EXTENSIVE, BUT FIRST, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND, WHERE YOU WERE BORN?

I THINK IT'S A VERY INTERESTING ELEMENT, AND ALSO WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO WHERE YOU ARE TODAY?

>>WELL, THANK YOU.

IT'S REALLY A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU AND WITH YOUR ORLANDO AUDIENCE, IT'S MY I'M SITTING AT MY HOME IN WASHINGTON DC TODAY.

I WAS BORN IN ARGENTINA.

MY PARENTS WERE, MY FATHER WAS A DIPLOMAT, BUT IN THOSE DAYS IT WAS REALLY A FAMILY EVENT.

WE WERE, A FAMILY OF AMERICAN DIPLOMATS REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES ALL OVER THE WORLD.

SO IT WAS ALWAYS AN INTEREST OF MINE, BUT I WAS LIVING IN MAINE AND I WASN'T QUITE SURE HOW TO GET INVOLVED WITH THIS KIND OF WORK, WHICH HAD BEEN SORT OF CENTRAL TO MY UPBRINGING.

AND I GOT VERY LUCKY THAT AID, THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT DECIDED TO START A NEW OFFICE THAT WOULD DEAL WITH COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION.

AND THAT MEANT COUNTRIES IN CONFLICT.

AND I HAD A, THE 1990S WERE A PERIOD OF LOTS OF SMALL WARS IN SMALL PLACES.

SO I WAS ABLE TO, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE DEVASTATING, THE RWANDA GENOCIDE, BOSNIAN WAR, I WAS ABLE TO LEARN IN A PLACE IN PLACES THAT WERE ALMOST MANAGEABLE IN A WAY, BUT I ALSO KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE BIG PROBLEMS IN BIG PLACES COMING.

AND SO THE TRAINING OF THE 1990S REALLY PREPARED US FOR THE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WARS AND FOR SOME OF THE OTHER LARGER VENTURES THAT THE UNITED STATES UNDERTOOK IN AND SADLY NOT VERY EFFECTIVELY.

SO THAT'S REALLY BEEN MY WORK.

I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK SPANISH BEFORE ENGLISH, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE WERE.

WE WENT FROM ARGENTINA TO SPAIN, BUT I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD A POSITION OF GREAT ADVANTAGE THAT WASN'T, THAT DIDN'T MEAN THAT WE WERE SELECTED, THAT WE HAD A, WE HAD A RIGHT OR AN ENTITLEMENT, BUT RATHER BECAUSE OF OUR SIZE, OUR WEALTH, OUR ECONOMY, OUR PEOPLE, WE WERE ABLE TO BE, COULD BE HELPFUL IN THESE PLACES.

AND THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE.

>>AMBASSADOR, YOU MENTIONED, AFGHANISTAN, WHICH DID NOT HAVE A HAPPY ENDING FOR THE UNITED STATES, BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU, WHERE ARE SOME OF THE SUCCESSES?

I MEAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WONDERING ABOUT US INTERVENTION AND THERE HAVE BEEN VERY NOTABLE FAILURES IN SOMALIA, IN AFGHANISTAN, AND MANY OF THE COUNTRIES YOU'VE ACTUALLY WORKED, BUT WHAT SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THESE EFFORTS?

AND WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

WHERE ARE THE SUCCESSES?

>>WELL, THE SUCCESSES THAT I WOULD CITE, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY JAPAN AND GERMANY ARE HUGE SUCCESSES, AND THERE WAS A VERY CLEAR DEFINITION TO THE END OF THE WAR.

AND THAT HELPS A GREAT DEAL.

KOREA WAS A REAL SUCCESS.

MORE RECENTLY, I WOULD SAY, BOSNIA IS A SUCCESS.

WE STOPPED THE FIGHTING THERE.

PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN KILLING EACH OTHER.

IT'S NOT TOTALLY SETTLED.

THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF PROBLEMS.

COLUMBIA, I WOULD SAY IS A RELATIVE SUCCESS, EVEN THOUGH THE PEACE PROCESS IS BEING UNDERMINED AS WE SPEAK, BUT SO WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE A BENEFICIAL EFFECT, BUT WHEN WE THINK WE CAN TAKE OVER A PLACE AND WE CAN SHAPE IT TO BE LIKE THE UNITED STATES, WE REALLY UNDERESTIMATE THE ENORMITY OF THE CHALLENGE, THE ESSENTIAL NEED FOR LOCAL OWNERSHIP AND LOCAL DECISION MAKING AND OUR OWN COMMITMENT.

I MEAN, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN THESE LAST COUPLE WARS HAS ALMOST BEEN GUILTY OF CONFLICT TOURISM.

WE HAVEN'T HAD THE CONGRESS VOTE ON IT.

WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY TAX INCREASES TO PAY FOR IT.

AND ONLY 1% OF AMERICAN FAMILIES NOW SERVE IN THE MILITARY AS OPPOSED TO 40% AND OUR EARLIER HISTORY DURING THE WORLD WARS.

SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF KIND OF INHERENT DIFFICULTIES THAT WE ARE FACING, BUT WE CAN BE SUCCESSFUL, IN PARTICULAR IF WE TRUST THE LOCAL PEOPLE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S THEIR COUNTRY, THAT THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR RATHER THAN AN AMERICAN OCCUPATION.

>>AMBASSADOR, THANK YOU.

YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT ABOUT COLUMBIA.

WHAT DO YOU THINK MADE IT A SUCCESS OR PARTIAL SUCCESS?

YOU REFERRED TO IT AS HAVING SOME SORT OF SUCCESS, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE THINGS HAPPENING THERE AS WE SPEAK.

WHAT DO YOU THINK CREATED THAT OPPORTUNITY THERE?

>>WELL, I THINK THE COLOMBIANS WERE VERY, VERY READY FOR A DECADES LONG KIND OF SIMMERING CONFLICT AND HIGHER, GREAT INSECURITY TO END.

SO THEY RECOGNIZE THEIR CENTRAL OWNERSHIP.

AND WHILE THE UNITED STATES CAN BE A DOMINANT PARTNER AT TIMES, THEY WERE REALLY IN CHARGE.

IT WAS THEIR COUNTRY.

AND IF THEY STRENGTHENED THEIR MILITARY, WHICH THEY DID, IF THEY STRENGTHENED THEIR POLICE, WHICH THEY DID, IF THEY, FOUGHT CORRUPTION, WHICH THEY DID, IF THEY, IF THEY INITIATED PEACE STOCKS, THOSE WERE REALLY THINGS THAT THE COLOMBIANS WANTED.

AND AT TIMES THERE WOULD BE PARTS OF THE US GOVERNMENT THAT ACTUALLY WERE RELUCTANT ABOUT THE PEACE TALKS, BECAUSE OUR PRESENCE HAD GROWN SO BIG THERE.

BUT AT THE END, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT WAS A COLUMBIAN LED EFFORT, VERY MUCH SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED STATES WITH SIGNIFICANT SPENDING.

AND I THINK IT WAS WORTH IT BECAUSE COLUMBIA IS A NEAR COUNTRY.

THERE ARE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIRECT EFFECT WITHIN OUR BORDERS IS ACTUALLY QUITE, QUITE CLEAR.

AND IT'S A WEALTHY COUNTRY THAT WITH LOTS OF TALENTED PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE DOING RATHER WELL.

SO WE HAD AN INTEREST IN IT.

SO OUR INTEREST WAS CLEARER AS WELL, AS OPPOSED TO SOME DISTANT PART OF THE WORLD WHERE WE HAD TO MAKE A MORE EXOTIC ARGUMENT.

>>WELL YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT A CLEAR MISSION AND I KNOW YOU WROTE A VERY HARD HITTING EDITORIAL IN AUGUST ON AFGHANISTAN.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED WAS KIND OF A DUAL MISSION AND KIND OF SOME OF THE LACK OF CLARITY ON THIS.

WAS THAT THE REASON IT WAS DOOMED?

AND ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE STEMMING FROM THAT IS, DO WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERUSE THE MILITARY FOR MISSIONS THAT ARE, SHOULD BE CIVILIAN IN NATURE?

>>WELL, THE ANSWER TO YOUR LAST QUESTION FIRST.

YES, I DO THINK THAT WE ARE OVERLY MILITARIZED AND IT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE REAL CAPACITY THERE.

WE HAVE REAL TALENT, WE HAVE STANDBY FORCES, BUT THE DANGER OF GOING WITH THE MILITARY FIRST IS THAT IT MAKES IT VERY MUCH OF THE UNITED STATES LED EFFORT.

THE MINUTE A SINGLE US SOLDIER IS ON THE GROUND, THERE'S A MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT US COMMITMENT.

AND THE US SOLDIERS COST US ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR PER SOLDIER TO HAVE THEM IN A COUNTRY.

SO IT'S EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, AND IT DOESN'T EMPOWER THE LOCAL PEOPLE RIGHT OFF.

IN TERMS OF AFGHANISTAN, THE COMPLEX, THE COMPLEXITY OF OUR MISSION, THAT WE, THAT WE WANTED TO FIGHT TERRORISM ON THE ONE HAND, AND WE WANTED TO BUILD UP A MODEL DEMOCRACY ON THE OTHER HAND, I BELIEVE THAT WAS AN INHERENT CONTRADICTION.

AND THAT CONTRADICTION PRODUCED ALLIANCES WITH WAR LORDS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WERE REALLY HARMFUL TO THE UNITED STATES INTEREST.

>>IF WE EMPOWERED A WAR LORD IN ONE PART OF THE COUNTRY, AND HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SECURITY OF THAT ENTIRE REGION, WE WERE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENT WAS GOING TO FAIL.

BECAUSE THEY MIGHT AT ANY MOMENT GO TO OUR NEWLY REFORMED NATIONAL BANK AND MAKE A WITHDRAWAL, EVEN THOUGH THEY'D NEVER MADE A DEPOSIT.

NOW, THAT IS A FORM OF LAWLESSNESS THAT WAS CONTRARY TO OUR SYSTEM.

SO EVEN FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SURE ABOUT WHETHER THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THESE PLACES, WE GENERALLY WANT TO SEE A LAW, A LAWFUL COMMUNITY.

AND THAT BECAME VERY, VERY DIFFICULT IN AFGHANISTAN FROM THE BEGINNING, BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE ALLIANCES WE MADE.

THERE WERE OTHER COMPLICATIONS THERE, WHICH I HAD REFERRED TO IN THIS PIECE AS INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS.

BUT I THINK IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THAT INITIAL MISSION CONTRADICTION, PLUS THE LACK OF IT BEING A VERY LARGE COUNTRY AND NOT KNOWING MANY PEOPLE ON THE GROUND, THOSE WERE PROBABLY THE TOUGHEST ELEMENTS OF OUR ENTRY INTO THE COUNTRY.

AND THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO OUR FAILURE, WHICH, AND VERY, VERY COSTLY FAILURE IN JUST ABOUT EVERY WAY.

>>AMBASSADOR, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

YOU MENTIONED THE IMPORTANCE OF EMPOWERING PEOPLE.

AND WHILE WE KNOW THAT EMPOWERING PEOPLE IS IDEALLY THE WAY TO GO WITH DIPLOMACY EFFORTS, HOW REALISTIC IS IT TO THINK THAT ONCE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE USAID OR OTHERS GO INTO THESE COUNTRIES TO HELP EMPOWER THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PEOPLE THAT THEY'LL BE STRONG ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO TAKE OVER ON THEIR OWN?

AND WHAT ALTERNATIVES DO YOU THINK THERE ARE TO MILITARY INTERVENTION?

>>YEAH.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S REALLY A GREAT QUESTION, KATIE.

AND THAT'S REALLY THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION OF MY BOOK.

I THINK THAT THE, EVERY COUNTRY YOU GO INTO, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY, LET'S DO ANOTHER VIETNAM, OR LET'S DO ANOTHER JAPAN, OR LET'S DO ANOTHER BOSNIA.

YOU REALLY HAVE TO MAKE IT FIT.

SO EVEN WHILE WE WERE IN IRAQ, ON THE ONE HAND IN AFGHANISTAN, THE OTHER HAND, THEY'RE PROBABLY THEIR SOCIETIES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR SOCIETIES ARE SEPARATED BY ABOUT 50 YEARS.

SO AFGHANISTAN REALLY WAS NOT A MODERN COUNTRY IN ANY WAY.

AND WE'VE DONE IN A WAY MIRACULOUS THINGS TO BEGIN THE MODERNIZATION OF AFGHANISTAN, BUT THAT'S A VERY BIG UNDERTAKING.

SO YOUR EXPECTATIONS HAVE TO FIT THE CONTEXT.

AND THE FIRST THING TO FIT INTO CONTEXT IS ACTUALLY KNOWING WHERE YOU ARE.

SO IF I'M IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA, IT'S NOT THE SAME AS BEING IN BOOTH BAY HARBOR, MAINE.

AND EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE BOTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEY'RE BOTH DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS AND WHATEVER, THERE THEY ARE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES AND SO THEY'RE NOT JUST URBAN, RURAL, BUT THEY CAN BE EVERY OTHER DIVIDE OR CHARACTERISTIC THAT YOU CAN THINK ABOUT.

SO I THINK THAT THE REALLY GETTING TO KNOW THE PLACE FIRST IS KEY.

THEN, YOU CAN SEE WHETHER YOU CAN USE MEDIA.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO WORK IN NIGERIA.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WANTED US TO DEAL WITH THE NATIONAL NARRATIVE THERE, THAT VIOLENCE PAYS.

THAT'S NOT A CONSTRUCTIVE PEACE BUILDING MODEL, BUT IT'S A COUNTRY OF 165 MILLION PEOPLE.

WE WANTED TO SPEND FIVE TO 10 MILLION DOLLARS.

HOW DO YOU DO IT?

WELL, IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY GOT A VERY ADVANCED MEDIA ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL AND SOCIALLY DEVELOPED SOCIETY SO THAT IT HAS VIRTUALLY EVERY KIND OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION EXISTS THERE.

SO WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH THEIR TELEVISION NETWORKS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE OCCUPY NIGERIA MOVEMENT AND WITH THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND ALL THE LOCAL TALK SHOWS.

AND WE COULD WORK WITH LOCAL PEOPLE ON DEVELOPING A REALITY TELEVISION SHOW THAT WOULD BE CARRIED BY THE SIX MAJOR NETWORKS IN THE COUNTRY.

THAT WOULD HAVE HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF ADVERTISING ABOUT THE PROGRAMMING WOULD BE TALKED ABOUT IN EVERY TALK SHOW.

BUT THE CORE MISSION OF THAT SHOW WAS TO ADDRESS THE NATIONAL NARRATIVE THAT VIOLENCE PAYS IN NIGERIA.

WE FELT WE HAD TO REVERSE THAT CONVERSATION.

SO FOR FIVE TO 10 MILLION DOLLARS, THE UNITED STATES COULD BE CATALYTIC.

BUT AGAIN, WHO MADE THE TELEVISION SHOW?

NIGERIA'S PREMIER FILM DIRECTOR, SUPERSTAR DIRECTOR JETA AMATA.

AND SO WE WEREN'T MAKING THE SHOW.

WE WEREN'T COMING UP WITH A CONTENT, BUT WE WERE AIDING NIGERIANS WHO WANTED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.

SO FROM MEDIA, TO LOCAL ORGANIZING, TO DIRECT CASH ASSISTANCE, THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS OF GETTING AROUND OVER-BUREAUCRATIZING OVER MILITARIZING, AN EFFORT.

>>YOU JUST MENTIONED A FIGURE WITH THIS PROJECT IN NIGERIA, FIVE TO 10 MILLION DOLLARS, WHICH SEEMS VERY, VERY SMALL COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND WHAT THE US HAS SPENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES, NOTABLY AFGHANISTAN IRAQ, WHICH WE JUST MENTIONED.

IS THE ISSUE A QUESTION OF RESOURCES OR IT'S HOW THOSE RESOURCES ARE USED?

>>I THINK IT'S PARTIALLY BOTH.

WE DO HAVE INDUSTRIES THAT ENCOURAGE US TO SPEND MONEY IN CERTAIN WAYS.

SO THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THERE'S A MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, BUT THERE'S ALSO A HUMANITARIAN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

MUCH, MUCH SMALLER, BUT NEVERTHELESS, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX.

AND I'D LIKE TO THINK OF THEM AS INDUSTRIES BECAUSE THEY ARGUE FOR THE KIND OF WORK THEY DO WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM.

SO WE DO NEED TO RESHUFFLE MONEY SOMETIMES.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE WERE WORKING IN KENYA, KENYA'S AN IMPORTANT ALLY FOR THE UNITED STATES.

IT ANCHORS EVERYTHING WE DO IN EAST AFRICA.

AND IT'S ALSO THE CENTER FOR MOST OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

BUT, WE WERE SPENDING ABOUT THE US WAS SPENDING ABOUT 850 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR THERE, AND 800 MILLION OF IT WAS TO FIGHT AIDS.

SO 50 MILLION DOLLARS WAS PRETTY MUCH FOR EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND THE NUMBER ONE WORRY IN KENYA AT THE TIME WAS ELECTION RELATED VIOLENCE.

THEY'D HAD A VERY VIOLENT PRIOR ELECTION.

THEY CHANGED THEIR CONSTITUTION.

THEY HAD APPOINTED A NEW SUPREME COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE.

THEY'D DONE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE TO ADDRESS IT INSTITUTIONALLY, BUT IT WAS STILL THE BIGGEST WORRY IN THE COUNTRY.

SHOULD WE BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY ON AIDS AT THAT POINT, OR SHOULD WE BE ABLE TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE IN HOW WE DIRECT OUR RESOURCES?

BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE RELEVANT.

IT'S NOT THAT AIDS WAS IRRELEVANT.

IT'S JUST THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY LOSE MANY, MANY, MANY MORE KENYANS IN A VIOLENT ELECTION THAN YOU WOULD LOSE OVER A DECADE TO AIDS.

NOW, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF AGILITY.

IF WE'RE JUST A BIG STUMBLING COUNTRY THAT DOES STAYS ON A PROGRAM, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT'S GOING ON, WE DIMINISH OUR RELEVANCE, WE DIMINISH OUR EFFECTIVENESS AND WE'RE SHOWING THAT WE'RE REALLY NOT TUNED INTO THE PROBLEMS OF THE TIME.

SO, AND THAT AGAIN IS A VERY EASY WAY TO BE DISMISSED AS WE KNOW WITHIN OUR OWN FAMILIES, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT NOBODY AT THE TABLE CARES ABOUT, WHO'S LISTENING?

SO THE UNITED STATES HAS TO BE, HAS TO THINK OF ITSELF AS AN ENGAGED LEADER.

AND PART OF ENGAGEMENT IS TO BE AGILE AND FLEXIBLE.

SO HOW WE SPEND MONEY AND WHERE WE SPEND IT AND WHO GETS IT ALL MATTER.

>>AMBASSADOR, YOU MENTIONED THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING AND YOUR AUDIENCE.

AND EARLIER YOU MENTIONED MEDIA.

SO I WANTED TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU MENTIONED HAPPENED IN NIGERIA WITH THAT REALITY SHOW, BECAUSE THIS CAN APPLY TO MANY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING OUR OWN, WHEN IT COMES TO MESSAGING AND USING THE POWER OF MEDIA TO EDUCATE AND MAKE THINGS HAPPEN, AND INFLUENCE ULTIMATELY, RIGHT?

AND SO AS JOURNALISTS, WE TRY NOT TO INFLUENCE, BUT WE KNOW THAT THAT HAS IMPACT.

BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A REALITY SHOW LIKE THAT, HOW DID YOU GET THE NIGERIAN TELEVISION TO AIR THIS?

I KNOW THAT YOU HAD A NIGERIAN PRODUCER OR DIRECTOR, BUT HOW DID YOU GET THE OTHER SIDE TO SAY, "OKAY, USE OUR AIRWAVES"?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>>WELL, THANK YOU.

I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE IT WORKING BOTH WAYS.

BECAUSE WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN NIGERIA, WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IN NIGERIA IS TO NOT GET STUCK WITH A WONDERFUL TECHNICAL REPORT THAT SEVEN PEOPLE READ.

SO IT ACTUALLY, THE IDEA CAME UP BY TALKING TO A NIGERIAN WHO'D WRITTEN SOME BRILLIANT REPORTS FOR THE WORLD BANK, AND I ASKED HIM, "TELL ME HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK READ YOUR REPORTS?"

AND HE KIND OF, HE WAS A BIT DISMAYED AND HE SAID "SEVEN" AND HE WAS JOKING.

AND MAYBE THERE WERE PROBABLY 70, BUT EITHER WAY IN A COUNTRY OF 165 MILLION PEOPLE, THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF AUDIENCE IMPACT.

SO I, SO WE SAID TO THEM, "WHAT WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT A REALITY TELEVISION SHOW THAT ACTUALLY TOOK YOUR WORK AND, AND DRAMATIZED IT SO THAT IT SO THAT IT COULD CAPTURE THE IMAGINATION?"

THIS YOUNG MAN SAID "BRILLIANT".

NOW IT TURNED OUT HE'D BEEN EDUCATED IN ENGLAND.

SO BRILLIANT DIDN'T MEAN THE SAME THING THAT IT DOES TO US.

BUT WHAT WAS, THIS IS THE MOMENT, THE DIVINE MOMENT OF THE WHOLE PROCESS.

I SAID TO HIM, DO YOU KNOW ANYBODY IN THE NIGERIAN TELEVISION WORLD THAT WE MIGHT WORK WITH?

AND HE SAID, "WELL, IF WE WALKED OUT OF THIS HOTEL IN PORT HARCOURT," WHICH SORT OF THE HOUSTON OF THE DELTA REGION OF NIGERIA "WITH MY YOUNGEST BROTHER", HE SAID, "I'M THE MIDDLE OF THREE BROTHERS.

WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WALK A BLOCK WITHOUT BEING STOPPED MULTIPLE TIMES".

I SAID, "WHAT'S THE DEAL?"

AND HE SAID, "HE'S THE HOST OF NIGERIA'S GOT TALENT."

BOOM.

I MEAN, WE JUST, IT WAS, WE HAD THE RIGHT CONNECTION.

HE, THROUGH HIM, WE WERE ABLE TO ENGAGE JETA AMATA, THE DIRECTOR.

WE HAD A NIGERIAN SPONSORING COMMITTEE OF LEADING NIGERIAN CITIZENS, EVANGELICAL PREACHER, HAD A HUGE TELEVISION CHURCH.

WE HAD LOCAL CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATIVES AND THEY ALL KIND OF FASHIONED THIS IDEA, WHICH WAS CALLED DON IN THE CREEKS.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO ONLINE AND PROBABLY SEE A COUPLE SERIES.

SO WE STARTED WITH A GOOD NIGERIAN BASE, BUT THEN THE QUALITY OF THE SHOW MATTERED AS WELL.

IT WAS THE HIGHEST QUALITY VIDEO CONTENT ON NIGERIAN TELEVISION BECAUSE JETA AMATA IS THAT TALENTED AND HE KNEW WHAT EQUIPMENT HE HAD TO USE.

SO YOU'VE ALWAYS GOT TO BE COMPETITIVE, BUT IT TURNED OUT THAT ORIGINAL NIGERIAN PROGRAMMING IS NOT THAT PLENTIFUL.

THEY'RE CARRYING A LOT OF BUNDESTAG FOOTBALL GAMES, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

SO BUNDESLIGA FOOTBALL GAMES.

SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO BE THINKING ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME.

NOT JUST THE IDEA, BUT, ARE YOU REACHING AUDIENCE AND AUDIENCES, CITIZENS, THESE ARE, HOW DO YOU ENGAGE MORE LOCAL PEOPLE?

SO THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS AND THEY DON'T THINK ABOUT IT AS AMERICA IS HERE TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEM.

THAT'S SORT OF LIKE DAD SHOWING UP AT COLLEGE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PASS THOSE EXAMS YOURSELF.

>>AMBASSADOR, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY HUMAN RIGHTS HAS BEEN A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE US FOREIGN POLICY.

BUT HOW DO YOU INJECT THAT INTO THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE GIVEN THAT YOU WORK IN PLACES RANGING FROM COLUMBIA TO NIGERIA, TO AFGHANISTAN, THAT SOMETIME APPLY HUMAN RIGHTS IN A DIFFERENT WAY OR HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF WHAT IT MEANS?

>>WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

I THINK OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH THREE BASIC FREEDOMS AND I THINK OF DEMOCRACY THROUGH THREE BASIC FREEDOMS.

IF THESE FREEDOMS ARE IN PLACE IN A COUNTRY, THEN YOU HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO STICK HUMAN RIGHTS AND GOOD CHANCE TO STICK ELECTION RESULTS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF A DEMOCRATIC FUTURE.

AND FOR ME, IT'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT.

AND IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THOSE THREE THINGS, YOU'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE OF DEVELOPING, EXPANDING THE RIGHTS OF WHAT I CONSIDER THE SILENCED.

THE MAJORITY, WHICH IN MANY OF THESE PLACES, I WOULD SAY IT'S WOMEN, THAT'S ABOUT HALF THE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, AND YOUNG PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S ABOUT ANOTHER QUARTER OF THE POPULATION.

SO, AND IN MANY OF THESE COUNTRIES, 50% OF THE POPULATION'S UNDER 25, THOSE ARE TWO GROUPS WHO TEND TO BE DEEPLY UNDERREPRESENTED IN MOST COUNTRIES.

SO I TRY TO BUILD WITH THOSE GROUPS AS WELL, EXPAND THEIR GOVERNANCE ROLES.

AND AGAIN, AS YOU DO THAT, AS MORE WOMEN SHOW UP IN PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, IN ASSEMBLIES, IN TOWN MEETINGS, YOU'RE ACTUALLY RECOGNIZING WHAT MAY BE AN EXISTING POWER STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S NOT A GOVERNANCE POWER STRUCTURE.

AND YOUNG PEOPLE TEND TO BE SHUT OUT ALL THE TIME.

SO YOU'VE GOT TO MOBILIZE THE SILENCED MAJORITY, BUT YOU ARE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO MODERNIZE, EXPAND PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, BUT DO IT IN A CATALYTIC WAY AGAIN, BUT NOT BY SAYING YOU'RE THERE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT YOU'RE THERE TO HELP THEM PURSUE THEIR OWN SOLUTIONS.

>>AMBASSADOR.

WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES LEFT, BUT WITH YOUR LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE WOMEN WHO ARE WATCHING OR THE FAMILY OF WOMEN WHO ARE PROBABLY IN AFGHANISTAN AT THIS MOMENT ABOUT THAT LEADERSHIP ROLE THAT THEY MAY NEED TO TAKE UNDER SUCH DIFFICULT SITUATIONS AND, AND HOW YOU SEE THIS MOVING FORWARD, ANY KIND OF GLIMMER OF HOPE, ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN SAY TO THESE PEOPLE?

AND I KNOW THAT WOMEN ARE A LARGE PART OF THE ISSUE AND CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW IN A VERY SAD SITUATION, BUT, AND THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WOMEN.

>>SURE, NO IT'S A VERY DELICATE MOMENT IN AFGHANISTAN.

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, MILLIONS OF WOMEN WHO'VE TAKEN ON A MUCH GREATER ROLE, A MUCH GREATER PUBLIC ROLE IN THEIR SOCIETY THAN THEY EVER HAD BEFORE.

AND THAT IS AT SOMEWHAT, THAT IS AT RISK.

THE, TALIBAN ARE IN A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION RIGHT NOW.

THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO GOVERN REALLY.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE, THIS IS A SYSTEM IN A SOCIETY THAT BECAME DEPENDENT ON US AID.

AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO CONTINUE AT THE LEVELS THAT IT WAS AT.

SO THEY'VE REALLY GOT PROBLEMS AND IT'S ABOUT 40 MILLION PEOPLE NOW.

SO THE POPULATION'S BEEN GROWING AS WELL.

THE WOMEN ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE A CENTRAL PART OF THAT.

THE TALIBAN'S ACCEPTANCE, INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCE, WHICH IS REALLY THEIR ONLY CHANCE TO NOT FACE FAMINE AND, ALL MANNER OF GOVERNANCE COMPLICATIONS AND HUMAN DISASTERS, IS GOING TO DEPEND ON WHETHER THEY TREAT WOMEN WELL, BECAUSE ALL THE ASSISTANCE THAT COULD BE DIRECTED TO AFGHANISTAN WILL COME FROM COUNTRIES THAT ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT WOMEN AND ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN.

SO FOR THE TIME BEING, IF THERE'S A HOPEFUL GLIMMER, THEY'RE BEING MUCH, MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN THEY WERE WHEN THEY GOVERNED ALMOST AS A JOKE 25 YEARS AGO.

BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE TOUGH TO TELL.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ALL THE TALENTED PEOPLE LEAVE AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH SEWING THE SEEDS OF FUTURE DISASTER AS WELL.

SO IT'S A VERY DELICATE MOMENT.

BUT I THINK THE UNITED STATES IS BASICALLY SAYING IF THEY WANT RECOGNITION, THEN THEY HAVE TO, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THESE POPULATIONS.

AND THAT'S MORE THAN HALF THE PEOPLE.

AND THERE IS A STRONG PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR IT IN AFGHANISTAN, WHETHER IT'S A MAJORITARIAN VIEW OR NOT, IT'S HARD TO TELL.

BUT THERE ARE HUGE NUMBERS OF A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SEE WOMEN ENJOY A MORE MODERN ROLE IN THEIR COUNTRY.

>>AMBASSADOR, WHAT WE'VE TALKED MENTIONED AFGHANISTAN, SEVERAL TIMES, THIS IS OUR FINAL QUESTION, BY THE WAY, OR MAYBE JUST A COMMENT, BUT IT SEEMS WE TEND TO DWELL ON THESE EXAMPLES THAT HAVE BEEN MORE OR LESS FAILURES AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THE GOOD WORK AND SUCCESSES THAT WE'VE DONE.

IS THAT A PUBLIC RELATIONS CHALLENGE FOR THE US?

SHOULD WE BE DOING MORE TO EMPHASIZE THE SUCCESSES?

>>YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD BUT I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS MATURE ENOUGH TO HANDLE A MIXED RECORD.

AND SO WE CAN SAY THAT WE OBVIOUSLY EXPANDED THE ROLE AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN THE COUNTRY, BUT WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY GET THE FULL CULTURAL CHANGES THAT WE WANTED, THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO TAKE LONGER.

AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE STORY WE TELL RATHER THAN WE BUILT X, HUNDREDS OF SCHOOLS THAT GIRLS WILL NOW GO TO.

THAT'S IMPORTANT, BUT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO SHOW HOW DIFFICULT THE CHALLENGE IS AS WELL.

AND AGAIN, THAT WE'RE REALLY HELPING THE LOCAL PEOPLE RATHER THAN WE'RE WORKING MAGIC IN THESE PLACES.

AND SO I THINK IF WE TAKE THAT APPROACH, WE WILL BE MORE SUCCESSFUL.

WE'LL SPEND LESS, WE WON'T MILITARIZE AS MANY PLACES, AND WE'LL BE MORE RESPECTED AROUND THE WORLD FOR THIS RATHER GENEROUS ROLE THAT WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO PLAY AND VERY FEW OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE THAT TALENT OR POTENTIAL.

>>AMBASSADOR RICK BARTON.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT DISCUSSION.

WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK AND ALL YOUR INSIGHT.

>>THANK YOU SO MUCH.

IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO VISITING ORLANDO SOON.

>>AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK ON ANOTHER EPISODE OF GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.