Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Deadline Looms for Iran Nuclear Talks; Reviving the Minsk Accord; Imagine a World

Aired November 20, 2014 - 14:00   ET

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

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST (voice-over): Tonight: the clock is ticking towards the deadline for an Iranian nuclear deal. Can something be

salvaged? Veteran American diplomat Frank Wisner will join me live.

Plus: Putin's propaganda war. The former prime minister, Mikhail Kasyanov tells me he may be winning that battle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKHAIL KASYANOV, FORMER RUSSIAN PM: People foolished (sic) by state propaganda. All media under full control of Mr. Putin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And we get the opposing view from a Kremlin funded media, "Russia Today."

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.

For the past year, the world has settled into something of a new reality around Iran's nuclear program, a landmark interim deal with world

powers has kept everyone doing jaw, jaw rather than war, war. And all those involved want to keep up this momentum. They actually want to turn

it into a permanent agreement by the deadline, which is next Monday.

But after a week of frantic negotiation and talks in several world capitals, all signs indicate there won't be a breakthrough in the coming

days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes, we do want to get an agreement but it's not just any agreement.

MOHAMMED JAVAD ZARIF, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): The Islamic Republic of Iran is looking for a resolution, looking for a

solution. However, Iran is unwilling to jeopardize its national welfare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And so diplomats say another extension is likely, a sign that while major differences exist negotiators still think a historic and

game-changing deal is possible.

But outside the room, away from the negotiating table, can any deal be salvaged from the slings and arrows of its many, many detractors?

Let's ask veteran American diplomat, Frank Wisner. He served as a top Defense Department official and he's been ambassador to Egypt and India,

among other countries.

Frank Wisner, welcome to the program.

FRANK WISNER, FORMER U.S. DIPLOMAT: Thank you. Pleased to be with you.

AMANPOUR: So you've been following this very, very carefully. You engage with the Iranian officials on what's called track 2 diplomacy.

What do you think? Is it possible to seal a permanent deal with just a few days to go?

WISNER: I wish I knew the answer to that. I don't possess a crystal ball. But I know that both sides are negotiating very seriously. The

negotiator's extremely skillful. They've made progress on a number of vitally important points.

So I'm going to keep my fingers crossed because the alternative is very difficult for all of us.

AMANPOUR: Well, so let me then push you on that, because there are some who say, well, actually the alternative would be to dump what they

characterize as a bad deal.

May I play you a little bit of an interview with the Israeli minister of intelligence?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YUVAL STEINITZ, ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE MINISTER: Unfortunately, what is now on the table is not a good deal but a choice between a bad deal and no

deal with the hope that in the future, the pressure on Iran will force the Iranian to make significant concessions and to agree to a much better deal

in the near future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Frank Wisner, the Israeli government is known to be against the current negotiations.

What do you think?

Is there value in keeping up this momentum or does there come a point of diminishing returns?

WISNER: Well, I think there is enormous value in keeping up the momentum and seeing if we can get a deal.

If we don't get a deal, we have to be concerned about the effects. We would lose the ability to follow Iran's nuclear preparations, the IAEA

would be less engaged. We'd have to worry as well about what would come apart between us and Iran if there was no trust resulting from an

agreement.

And that would affect vital American interests throughout the Middle East, where there is, for the moment, a coincidence of views between

ourselves and Iran.

And third, if we walked away from the deal or it didn't work for whatever reasons, it's going to be increasingly difficult to maintain the

sanctions regimes. So I know the negotiators are aware of these risks and it's worth really putting everything possible into the effort to get it.

AMANPOUR: Now we mentioned that you had been ambassador in many places, including some of the vital areas of that region.

What kind of consequential effect could an Iran-U.S.-world power deal on the nuclear issue for the greater stability of the region?

WISNER: Well, it would be a deal between the P5+1, the permanent members, Security Council, Germany and Iran, would deal with one of the

most vexing issues in the global non-proliferation issue. We'd be able to say a nuclear threat has been managed. That's important.

But I think equally the region would benefit enormously from a deescalation of tensions between the United States and Iran and at this

point in time given the coincidence in interests in seeing a stable Afghanistan, seeing a recovering Iraq, a defeated ISIS, a peaceful or a

negotiated way out of the Syrian crisis, all of these would be reinforced if there was political cooperation based on the agreement nuclear question.

AMANPOUR: Now obviously President Obama, we know, sent a letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, talking precisely about

this, the possibility of engaging in some kind of cooperative way against ISIS.

Let me ask you what you think, having known Egypt so well, the Egyptian militants have now pledged their loyalty and have allied

themselves with ISIS.

How dangerous is it that this seems to be gathering momentum, this coalition of ISIS?

WISNER: Well, it is obviously dangerous. These are brutal people in a very brutal cause. And they need -- they must be defeated. It's

interesting that we and Iran have exactly the same objective. Both of us want to put paid to ISIS and make certain that that threat doesn't

continue.

But it's going to take more than just the United States and Iran, Christiane, as I'm sure you appreciate. But a coalition of regional

powers, the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Turks, together with ourselves and Iran, to contain the ISIS threat and then build up strength inside of Iraq

to defeat it on the battlefield.

AMANPOUR: Let's get back now to this very, very important deal that's being hammered out. There is a likelihood, according to various diplomats

and spokespeople, that if a final agreement isn't reached by Monday, they would try to extend the deadline.

We've already had one extension since the summer. But right now both sides are kind of blaming the other. The United States says, well, it's up

to Iran. They have to decide. The Supreme Leader has to decide.

And the U.S. says, well, they're not giving enough in terms of numbers of centrifuges and how much enrichment can happen.

Iran says, well, we're not being told the precise timetable for lifting sanctions. You know, it seems like same old-same old all over

again.

WISNER: Christiane, I believe you've seen enough negotiations to know that this one follows a similar pattern . You go down to the last minutes;

both sides look like they can't reach agreement and then maybe we'll be lucky and there will be one.

I believe it's possible. I believe substantial progress has been made on issues of great importance. The facilities in Fordo, Arak; I also

believe that there has been some progress even on the tricky issue of enrichment and the number of centrifuges. There remains a gap on the

question of sanctions. That appears to be the case, too.

I don't want to pretend I know all the details; I don't. They're in the hands of the negotiators. But I'd like to think that the -- there is a

gap that could be bridged. And it's worth putting everything into it.

AMANPOUR: You have spoken to Iranians. As I said, you conduct what's known as a track 2 diplomacy.

What do they say about public opinion in Iran for this?

Is the nation prepared for a deal?

WISNER: Iran, whether its leaders or the public at large, would like to see a deal. There isn't any doubt in my mind. Iran does not need a

period of renewed tension. Iran would like to see a lifting of sanctions and an opening of Iran to international commerce, investment and technology

flows.

Iranians are concerned about their future and the economics of a new regime of trust with the West would be absolutely invaluable.

But at the same time, we have to recognize and appreciate the Iranians, like ourselves, are not going to sign up for a deal that

humiliates them or endangers their national security. They're going to be very careful. The trick before the negotiators is to find that delicate

point, where our security objectives are met, their security objectives are met and the new pattern of cooperation becomes possible.

AMANPOUR: Ambassador Frank Wisner, thank you very much indeed for your insights on this incredibly important issue. Thank you so much.

And when we come back, Russia's policy in Ukraine and the propaganda war that surrounds it. A former Russian prime minister and a "Russia

Today" anchor talk Russia media matters after this.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is arriving in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, to try to rescue the dying Minsk Accord, which was supposed to end the war

with Russia in Eastern Ukraine.

Since it was signed in September, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe says that it's been breached some 2.5 thousand times

and there have been more than 4,000 deaths since April, according to the United Nations.

As the deadly battle unfolds on the ground, a heated propaganda war is also being waged. Russia has recently launched its, quote, "Sputnik

offensive," a new state-run international media outlet named after the Soviet space program. This follows long-time Kremlin funded "Russia Today"

and other state-run TV.

Moscow is clearly upping the ante on the airwaves in an attempt to control the message.

But what President Putin may see as an image problem, the rest of the world may view as weaponizing the Fourth Estate.

We sought opposing views on these important issues from former prime minister of Russia Mikhail Kasyanov and from Moscow, "RT" host of "In the

Now," Anissa Naouai.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Mr. Kasyanov, Anissa Naouai in Moscow, thank you both very much indeed for joining me.

Let me first ask you, Mikhail Kasyanov, Mr. Putin, President Putin seems to believe that Russia has an image problem and wants to change the

way Russia is portrayed around the West of the world.

It is an image problem or is there a problem, a policy problem?

KASYANOV: That's a deep problem of the policy. The problem of Mr. Putin, because Mr. Putin believes that such a policy he pursues internally

and externally, that's normality in 21st century, which is absolutely not.

And therefore he is sometimes even angry on the Western society, why the Western society doesn't accept his regime as normal one. Therefore

that's a problem of mentality rather than of image.

AMANPOUR: Anissa, let me ask you, do you feel that "Russia Today" and other state-sponsored media is specifically designed to counter what your

government, your president believes is a bad image problem, an unfair shake in the West?

ANISSA NAOUAI, "RT" ANCHOR: Just to be clear he's not my president. I'm an American. He's the Russian president. And "Russia Today" airs to a

global audience. So it's not really watched in Russia; it's in English. Many people across Russia don't really turn to "Russia Today" to get their

news.

And I certainly don't represent the Russian media as a whole. I represent "RT" and more so myself.

But I think specifically about "RT" -- because it's been in the media quite a lot recently, to focus on that -- I think the thing about "RT"

which is misunderstood by a lot of people -- not our viewers, because they know very well -- is that we have nothing to hide.

People know where our funding comes from. We're "Russia Today." We're funded by the Kremlin, despite the sort of addressing by foreign

media that it's some kind of revelation of investigative journalists.

Our budget is completely open. It's completely transparent, even though it's misquoted very often.

And so it's interesting to us that these kind of questions are asked by the mainstream media, by a channel like CNN, who has journalists that

have left the channel because documentaries on Bahrain haven't been run like "iRevolution" a couple of years ago, which air programs like "Eye on

Georgia," "Eye on Kazakhstan," "Eye on Lebanon," which are essentially government sponsored programs. And that's barely, very, very secretly

disclosed to the audience.

You really have to go on the site and dig for it to find that these are not sort of just basic, unbiased reporting on the ground. These are

government sponsored programs aired on television.

So it's interesting to have questions asked of us, staff at "RT," how do we feel about kind of representing the Russian government. Our viewers

know that we're funded by the Kremlin. They watch "RT" with this in mind.

And this is why we're getting viewers. Because if you actually turn on "RT," you'll see that we cite the Ukrainian government. We cite NATO.

We cite the State Department. We cite the American side. Yes, of course, we also cite the Russian perspective and of course maybe even more so

because that's the perspective that we feel is being sidelined.

AMANPOUR: For months and months and months now, Russians and Russian state media and Kremlin funded media, such as yourselves, have portrayed

Ukraine as sort of phobic to pro-Russian separatists or minorities there as neo-Nazis, fascists who just want to abuse and assault them.

And that has appeared on your channel. And President Putin has said it several times.

My question obviously is what is the point of that?

And let me first just play this piece of an interview from President Putin, not to your channel, but he said it before to a German channel just

this weekend.

(OFF MIKE COMMENTS)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): We're truly concerned wish to start ethnic cleansing may soon arise there. We're

afraid that the Ukraine will become immersed in neo-Nazism. You can see people wearing swastikas on their sleeves and the SS insignia on the

helmets of some units fighting in the Eastern Ukraine at the moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And of course, you all remember the big -- the big sort of billboards that Russian television and media put up during the Crimea

referendum, equating, you know, Russia -- or rather saying the choice is Russia or neo-Nazism.

So I guess, Anissa, my point to you is, why go to such efforts to brand Ukraine as such when the polling data itself says that less than 2

percent of the people actually voted for any kind of far right group?

NAOUAI: I think what you're trying to say is that it's perhaps being exaggerated, this threat of neo-Nazis, which perhaps is true. I'm not

Russian. The Russian people lost almost 30 million people fighting fascism during the Second World War.

Who am I to say that this is a made-up threat?

There's clear documentation, Christiane, which obviously you have access to, obviously your audience, our audience has access to. There are

people that walk through the streets of Kiev with swastikas on. There are -- there is this trend of tying in this kind of glorification of Nazism

with the anti-Russian sentiment that is trying to be up in the West.

And there's -- also, I think what Putin was referring to there was not so much the Nazi trends, but the civilians being killed.

AMANPOUR: I'm talking about the specific characterization of a policy of fascism and neo-Nazism, which your president -- or rather the Russian

president -- and the foreign minister and other senior officials keep repeating.

So let me turn to Mr. Kasyanov, who used to be for -- prime minister there.

Is there, do you believe -- Anissa admitted there might be exaggeration.

Is it more than exaggeration?

And as such, is it a fair interpretation of what's going on and what are the consequences?

KASYANOV: I will say this, not exaggeration, a deliberate policy of Mr. Putin. And just all these reasons and arguments Mr. Putin provides,

they're simply bizarre.

How --

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: It's designed for something, Mr. Kasyanov. What is it designed to do?

KASYANOV: Yes, exactly. Just Mr. Putin thinks just all people just simply just idiots all over the world. Just you have just mentioned nice

figures, just less than 2 percent voted for far right people, politicians in Ukraine.

And both the reason for annexation for Crimea, what the reason of acceleration of this military conflict in the Eastern Ukraine?

That is, as you said, correctly, that some kind of imagination that there is a danger for Russian-speaking people and for just pressing them

and just putting them in a just bad position.

AMANPOUR: How --

KASYANOV: It's absolutely a lie.

AMANPOUR: -- how successful, though, has Anissa's channel been and other Kremlin sponsored, state funded media in Russia?

KASYANOV: In Russia, this absolutely successful. People foolished (sic) by state propaganda. All media under full control of Mr. Putin and

this enhanced adoration by him and his team. And in fact this popular social -- sociological poll for 85 percent of support of Putin's policy in

Ukraine, that is a result of -- that's the result of this propaganda.

AMANPOUR: All of this really is to ask both of you or anybody whether we know what President Putin wants.

Anissa, do we know what President Putin wants? There was a cease-fire agreed in Minsk; there was an agreement. It's been violated. There are

Russian forces moving again into Eastern Ukraine.

What does President Putin want?

What do you think he wants?

NAOUAI: I think President Putin has made it very clear to both Russia and to the international community that what he wants is for Russia to be

respected, mutually respected on an equal playing base and that he wants dialogue to prevail.

AMANPOUR: What's his aim?

KASYANOV: The aim is now --

AMANPOUR: The end game?

KASYANOV: -- just to strengthen his support inside Russia.

To keep power for authoritarian regime , it's important always to have external enemy and quick victories. Georgia was one victory, which helped

him to establish his own strengthening inside Russia. Now just Ukraine.

And secondly, he, of course, wants to -- the West to accept his regime as normal.

AMANPOUR: Anissa, Mikhail Kasyanov, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

KASYANOV: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Now amid all these tensions in Europe and beyond, one man has answered the call to fight back. Nineties comic book hero Captain Euro

has been given a new lease on life. Here he is, using the power of a sanctioned super kick in a dual of titans with President Putin. But he's

also fighting the gathering tide of euroscepticism and it may be mission accomplished in Britain where the far right U.K. Independence Party, which

wants Britain to leave Europe, seems to have created a backlash that's led to the highest support for the E.U. in decades here.

And after a break, we remember a legendary movie director, whose Oscar nominated films have pointed a spotlight on historic events, like the ones

we're living in. Paying tribute to the vision of Mike Nichols and his inimitable take on society -- right after this.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, the word "iconic" is bandied around often and only rarely is it deserved. But some movies become such classics

that the plots and images are truly memorable. Imagine a world without Oscar-winning film "The Graduate," whose director, Mike Nichols, died aged

83. He made a star of Dustin Hoffman by casting him as the young student whose head is turned by an older woman, Mrs. Robinson, played by Anne

Bancroft.

And who can forget this scene?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN BRADDOCK: For God's sake, Mrs. Robinson. Here we are; you got me into your house. You've given me a drink. You put on music, now you start

opening up your personal life to me and tell me your husband won't be home for hours.

MRS. ROBINSON: So?

BEN BRADDOCK: Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And yes, she was. And for that and all his films and stage work, Mike Nichols is one of only 12 EGOTs. That means he won an Emmy, a

Grammy, an Oscar and a Tony for all his work. He took on challenging issues and made them so accessible, like "Silkwood" with Meryl Streep,

playing a whistleblower at a nuclear plant in the United States.

Or this anthem to female empowerment, and no shoulder pads on Melanie Griffith in "Working Girl." And "Charlie Wilson's War," the story of how

the U.S. ended up in Afghanistan in the first place.

The director was married to ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer. Today ABC News president James Goldston paid tribute.

"In a triumphant career that spanned over six decades, Mike created some of the most iconic works of American film, television and theater."

And we couldn't agree more.

That's it for our program tonight. Remember you can always watch our show at amanpour.com, and follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Thanks for

watching tonight and goodbye from London.

END