Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Battling to Stop a Grexit; The Emotional Toll of Covering Violence; Imagine a World. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired August 13, 2015 - 14:00   ET

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

(MUSIC PLAYING)

[14:00:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST (voice-over): Tonight: a special edition of the program, where we look back at some of the highlights of the

year so far.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour in Berlin, the heart of European power. And it's here

that Angela Merkel is attempting to keep the European project on track with zero-hour talks with Greece underway to keep them from a catastrophic debt

default.

It is a time of unprecedented challenge for Europe, with war in Ukraine on its eastern border and the U.K. flirting with Brexit via

referendum. The Queen of England used her state visit to issue a warning from history on the danger of Europe divided.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH II, QUEEN OF ENGLAND: We know that division in Europe is dangerous and that we must guard against it in the West as well as in the

east of our continent. That remains a common endeavor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So at this time of unprecedented global turmoil, I've been speaking to the former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who

knows all too well about issues like Greece, the hay Putin's making and spy games on the world stage.

Secretary Albright, welcome to the program.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FMR. SECY. OF STATE: Great to be with you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So here we are in Berlin and the de facto ruler of the E.U., the leader of the E.U., Chancellor Merkel, is trying to grapple with

Greece. The American deputy secretary-general of NATO said that they're very worried, it could have bad repercussions and not just economic

repercussions.

What do you think about that?

Do you think it's worrying, the whole Greece issue?

ALBRIGHT: I think it's very worrying because of the location of Greece, the role of Greece, the whole issue about how the European Union

functions, the relationship with the European Union to NATO and all the things that are going on in the neighboring countries and the neighborhood

in the Mediterranean, in the Middle East.

So I think that it's obviously a very complicated picture as far as Greece itself and its economic issues and its relationship to Northern

Europe and all those parts. But from an American perspective, I think it is very worrisome.

AMANPOUR: Particularly, as it's been pointed out, that it was in 1947 that the Americans went overboard to keep Greece in Europe and not let it

go into the Soviet sphere.

ALBRIGHT: Absolutely. It's where President Truman worked on very hard. It was the beginning of a whole American foreign policy of

assistance, of trying to figure out how to make sure that it didn't go Communist and that it stayed part of Europe and recognized the importance

not only of Greece per se but what its symbolism really was.

And so I think it is very troubling.

AMANPOUR: Right now, Prime Minister Tsipras seems to be reaching out quite a lot to President Putin in Russia and President Putin is enjoying

playing this game as he's done quite a lot over the last few years.

[14:05:00]

AMANPOUR: Is there a worry that Russia could embrace Greece or Greece could go more into that orbit?

ALBRIGHT: I think it's very hard to figure out what Putin is up to except for one thing. I think what he wants to do is split the Western

alliance. And I think that is part of his game. And I think it's unfortunate to see that the Greeks seem to be falling for it. But the

bottom line is if they need money, the Russians don't have money.

So what is this all about? Why is it going on?

Also what makes me nervous is, I know this is what negotiations are like, but it seems very kind of high-wire act at a time that is very

important.

NATO is meeting and the European Union, the finance ministers, everybody's on this. But I do think that the Russians think that they can

get an advantage out of it and I hope that the Greeks don't give them that game.

AMANPOUR: The secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, has even suggested that NATO might bolster its nuclear deterrent in the region

because Putin has been talking a lot about bolstering their nuclear arms and talking a lot about the nuclear option.

How do you read what he's doing?

And all these years after the fall of the Wall and all the rest of it, this whole nuclear idea between Russia and NATO?

ALBRIGHT: Well, partially, I think that Putin's whole attempt here is to deal with what I think is an identity crisis that the Russians are

having. It's not easy to have been a superpower and all of a sudden not to be. And Putin has bought into this in so many ways to say that he is

returning Russia to its grandeur.

What he forgets or has never known is that Russia's future is in having a good relationship with Europe, not to just kind of be a threat.

And whatever happens always, whenever the nuclear equation comes into it, is an example of that the conventional forces are not strong enough.

That's been kind of the story throughout the Cold War.

I think it's dangerous. But I do think that what we have to remember is what NATO is doing is practicing deterrence. NATO did not start this.

Putin started it by doing something completely illegal in -- since the end of the Second World War -- of going into a country and seizing its

territory.

So I used to say this generally about the -- Saddam Hussein, is how did the war start?

It started where, as he said, when the other guy hit me back. So I think we have to be very careful but to remember that what NATO is doing is

deterrence.

AMANPOUR: You have said recently that the world's in a mess, that it is the most combustible that you remember in your lifetime or in recent

decades.

How bad is it?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I know that -- and we talked a little bit about Russia before -- clearly during the Cold War it was dangerous. There were

nuclear missiles facing each other, but in a weird way, there were kind of rules of the game. We were -- signed various treaties. There were

rational actors involved in having discussions. There were meetings.

What has happened now is there are more players in it than there are what we call non-state actors that are not part of the system. We don't

exactly know how to deal with them. The -- a lot of national institutions don't function very well.

And the international structure, whether you're talking about the European Union or the United Nations, we are a little bit kind of surprised

and out of control in terms of the forces that have been let loose.

So I think we're in a very different era. We need to figure out how to have national and international governance.

And I have stolen this statement from somebody, but it works so well, about what's going on: given what's happening in technology, that people

are talking to their governments on 21st century technology; the governments hear them on 20th century technology and are providing 19th

century responses.

And there is no confidence in the institutions that exist, whether they are -- whether the governments of countries deliver, whether their

people or whether the international system can come to some agreement in dealing with so many -- a real variety of issues, whether they're social,

economic, political and environmental.

AMANPOUR: The French government has just called in the American ambassador in Paris to complain very loudly about WikiLeaks reports that

this current French president and his two predecessors were regularly spied upon by the United States, including their personal cellphones.

I mean, really?

Does the U.S. really need to be doing that?

And of course we had the whole scandal with Angela Merkel and her being spied upon.

ALBRIGHT: I think that -- I have a real trouble with --

[14:10:00]

ALBRIGHT: -- this particular issue because, the truth of the matter is, everybody is spying on everybody. And there is a great deal of

hypocrisy around this. I think that there is a need to share information, especially as we talk about what the various threats are out there.

But I find it passing strange that some of these countries get into such an uproar over things that they do themselves.

AMANPOUR: Even personal cellphones of the leaders?

I mean, can you imagine President Obama's being spied upon?

Was President Clinton spied upon?

ALBRIGHT: I have no idea. But I think that the bottom line is that it is -- I think that people do do things that you wish they didn't. I

think that -- but I do think that everybody spies on everybody.

And the bottom line is trying to figure out what the level is and why and whether -- one of the hardest parts I find at the moment, Christiane,

is that people say -- and there's such ambiguity in everything.

People put out an incredible amount of information about themselves and then they're concerned when people know something about them.

Or if some horrible event happens, such as a terrorist attack and then they say, why didn't your government know about this?

So I think we are very unclear about privacy, secrecy, capability, who does what to whom and I think we need to develop some new rules. But I do

think there is a great deal of hypocrisy going on.

AMANPOUR: Didn't you discover you were spied upon when you were secretary of state?

ALBRIGHT: What they found was that the -- a room on the 7th floor of the State Department near the office of the secretary of state was being

bugged by Russians. There was a Russian man sitting outside, actually listening to us.

AMANPOUR: Sitting outside where?

ALBRIGHT: Outside the State Department somewhere. They found him. Then we did what you normally do when you find something like you do, a

demarche and tell Moscow you shouldn't do this. But I think you know that I have my pin diplomacy. So the next time I met with the Russians, I wore

a very large bug pin and they knew exactly what I was saying.

AMANPOUR: And did it stop?

ALBRIGHT: Presumably.

(LAUGHTER)

AMANPOUR: Secretary Albright, thank you very much indeed.

ALBRIGHT: Great. Thank you very much.

And when we return, as ever, it is the journalists and the war photographers who continue to document these intractable issues and we

speak to one of the best and the bravest, Heidi Levine, next.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program and our special edition.

Documenting war and upheaval, of course, is what journalists have done for generations and today in Berlin the American war photographer Heidi

Levine is being awarded for some the work she's been able to do in some of the most dangerous and difficult circumstances.

Based in Jerusalem, Levine is the recipient of the International Women's Media Foundation's Anja Niedringhaus Award. She was the renowned

German photographer who was killed in an ambush in Afghanistan last year while covering the elections.

Just before the ceremony, I sat down with Heidi Levine and I asked her about Anja's legacy and about this prize that she says she accepts with

pride but also with sadness.

Heidi, welcome to the program.

HEIDI LEVINE, PHOTOJOURNALIST: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.

AMANPOUR: It must be somewhat bittersweet to win this award for Anja Niedringhaus, given that she was killed in the field of battle.

How do you feel about this moment?

LEVINE: Well, as you can imagine, I'm overwhelmed with emotion. It also really makes you reflect back on your own life. But you have to

understand Anja was not just my colleague, she was my friend and, as much as I'm honored, I also, in many ways, wish that she was with us and the

circumstances were different.

AMANPOUR: I first met her in Sarajevo when she was really starting her career -- well, I was sort of starting my career. But you've won this

award for the remarkable pictures that you took in Gaza during the war last year.

Tell me about the portrait of the mother. It's a really powerful image.

LEVINE: It just looked like her whole life went blank.

AMANPOUR: She looks in that portrait like she's lost everything and she doesn't understand.

LEVINE: Yes, almost like a ghost in a sense.

AMANPOUR: What do you feel you do this for?

What motivates you to go out into this danger?

LEVINE: I want to make a difference. I know that many people accuse journalists who cover conflict as being adrenaline junkies but I think our

real addiction is to wanting to make a difference.

AMANPOUR: When you saw the two boys laid out, obviously you had covered what had happened and there they were and it was their funeral,

that was a very powerful image. What do you want people to take away from that war?

LEVINE: I want people to be able to connect my pictures. I mean, there are a lot of pictures that I photograph that will never be published

because they're too graphic. But I still do photograph those pictures because I believe that it's important evidence, documents -- but what I

really want is people to be able to look and not turn away, you know.

I once got a phone call from a woman in Hawaii who saw the cover of an Iraqi girl, a refugee girl that I photographed in Jordan and it appeared on

the cover of "Amnesty International."

And this woman made the effort to find my phone number. She called me and said, "This child really reminds me of my granddaughter and I want to

help. So you tell me how I can send money to her."

AMANPOUR: What about, then, what people say about journalists, you know, not getting too close to the story, not getting too involved?

Is that even possible when you, when we see the horrors that we see?

LEVINE: You know, I know that some of my colleagues, maybe other people may feel that I'm a bit too emotional but I think I'm human.

And like in Gaza, when a young child was brought into the hospital, who had been wounded, and he was even more hysterical because they had been

separated from his family, I put my camera down and I held his hand and I tried to calm him down so that the doctors could even examine him and find

out how they could treat him.

And you know what? That could be my kid, having -- like how could you not do that? So --

AMANPOUR: You have three kids.

How does being a mother affect what you do?

And we all have that dilemma as we go into these very dangerous zones.

How specifically has it affected you?

LEVINE: I know that my children have often felt that the conflict is pulling their mother away from them and there are times that I have felt

that I haven't been the best mother or -- and at times I haven't been the best photographer because I have to choose and sometimes compromise --

[14:20:00]

LEVINE: -- and it's not the right time, especially, to go into a dangerous situation and stress my children out even more when they're

taking final exams or -- but they're very supportive and very proud and I think I also taught them a lot. And you know, but it's technology; it's

also not very easy.

My kids have even called me in the middle of a gun battle to ask me how to make spaghetti when they were young. Now I -- the situation is, I

think, even harder because, now that they're older, they're more aware and they're more scared. When I went to Syria, my son told me, OK. I'll

support you emotionally to go to Syria. However, you have two weeks.

And my daughter was also supposed to get married that year. And she said I'll just -- you can't get killed and miss my wedding. And you know,

I think I held myself back and I didn't push the same way as I did when I was in Libya because wherever I go, you know, my kids are with me.

And I think actually they're a great force behind me because why am I doing this?

I want their generation to have the possibility to live in peace.

AMANPOUR: Some of the other photographs that won you this courage award is this amazing picture of these boys, rushing through this

devastated landscape, obviously trying to get away from another explosion.

And then this picture of the young girl with shrapnel all over her face, we see that. We see what you're able to document on a very human

level. And I wonder what you think of the fact that we can't really show that in Syria because of ISIS, because the government won't let us in.

What do you think is the impact of the fact that we're not there in Syria?

LEVINE: It's frustrating that we are -- we're not able to be there. We're not able to impact an audience. We're not able to make people --

make governments react and put an end to this.

AMANPOUR: Is there anything that gives you hope and makes you optimistic?

LEVINE: Absolutely, because if I didn't have any hope, I wouldn't be able to do what I do. There is this resilience. The -- Rawya, the girl in

one of my winning photographs, her whole face was wounded with shrapnel and I just went back to her about -- less than -- about 10 days ago because I

really wanted to see how she is now.

And her -- you know, by surprise, her face looks beautiful and those scars and wounds have healed. But the memories of the war haven't. So,

yes, somehow I do believe and have hope.

AMANPOUR: Heidi Levine, thank you very much.

LEVINE: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And after a break, imagine a world during the lifetime of the first female war photographer who paved the way for our generation.

But first, as Madeleine Albright just said, the world is a mess and more combustible than ever. And sometimes the overload of bad news and

constant information can get too much. Sometimes you might just wish you could kill the Internet.

Well, now you can. A hotel here in Germany has installed a silver switch next to the beds of its luxury rooms. It blocks wireless Internet

signals by activating a copper grid in the walls. And hotels in other cities are considering doing the same, so that for a few hours, at least,

the 21st century cannot reach you.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, imagine a world where the horrors of war went undocumented. Tonight we celebrate the legacy of one of the first

photographers who brought the reality of conflict back home, a woman, one of the first of her ilk, to work and die on the front lines.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): In the early 20th century, few photographers went to the trenches, but that all changed during the Spanish Civil War,

when scores of them went on to document the great ideological struggle of the time.

The most famous, Robert Capa, is known for shots like this, the iconic image called "Death of a Loyalist Militiaman." He's now hailed as the

father of modern photojournalism.

But less well known is Capa's cohort, Gerda Taro, remembered for years as just his partner and lover. She is now finally getting recognition as

the first woman to take her camera to the trenches.

Taro was born Jewish here in Germany. She fled the Nazis in the 1930s and she settled in Paris where she met a young Hungarian photographer.

Together they created a fictional American, Robert Capa, and went to Spain, both publishing under that name.

Only later did she assume her own pseudonym, Taro, earning a reputation for taking risks to get the most dramatic pictures she could.

Taro's was an all-too-brief career. She was killed in Spain at the age of 26 and Capa himself was killed years later, coverage the war in

Indochina. But like Capa, Taro's legacy, the fearless commitment to telling a story at great personal risk, as we've seen, inspires the men and

the women in her wake.

And that's it for our special edition of this program and remember you can always watch the whole show online. And you can follow me on Facebook

and Twitter. Thank you for watching and good night from Berlin.

END