Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Extreme Heat In Europe; Interview With Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ); Interview With Ukrainian Presidential Adviser Igor Zhovkva; Interview With "The Sex Lives Of African Women" Author, Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 18, 2022 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
SARA SIDNER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR.
Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER (voice-over): Red alert, the first ever extreme heat warning in the U.K. and wildfires are raging across Europe. We dig into the data with
climate expert Oxford Professor Myles Allen.
Then:
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): It is about the transfer of secret information to the enemy and other facts of
cooperation with the Russian special services.
SIDNER: Zelenskyy investigates treason inside his government, as Russia keeps pounding Ukraine. I'm joined by the president's adviser Igor Zhovkva.
Plus:
REP. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-NJ): A lot of these voters in the middle who feel like they just don't have a voice right now, they have no power.
SIDNER: Congressman Tom Malinowski talks to Walter Isaacson about voting, democracy, and why he believes a viable third party's coming.
Then:
NANA DARKOA SEKYIAMAH, AUTHOR, "THE SEX LIVES OF AFRICAN WOMEN": People generally felt they were not told anything about sex growing up. They had
to figure it out for themselves.
SIDNER: "The Sex Lives of African Women," a new book, is challenging taboos around sex .We bring you a conversation with its author, Nana Darkoa
Sekyiamah.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Sara Sidner in London, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The British government has some advice today that could apply to many parts of Europe and the world: Don't go anywhere and don't do anything. The
unusual advice is because, for the first time ever, the U.K. is under a red alert warning for extreme heat. Temperatures could reach a record 41
degrees Celsius.
That's 105 degrees Fahrenheit here, the dangerous heat wreaking havoc all over. Europe, France, Spain, and Greece are battling raging wildfires and
hundreds of deaths are being blamed on the soaring temperatures.
Experts say climate change is making heat waves like this one more frequent and more intense. And the U.N. secretary-general put it bluntly, saying
humanity is facing collective suicide over the climate crisis.
Oxford University Professor Myles Allen knows this all too well. He's contributed to several of the IPCC U.N. reports on climate change. And he's
a wizard at climate modeling.
Now, Professor Allen is going to join us in just a bit.
But we are first going to speak with Igor Zhovkva, who is basically here as a representative of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine. He is president -- he's
the president's chief diplomatic adviser, and he joins me now from Kyiv.
There are so many things that are going on with Ukraine right now. And one of the big pieces of news, besides the fact that Russia is advancing
further and further into the Donbass region, is this idea that the president has put out there's investigations of some of his top officials
for potential treason.
Can you tell us exactly what it is that was treasonous or what some of the details of this investigation are as to what people actually have done?
IGOR ZHOVKVA, CHIEF DIPLOMATIC ADVISER TO UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Well, thank you for having me.
First of all, I definitely cannot tell you many details, since the investigation is going on. What just president did yesterday was his decree
on removing the chief security service guy from the office. And, tomorrow, they made the decision of the Parliament of Ukraine, not from the other,
because this is the Parliament who fires the state officials in this case.
So they make it official. And they make the decision of the Parliament. And the president just made the appeal to the Parliament. But now the main
reason why he made this decision is the improper performance of his duties at the wartime. So, like you might understand, this is a very serious
decision.
[13:05:06]
And, definitely, the Parliament will tomorrow make the final decision.
SIDNER: I do want to ask you quickly, I mean, how many people are being accused of this? I hear that it's not just these top officials, but that it
is many people, many officials who are in areas that Russia has already taken control of. What are the issues there when it comes to Ukrainian
officials being accused now of treason? What caused this?
ZHOVKVA: Right you are.
You might know the president started traveling across Ukraine, because he was not traveling when the war and the open war started in February. But,
recently, he started to travel across the regions who are now at the most severe contraction with the Russian armed forces.
And, definitely, if you're talking about security service of Ukraine, they are potential -- and their behavior is no less important at wartime than
the performance of the armed forces of Ukraine. And there were several decision made to remove from the office the regional director of the
security service in Ukraine.
It was in the Kherson region, which is -- you might know is occupied now by Russian Federation. It was from Kharkiv region, the region which is close
to the hitting point in Donbass, and you know Russia is still trying to make offensive to Kharkiv and to Kharkiv region, though Ukrainian armed
forces are doing quite good in withstanding those acts of aggression.
So those two regional directors were removed earlier by the president. And, definitely, this has very serious implications on the activity of the
security service in Ukraine.
SIDNER: Is it because these officials are accused of sort of allowing Russia to do what it's doing and cooperating with the Russian officials as
they try to make parts of Ukraine part of Russia again, or is it something else?
ZHOVKVA: Well, we will see the results of the investigation.
Obviously, there will be an investigation, and maybe possible some further actions, but, definitely, you might see, as you know, the situation was
going on in the south of Ukraine in the Kherson oblast. And, unfortunately, the situation now there is not that good.
Now Ukraine has to make the counteroffensive in the south of Ukraine in order to get back the territories, the same as about the situation of
Kharkiv. I mean, it is now controlled by Ukraine. But, unfortunately, the attacks from Russian Federation are going on. The Kharkiv is being shelled
practically every day, lots of casualties. And civilians are dying or being wounded.
So, obviously, this is a serious situation, which cannot be left as it is.
SIDNER: You're talking about some of the horrors of war that are continuing to happen in Ukraine.
When I was there, the offensive was moving further and further into the east and the south. Can you talk to me about what kind of confidence that
you have and other officials have that not only can Ukraine hold Russia off, being able to go into -- deeper into territory, but that it can
actually get some of those territories back and reclaim them?
What kind of confidence do you have that that is a possibility now?
ZHOVKVA: This is very possible, providing that we have enough supply of heavy weapon from our partners, including from the U.K., including from the
U.S., during members of the European Union.
And that's where we have the dynamics which is positive, but the tempo, the speed of delivery of heavy weaponry, I mean MLRS, I mean artillery systems,
I mean armored vehicles and tanks, so this tempo of delivering those weapons is not enough.
And if the hope or the Western community wants Ukraine to have a counteroffensive, wants Ukraine, those territories to be liberated, so, if
the Western community is really serious about this, they have to double or triple their efforts, because, for instance, in Donbass, the Russian armed
forces are outnumbering us in men personnel, in equipment, in artillery, in MLRS, in everything.
We know how to fight the Russians. Our armed forces know how to fight the Russians. They know how to fight the mortar war with Russia. But
in order to have the successes, in order to have counteroffensives, in order those territories to be back to Ukraine, we need weapons, weapons and
weapons.
SIDNER: Mr. Zhovkva, I am curious to know two things.
One, what kind of impact have the weapons coming from the Western nations like the U.K. had on the fight already? I mean, have they made a
difference? And, two -- and this is a harder thing to discuss, but is there any discussion within your leadership as to whether or not Ukraine can
sustain this and whether or not some sort of diplomatic or negotiation needs to go forward with Russia to try and finally end this war that is now
into -- going into its fifth month?
[13:10:15]
ZHOVKVA: Well, currently, the only negotiation can take place on the battlefield, because you know Russia was never serious about real
negotiations.
The beginning of the negotiations -- and you will remember we had several rounds of negotiations. It was on different levels. We formed the
delegation. We had the rounds on the level of foreign ministers, but they were never serious, because they were not listening to Ukrainian position,
they were not listening to Ukrainian claims. They only were demanding their position, drawing their red lines, and making any possible settlement only
on their conditions, which cannot be the case for Ukraine.
So, that is why, today, we will be fighting. We will be trying to get back the territories. And, again, that's where the help of Western community is
further needed, because those latest deliveries of weaponry, including from the U.K., have shown real progress on the battlefield -- I mean, or on the
sea, because, besides what weaponry I mentioned, we also need anti-ship missiles, as well as we have the need in anti-air defense system or anti-
missile defense system.
So, provided that, these dynamics would be the same as now, but with a greater speed, two or three times quicker. The decision process has been
much more quicker. The allocation of weapons have to take place much more quickly. Provided that this tempo is taking place as the same as now or
even quicker, we have all the chances to have further advances for the battlefield.
SIDNER: So, I...
ZHOVKVA: And the prerequisite for any peace negotiations will be two things, withdrawal of Russian forces at least to the line of 24th of
February and immediate cease-fire. Those are two prerequisites when we can talk about real serious negotiations with Russia.
SIDNER: OK.
And I will talk to you about that. You have made very clear appeal to the U.S., U.K. and to Western nations that you want more weapons, and you want
them at a faster pace, and that that would make a huge difference. And I know that Ukraine has been asking for weapons for a very long time.
And there is some resistance on the part of some of these countries. On the other hand, when it comes to negotiations, you said there are a couple of
things that have to happen before, right?
So, at this point in time, is there absolutely no room for negotiations?
ZHOVKVA: Well, I have to ask you, what will be the topics for negotiations?
I mean, if you start -- if you continue to shell the country, if, day and night, every hour, you shell this or that city, you shell the civilian
objects, like it happened just recently in the city of Vinnytsia or previously in the city of Kremenchuk, where no military objects were
supported, just the civilian buildings, shopping malls or -- I don't know, civilian buildings, and the civilians were killed.
So how can you talk, how can you possibly have the peaceful negotiations under the missile attacks? So, again, coming back to what I told you,
immediate withdrawal and immediate cease-fire, because during negotiations, you usually don't fire at each other. You talk.
That was not happening through all the entire 45 days of war.
SIDNER: Right. There would be a cease-fire in order for you to be able to talk. It is impossible to talk when there are missiles being fired at your
civilians in particular.
I want to lastly ask you this. There has been some reporting about what is happening in the areas that Russia does now control. Can you give me a
sense of what is happening to Ukrainian citizens who are in these areas that Russia has taken over? Are they being told that they need to become
citizens of Russia? Are they being harassed? What is happening in those areas that you know of?
ZHOVKVA: Well, everything you mentioned.
I mean, they are forcefully being given the Russian passports. The demands are either you have Russian passport or you are not a human being anymore.
You will be deprived of all the rights or whatever.
People get transferred from the occupied territories of Ukraine to the territories of Russia. And it's children, it's women, it's orphanages.
There are some cases that, in the Mariupol city, for instance, that the orphanages are taken without any adopted parents to the territories of
Russia, and we don't know the whereabouts of those children.
Families are separated, mothers separated from children. So, unfortunately, but also the atrocities in Bucha (INAUDIBLE) Borodyanka, when we will
liberate those areas, we will definitely liberate those areas, we might see another acts of atrocity, acts of barbarism in those cities and territories
which are occupied.
[13:15:01]
That's why it's very important to start as soon as possible the liberation of those territories in the south of Ukraine and start a counteroffensive
in the Donbass, because, every day, unfortunately, the number of victims, civilian victims, are growing.
SIDNER: Thank you so much, Igor Zhovkva, the chief diplomatic adviser to the Ukrainian president.
And I will tell you, I have been to Bucha, and I was there after. And the atrocities were real. And they were extremely concerning.
So, I thank you. I'm glad that you are safe there in Ukraine.
We're turning now to our top story. And that is that dangerous heat wave here in the U.K. and across countries in Europe.
Oxford University Professor Myles Allen is back with us. And, as we said, he's contributed to several of the IPCC U.N. reports on climate change. And
-- he will love this -- he's a wizard at climate modeling.
Professor Allen, let's start with this. How unusual is this first time ever -- I mean, that gives you a hint -- that this they have put this emergency
warning out because of the heat here in the U.K.?
MYLES ALLEN, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: Well, the world is warming at a quarter of a degree per decade, very much as we expected it would.
So if the world is warming and summertime temperatures in this part of the world are warming even faster than the global average, we should expect
these records to get broken. People are talking about records being broken. But you should realize most of these records were set relatively recently.
SIDNER: When it comes to that, can you give us a sense of the patterns that you are seeing on a global scale at the moment and what this type of
weather means, whether we will be seeing it, for example, for a long time to come?
ALLEN: Well, as long as we keep dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the world will continue to warm.
And, as I say, it's warming at around a quarter-of-a-degree per decade. And so you can see how fast things are changing. And, therefore, this isn't a
new normal, because we're just on a trend towards ever hotter temperatures.
And one of the parts of this problem that we're understanding better and better is how temperatures at certain times a day and temperatures at
certain times of year can be warming even faster than the global average. And that's, of course, really important because it's -- the global average
temperature isn't what actually kills people.
It's the temperature, nighttime temperatures, daytime temperatures where you live.
SIDNER: We're showing -- we need to show this graph, because I think it is really stark, and it's a great illustration of exactly what has been
happening.
And what it shows you is just how temperatures have changed since the 1900s. And you take a look at this, and it's almost mind-blowing. I mean,
we know we have heard it, we have heard it from scientists, we're living it, but to see the change there, in that change, I mean, are we past the
tipping point?
We talk about the tipping point. We hear it from scientists that we we're near the tipping point. I mean, that certainly looks like we might just be
past fixing this problem.
ALLEN: No, we know we're not past the tipping point because we do understand what's going on.
And the crucial evidence that we understand what's going on, and there's really no question about that understanding, is that, back in the late
1970s, right, if you look at that graph, you will see that global temperatures were actually -- they had actually been pretty steady for a
couple of decades.
Scientists saw what was happening to carbon dioxide, and what was likely to keep happening to carbon dioxide as the world economy continued to develop
and predicted almost exactly the amount of warming we have seen since then. They predicted 0.6 degrees of warming over the next 40 years Celsius.
And that's exactly what's happened. So it's not that we're just looking at the record and seeing temperatures going up and drawing conclusions. We
understand physically what is going on. And for that very reason, we can say what is needed to stop it. We need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, because every ton of carbon dioxide we dumped into the atmosphere ratchets up global temperatures by just a little bit more.
And so the only way we're going to stop the warming is to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
SIDNER: It is an issue that has been tackled by many countries, although there hasn't been a huge response. In other words, they haven't done a ton
to try and fix this problem, or we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing now.
I do want to mention what is happening globally with the issues in Ukraine, the issues with fuel, the issues with oil, the high price of things,
inflation. Some countries are talking about going back to using coal.
Is that going to be a major player, or at least some kind of a player in what we see going forward? Because governments may be less likely to jump
on this idea that we have to stop this by any means necessary when the immediate impact right now of these high prices and high gas prices and
needs seems to outweigh the crisis, the climate crisis that we're in?
[13:20:18]
ALLEN: Well, I think this points to one of the things I think we have been getting wrong for the past 30 years, which is always talking about this as
something the consumer has to fix. Remember, we didn't save the ozone layer by rationing deodorant. We went to the companies that were selling the
products that were causing the problem, and told them to fix it.
And those companies were quite willing to fix it when they were given clear instructions on what that we wanted them to do. And I firmly believe that
the companies, the fossil fuel companies that are selling the products that are causing this problem would be more than willing to fix it, if they were
required to do so. and they'd be more than able to fix it as well.
With -- it's an important fact for you to remember -- with the additional money that we are pouring into fossil fuels between last year and this with
the new high prices of fossil fuels, you could take that money and capture every single molecule of carbon dioxide that's being generated by burning
those fossil fuels, compress it and reinject it back on the ground and stop that carbon dioxide causing global warming.
But, of course, that's not happening because there's no regulation that requires it to happen. But if that regulation were in place, we wouldn't be
able to stop global warming. We'd be able to stop it within a generation.
SIDNER: One of the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide is the United States. And what we are seeing now with the decisions by the Supreme Court is they
have actually cut the power of the EPA, which regulates some of these things.
What kind of effects do you think that, again, the regulations should have? And if it's being cut back, are we in trouble? Or will these companies like
ExxonMobil and BP, will they will they see what's happening? Because they're already talking about green energy. You can see the ads on TV, on
your telly. They're already talking about green energy.
Do they see that, business-wise, this is a good move for them too?
ALLEN: They know what to do. But we're stuck in a situation where -- and these companies themselves -- I don't want to sound like I'm too sorry for
them.
But, on the other hand, they themselves are trapped in a situation where, if one company were to do the right thing, and stop the product themselves
from causing global warming, its products would become more expensive than the competitor. And so the competitor would take it over. And that would be
the end of that company.
So it's got to be a regulation on the industry as a whole. But one thing they do say to me absolutely every time when I talk to them, if that
regulation was in place, would you comply with it? And they say, yes, course we would. Why not? They know what to do. They know how to stop
fossil fuels from causing global warming.
But they have to be required to do it. We can't expect them to do just as a charity.
SIDNER: Let me ask you about infrastructure, sort of beyond the business of this, the infrastructure and the impact on infrastructure.
I was seeing that, here in London, they're using some sort of spray on the rail lines to try and keep them from buckling. What kind of devastating
impact is the climate having on infrastructure around the world?
ALLEN: Well, one thing we're absolutely having to do is learn as fast as possible how to deal with these ever higher temperatures.
And, of course, we in Britain can look to hotter countries for ideas and things to do. But it costs -- it costs a lot of money to adapt to an ever-
changing climate, because you have to invest in one set of infrastructure one decade, and then a different set of few decades later, because your
climate has changed.
So we have got that. That's overwhelmingly the reason we have to turn this around, is because we can't just live with the climate changing forever.
One thing people must realize is, this is not a new normal. We haven't just sort of gone up by a notch, and then it'll stay there for another 50 years.
We're on a path. And we have got to turn that around. So, yes, we need to invest in infrastructure, we need to invest smarter, and we need to
understand how fast the risks of these extreme events are changing. And that's something that climate science can actually help with a lot, because
they are very well understood.
One of the striking things about this heat wave is how well forecast it was, which means that we know or the weather services know all the detailed
physics that are driving the hot temperatures that we're having in the U.K. at the moment, which means they could apply exactly those same tools to
assess how fast the risk of this -- sort of high temperatures are increasing.
SIDNER: How fast do you think, if we do nothing, that we will hit that dangerous 1.5-degree increase that everyone is trying to stop us from
hitting?
[13:25:00]
ALLEN: Well, I mean, the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was pretty clear. We should expect to reach 1.5 degrees around 2030
or not long thereafter at the rate we're going, which tells you that, to stop the warming in time to limit it to below 1.5 degrees, we have got
about 20 years to stop the warming, to get emissions to net zero.
Now, that's a huge challenge. If we don't do that, it doesn't mean it's too late to do anything. It just means we're going to miss 1.5 degrees. You
might end up with 1.6, 1.7 degrees or something, but far better to have stopped the warming and be in a position to decide what to do next than to
be stuck on this ever-changing climate.
SIDNER: So we shouldn't just throw our hands up and give up if we don't hit that measure. We can stop it from getting even hotter.
Myles Allen, you're a marvel. Thank you so much for joining us.
The divisive nature of U.S. politics is forcing the extremes into the mainstream and, in so doing, straining democracy as we know it. As the
midterm elections fast approach, many American voters are feeling lost in the middle.
U.S. House Representative Tom Malinowski raises the potential for a third political party in a guest essay for "The New York Times." He talks to
Walter Isaacson to explain fusion voting and the experimental moderate party.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thank you very much.
And, Congressman Tom Malinowski, welcome to the show.
MALINOWSKI: Thanks so much. Great to be here.
ISAACSON: You just accepted the Democratic nomination to run for reelection for your third term in Congress. And yet you have also accepted the
Moderate Party nomination.
Explain to me what the Moderate Party is.
MALINOWSKI: The Moderate Party in New Jersey is a new party that was created mostly by Republicans in my congressional district who are fed up
with what they perceive to be the growing extremism and craziness within their own party.
They're not pro-Trump, obviously. But they're not ready to be Democrats yet. And they're looking for a home and a voice and some leverage over our
politics to try to encourage both parties to come closer to the center.
ISAACSON: So you can run on both lines, and then the vote you get for either of those party lines rolls up into your totals? Is that how it
works?
MALINOWSKI: That's how we would like it to work. But here's the interesting thing.
What the Moderate Party is trying to do something that was very common in America, say, 100 years ago, in the 19th century, the idea of a third party
that does not run its own candidates as spoilers, drawing votes away from one of the major party candidates, but instead uses its leverage to endorse
one of the major party candidates. It, in fact, fuses with one of the major parties.
This is a practice that was outlawed by almost every state in the country in the last 100 years, because it was seen as threatening to the two major
machine parties. New Jersey outlawed it in the 1920s. So the Moderate Party in New Jersey went out gathered signatures to put me on the ballot as their
candidate on a separate line.
But it's also having to challenge this old New Jersey law in court to enable them to do that by November.
ISAACSON: After Ralph Nader and Jill Stein sort of messed up for the Democrats elections in the past, Democrats have always been wary of third
parties.
Is fusion voting a way to get around that problem that a third-party candidate could have?
MALINOWSKI: Absolutely. Third parties in American politics are spoilers. They don't do any good when they run their own candidates. In fact,
usually, if you run your own candidate as a third party, you're going to be drawing votes away from the major party that's closest to your values.
So this is an alternative, where voters in the middle can say, we're going to use the validation of our endorsement, which would be very sought after,
I think, by both major parties, to choose the candidate that is closest to our values.
And if you think about how it would actually work, this is going to be a very close election in my district, because we're one of those very swingy
districts. And if I win by, say, 5,000 votes, and 8,000 of those votes come from supporters of the Moderate Party, I have got to take them very
seriously, because next time they could endorse somebody else.
So, a lot of these voters in the middle who feel like they just don't have a voice right now, they have no power over elections in gerrymandered
congressional districts, this actually would give them significant power. And the Republican Party, I think, in particular, given where it's going
under Trump, could use this kind of force bringing it back to sanity.
[13:30:00]
ISAACSON: New York and seven other States have fusion voting. How does that affect the government in New York State?
MALINOWSKI: So, New York has its own distinct history. In New York the so- called fusion parties tend to be at the wings of the political spectrum. It's a conservative party which was started by Republican who thought that
the, you know, Rockefeller Republican Party and was too liberal.
There's a Working Families Party, which is on the Left, started by Democrats who didn't like the Albany Democratic machine. And it works
perfectly well. The -- it's not confusing for voters in New York. Voters are very used to the system there. And those third party, fusion party
endorsements are sought after by politicians on both sides.
I think the insight here is that if these were available to people across America, in every State, the political force that would take advantage of
it is not the Left, it's not the Right. It's the center. It would be particularly moderate Republicans like Adam Kinzinger and anti-Trump
Republicans like Liz Cheney who are being kicked out of their party for standing up for principle. But they're not ready to become Democrats yet.
ISAACSON: So, if you want a moderate movement in this country, why not go whole-hog and have a real moderate party, a real centrist party that would
actually run its own candidates as well?
MALINOWSKI: I think if a moderate party in America run its own candidates, right now, that would draw votes away from the Democratic Party. And if
Trump is the Republican candidate in 2024, that would help him. And imagine if Liz Cheney run for president on a third-party ticket, that would help
Trump. And that's the last thing I think she'd want to do.
So, I think a much better idea, if there is a national moderate party would be for that party to operate as a fusion party. To say that both the
Republicans and Democrats, look, we've got this line on the ballot. We've got this endorsement that would be very valuable to you because we speak to
a lot of Americans who share our values but you got to promise us that you're going to govern from the center. You're going to be reasonable.
You're going to support the constitution. Respect the results of the election.
I think right now it would be the Democratic Party that would check all those boxes. In the future, it might be somebody else. That's the way, I
think, to give those centrist voters as moderate voters the leverage that they've lost.
ISAACSON: So, what you're saying now is if there were this system, say in Wyoming, the moderate party might endorse Liz Cheney. It could endorse
Republicans and Democrats in equal numbers?
MALINOWSKI: It certainly could, yes.
ISAACSON: Tell me how the moderate party challenge is doing? Is it being heard in court? Is it actually going to be settled by the time we have an
election in November with you?
MALINOWSKI: It still be for the secretary of State of New Jersey. So, the secretary of State official who runs elections in our State took these
petitions that nominated me and initially rejected them, the moderate party, then appealed that decision and they're waiting for the result of
that appeal. If the State comes back and again and says, you can't do this, there is a legal challenge that is prepared to be filed that day.
ISAACSON: You say that fusion voting might save our democracy from the polarization that is now facing. What is the cause of that polarization and
would this really be something that could solve the root causes of our polarization?
MALINOWSKI: I guess there's never one solution that ain't a complicated problem, right? But I think the -- there are several causes. One, is just a
structural one in our political system. Gerrymandering has gotten so bad in America, in house elections in particular, that there are just very few
Congressional districts left in our country that could go either way in November. Most Congressional races are settled in the party primary.
Mine is probably one of 20 or 30, I think, this year that is drawn to be pretty equal between Republicans and Democrats. And when elections are
settled in the primary, the -- you know, that tends to be settled by the most partisan members of that party who come out and vote in those
primaries. And that drives both parties to their respective extremes.
ISAACSON: Your State, New Jersey, has a history of a moderate Republican Party. And you say so many of them are fed up with their party's denial of
vaccines and QAnon theories and the Big Lie about the election being stolen. Yet they wouldn't necessarily vote for you because you have a D
next to your name. What does that say about the Democratic Party that you can attract voters like that?
[13:35:00]
MALINOWSKI: I think most voters are looking for Democrats to focus on practical issues, economic issues, to be willing to compromise to get
things done. But at the same time, to be strong and uncompromising when it comes to defending our democracy, the fundamental principles of this
country. I think the Democrats do both of those things. We're going to do increasingly well in district-site mind (ph).
I mean, I represent a district in Congress that was in Republican hands for decades. And I managed to win it by being that kind of Democrat. And, I
think, give us a few more years here and we're going to do better and better and better. In the meantime, you know, party affiliation, it's like
tribe. It's like family for many Americans. It's not easy if you've been a Republican all your life to pull the Democratic lever and vice versa. And
so, fusion voting is a way to make that more comfortable for folks who just aren't ready to change their identity overnight.
ISAACSON: You recently voted in Congress for a bill that would codify abortion rights decided in the decision of Roe V. Wade, which recently got
overturned. How do you think abortion rights are going to play in this fall election? And do you think the best way to go is to have Congress passing a
law, which then the Republicans, if they win the Congress, could, you know, reject?
MALINOWSKI: I actually think we'll be better off if we finally do what Congress has never done. Since Roe was adopted and the 1970s, and that's
just to pass a law that says that that the government cannot make this decision for women across the country. That's overwhelmingly popular in
America. People have complicated use about abortion that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe that the government should force women
to have a pregnancy.
And I think if we are able to pass that kind of law, Republicans are going to vote against it because their party has become increasingly extreme on
this issue. But I think it would be very hard for them to come back and repeal it, just as it turned out to be very hard for them to repeal the
Affordable Care Act despite their promises to do so.
So, this is a huge issue in this election. We've got Democrats, like me, who are making a very simple promise, if you give us the majority in the
House and Senate, we'll codify Roe V. Wade once and for all. And Republicans, like my opponent in my race here in New Jersey, who are
against that, that's a pretty simple choice and I think I know where most of my constituents are on that choice.
ISAACSON: Your opponent is Tom Kean, Jr., sort of part of a family that's been part of the Republican establishment for a long time in New Jersey.
And he says, in response to you that you're no moderate, that you've been a progressive Democrat your whole life. Why do you have issues in which you
identify yourself now as a moderate?
MALINOWSKI: I've -- well, for example, I'm a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in the House of Representatives, it's the only
functioning bipartisan group in the body. Helped to write and pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which only 13 Republicans ultimately voted
for in the House of Representatives. Another example of how crazy that party has become. I'm a pro-national security Democrat. I -- I've
criticized Joe Biden for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, very vociferously, actually.
So, I'm all about working with the other side and compromising on policy issues. But I'll tell you something else. I will not compromise when it
comes to protecting our democracy. When it comes to respecting the results of elections. When it comes to opposing violence in our country.
And this guy, Tom Kean Jr., you'd think he would be with me on that, given what his family had stood for over the years. And yet, in his Republican
primary, he ran by putting out mailers to every Republican voter in this district, saying Tom Kean Jr. stands with Trump. Tom Kean Jr. supports the
Trump agenda. So, there's no doubt in the minds of voters in my district who is the normal moderate in this race and who is running to the extremes.
And I'm afraid my opponent is going to suffer a lot from that converse.
ISAACSON: You say your opponent, Tom Kean Jr., has made a big issue of his support for Trump. How have the January 6th hearings played out in New
Jersey and how's that affected your race?
[13:40:00]
MALINOWSKI: I think it's smoothed people across the country. I think it's a reminder not just of how horrible the January 6th attack was, but of this,
these ongoing movements by the Trump wing of the Republican party, which is the dominant wing in the party right now to fix the next election. There's
a movement in State after State across the country to do by legislative means, what the writers on January 6 tried to do with baseball bats, and
that's to make it so the politicians and State legislatures pick the next president no matter how people across America actually vote.
So, that idea is incredibly offensive and scary. I think to most voters, the most basic Democratic principle we have is the people vote, the people
decide, the winner takes office, and the loser gracefully steps aside. And the Trump Republicans and my opponent is one of them, are basically saying
we're not going to live that way anymore. And I think that's -- I think it's wrong. Most of my constituents think it's wrong. And I think that'll
be another voting issue this November.
ISAACSON: This Thursday will mark what may be the last of the January 6th hearings. What would you have said -- what would you have thought a few
years ago if somebody said, the U. S. Capitol was going to come under attack by people who had been inflamed by the President of the United
States to do so?
MALINOWSKI: I think more than inflamed. I think they were sent by the President of the United States to do so. You know, I was there in the house
chamber while it was happening. And I had that thought in that moment. I've been to a lot of countries around the world as a diplomat representing the
United States that were unstable. I was -- I visited Libya in 2011 during the revolution there. I visited Syria during the uprising against Assad.
And I had this feeling like, my God, I -- I'm sitting here in the inner sanctum of American democracy. That the Capital building -- and I feel the
same way as I did in those countries. And that's just preposterous that this could happen here.
And I knew then only about a 10th of what I know now about the role that the President of the United States played in setting that mob on the
Capitol to hang the vice president over, to overthrow a Democratic election.
And I got to tell you, this is something we don't -- if we don't bury this movement. If we don't establish once and for all that you cannot do this in
the United States of America, we are in very serious trouble.
ISAACSON: Congressman Tom Malinowski, thank you so much for joining us.
MALINOWSKI: Thank you.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
SIDNER: Fascinating interview.
The rollback of women's reproductive rights in America has dominated headlines after the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade. But a new
taboo-busting book is focusing our attention on the rights and freedoms of women across the continent of Africa. The Ghanaian feminist author, Nana
Darkoa Sekyiamah traveled the continent to celebrate their stories of love, desire, and liberation. The result is the sex lives of African women and
Christiane sat down with Nana to discuss her fascinating investigation of women owning their sexuality and self-discovery. Here's their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah, welcome to our program.
NANA DARKOA SEKYIAMAH, AUTHOR, "THE SEX LIVES OF AFRICAN WOMEN": Thank you. It's a delight to be here.
AMANPOUR: So, it is so interesting to read what you've written about and to read about, you know, your exploration of women in Africa, their sexuality,
their intimacy, their fulfillment. What on Earth led you to this topic? How did you start, I mean, even before you wrote the book?
SEKYIAMAH: Yes. Well, I've been blogging about sex and sexuality since January 2009, so, well over a decade ago now with my best friend, Malaika
Grant (ph). And I just knew that there were so many more interesting stories out there when it comes to African women's experiences of sex,
sexuality and pleasure than I would tend to see in mainstream media.
So, as part of the blog who would often reach out to different women and ask them to share their experiences of sex with (INAUDIBLE) and a blog post
is, obviously, shot 500 words. And I always wanted to know more. And so, until 2014, I decided to interview as many African women as possible from
the continent and the diaspora about their experiences of sex, sexualities, and pleasure. And that's what's resulted in my book, "The Sex Lives of
African Women".
[13:45:00]
AMANPOUR: And what surprised you in particular, you said you had different demographics, both diaspora and on the continent. You had all ages and, you
know, you -- is the -- is a woman discussing sexuality, sex, and intimacy, and pleasure is that a taboo in Africa, amongst African women?
SEKYIAMAH: I think it's definitely a taboo and many parts of the continent. This is also what a lot of people were telling me. People generally felt
they were not told anything about sex growing up, they had to figure out for themselves. And I also think talking about sex, talking about pleasure
is very much a political act. If it wasn't political, we wouldn't have so many States trying to control, you know, who people choose to love and who
people choose to have relationships with. Yes. So, it's absolutely a taboo and one that I am also committed to breaking.
AMANPOUR: So, tell me what surprised you the most. What were your most interesting and, I guess, valuable takeaways?
SEKYIAMAH: I had lots of valuable takeaways. For me, some of my favorite conversations were with older women. I think that society likes to portray
older women as desexualized, right? Somehow, you know, on the shelf, not interested in sex, nobody's interested in having sex with them. But the
older women I spoke to were, in fact, some of the people who had the best sex lives.
And as somebody who is now family, middle-aged, that for me was inspirational, right? It says there's no need to rush. I'm not a pleasant
surprise was actually women who have been -- who have experienced female genital mutilation or circumcision still can access pleasure and sexual
fulfillment. I initially thought, you know, women who had been cut had no way of experiencing pleasure. And it was really helpful to hear that with
healing and people can move past, you know, child sexual abuse, which is what FGM is to a point of pleasure also.
Also -- I mean, I felt like some of my own misconceptions were being challenged through the process, you know. I was asking myself because I
interviewed a woman who uses a wheelchair, how come I have never dated anybody who has a visible disability. So, I feel like I had lots of good
learning experiences. There were some tough, you know, tough stories out there. Especially people who have experienced child sexual abuse, that was
really difficult to hear.
AMANPOUR: These are very, very important topics, and important questions you're asking of often marginalize people in every way, not just in
exploring their sexuality. And indeed, you talk about FGM. And just recently I read, yet another article, about the practice, this time
actually in Sierra Leone. And about how those parts of the female community who are trying to, you know, not have their daughters do that.
And yet, there are other parts of the female community who said that actually this is something important. We have dancing. We have parties. All
the attention is on the young girl. And it's a very confusing messages that young girls get. They're not sure whether to have it or not to have it.
SEKYIAMAH: It's really interesting that you mentioned Sierra Leone because I literally got back from Sierra Leone last weekend. I was attending the
top 10 all Africa conference on sexual health and rights. And so, there are lots of activists there who are really fighting to end female genital
mutilation. And I know that one of the acts being put before parliament is a proposal right to basically not subject children to female genital
mutilation.
And I know that this is, in a sense, a negotiation the activists have to do to say it can't happen until, you know, the child is no longer a child and
can make a decision for themselves. So, I feel like it's a win for activists in Sierra Leone, but it's obviously an ongoing process. But for
my personal politics, female genital mutilation is child sexual abuse is harmful. And it needs to end wherever it happens across the globe.
AMANPOUR: This book has been published in the United States, in Britain, and it's been shared around all over. It's really making waves and there's
a huge amount of positive reception to your book. I'm wondering what people are saying to you about it. Are people outraged? Are they shocked? Are they
relieved? And even men, how are men reacting to the stories of women that you tell as well?
SEKYIAMAH: It's been super interesting. And the reaction for men and women has been different, right? Women who read and love the book tend to take a
picture, you know, post it on social media and tag me. Men tend to slide into my DMs and tell me how much they like it, you know. What I also find
interesting is men tend to go into bookshops right before the bookshop closes and buy a bunch of books. I think, obviously, men have a way to go
to be able to speak openly and honestly about sex and sexualities.
[13:50:00]
But I've had lots of feedback. I've particularly had lots of queer people say to me something along the lines of, I've never felt so seen in my life.
I've had older women say to me, I'm questioning my sexuality because of this book. I'm realizing it's never too late for me to start my own journey
of self-discovery. And that for me has been really, really encouraging.
AMANPOUR: You know, in the UK -- well, actually all over now, there's been this amazing film released called, "Good Luck to You, Leo Grande". And it's
with Emma Thompson and she plays an old woman who's never had an orgasm. Never had any kind of intimacy. And she finally finds it with the young
male sex worker.
So, this idea of the older woman, which you latched on to as well, is finally coming to the fore. So, what did older women tell you? You said
some of the most interesting stories came from them.
SEKYIAMAH: Yes, absolutely. Some of the most interesting stories came from older women. So, one of the older women I interviewed was a woman called
Alexis (ph). She fell in love with her partner, another woman in their sixty's, right. And for me, like, we never really hear of older people fall
in love in their 60s. And I think that's all of this pressure on young people that by a certain age you need to find your partner for life. And
for me, it's really reassuring to hear people falling in love in the 60s. I interviewed her when she was 71, And they still have a very active, happy
sex life. And that was encouraging.
AMANPOUR: And I actually did an investigation of this for myself, for CNN, for Netflix, it was called "Sex and Love Around the World". And I came to
garner and I talked to a few women there of all ages including the so- called market queen. And I want to play this little bit of the interview because, you know, there is a lot of stereotyping about African women,
negative stereotyping. And this is what she told me about sex and love.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What about love? What about happiness, you know, fulfillment.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Love is love.
AMANPOUR: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To us, love means -- in your country, love means dissenting. In our country -- but sometimes the man would be with more than
one wife. So, the love has to be shared.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, on the one hand, love is love and all of us all over the world feel the same way. On the other hand, she brought up you know, quite
an African characteristic that you also write about. Polygamy and polyamory. How much of those kinds of stories were people willing to share,
because you have a very patriarchal society, obviously?
SEKYIAMAH: Yes, people are actually really willing to talk about different types of relationship structures including polygamy, including polyamory,
as well as, obviously, monogamy, you know. And I think, actually for me, it was really helpful is for us to recognize that there are several valid
forms of relationship structures.
I don't really believe in privilege and, you know, monogamy over polyamory, for instance. I'm personally more in favor of polyamory because it gives
people more options and choices. But that's my personal bias, you know. What I'm not a fan of is what my friend called (INAUDIBLE) called falnogamy
(ph), you know, which is false monogamy. What people think they're in a monogamous relationship but really they're not, which I think is quite
dangerous when it comes to like sexual health and just your own well-being in general.
AMANPOUR: One of you -- one of the young feminists certainly in Egypt, Mona Eltahawy, she also has written a lot about this issue from her country's
perspective. But she said about your book that there is a sexual revolution underway on the continent of Africa. Do you agree with that?
SEKYIAMAH: I really love Mona Eltahawy. I think that, especially, with the young people, yes, there's absolutely a sexual revolution in the sense that
they don't feel like they have to do what their parents did. They're aware and recognize that culture is dynamic and changing. And, you know, they are
actually fighting for their sexual rights. It's a battle that's going on in Ghana right now. What queer people are fighting for literally their life,
as well as their rights to be who they are and still be recognized as Ghanaians. So, yes, you know, I think there's a revolution.
AMANPOUR: Well, you have really added to a very important conversation, not just about sex and intimacy. What about freedom? So, thank you so much
indeed. Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah, for joining us.
SEKYIAMAH: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
SIDNER: And finally, there's nothing I love more than animals, especially dogs. And I want you to meet Max. The six-year-old bloodhound is credited
with tracking down an infamous Mexican drug lord, known as El Narco de Narcos. Authorities arrested Rafael Caro Quintero on Friday in the
Northwest of Mexico because Max there, led them to him with her powerful nose. Max is a specialized human tracking dog and she did what the humans
couldn't do. She found one of the most wanted Mexican drug lords.
[13:55:00]
That is it for now. You can always catch us online and our podcasts and across social media. Thank you so much for watching. Goodbye now from
London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
