Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Chief Diplomatic Adviser To President Zelenskyy Igor Zhovkva; Interview With Former Downing Street Director Of Communications And "But What Can I Do?" Author Alastair Campbell; Interview With "The New China Playbook" Author Keyu Jin; Interview With "Love To Love You, Donna Summer" Director Brooklyn Sudano. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 12, 2023 - 13:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Ukraine's counteroffensive intensifies. President Zelenskyy's advisor, Igor Zhovkva, joins me from Kyiv.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's a very detailed indictment, and it's very, very damning.
RISHI SUNAK, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn't prepared to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- political tremors on both sides of the pond, Donald Trump's indictment, Boris Johnson resigns, a discussion on holding former leaders
to account with Alastair Campbell, the top Downing Street adviser for Tony Blair.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEYU JIN, AUTHOR, "THE NEW CHINA PLAYBOOK": We also miss a cultural and historical lens, this is why Americans, Chinese will look at the same
question and come to radically different conclusions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "The New China Playbook." Walter Isaacson speaks to economists Keyu Jin about why that country's new generation is misunderstood.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- The inimitable Donna Summer. We talk with her daughter, Brooklyn Sudano new documentary about her disco queen mother.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
As former presidents and prime minister's face legal and political battles, both here and the United States, tonight we examine why the rule of law
matters, and how Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are being held accountable.
But first, Russia's war in Ukraine is top of the agenda in Washington, with top NATO officials in town to meet President Biden about continued support
for Kyiv's counteroffensive.
On the battlefield, fierce clashes are reported in the south and the east of the country, and Ukraine claims to be making incremental gains. Its
forces say they've captured at least three villages on the frontlines, and they've released pictures of a flag being raised in one of them. We get the
latest with Igor Zhovkva, deputy head of President Zelenskyy's office and his chief diplomatic adviser.
Igor Zhovkva, welcome back to the program. I know you're not going to go into a lot of military detail, but what can you tell us? We write that
you're making incremental gains?
IGOR ZHOVKVA, CHIEF DIPLOMATIC ADVISER TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY: Look, Christiane, sorry, I will not be really much more into detail. This is my
speculated topic in many media. I will tell you, I will just repeat my president saying that some counteroffensive actions are already underway.
We will not only send -- certainly not comment in publican, you know, which exact places and what the gains are.
My president said, you will feel it, definitely. And also, he added that the mood of military commanders who are in charge of this operations are
very positive. And, you know, when the mood of generals is positive you can count on very promising results.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, because as we said, the NATO secretary general is in Washington meeting with President Biden. He'll be holding
these meetings tomorrow. And clearly, the state of the war, the state of the material that NATO is providing will come up.
We understand that there's been quite a lot of American like Bradley Fighting Vehicles, for instance, that were destroyed by the Russians in the
first wave of the counteroffensive. I'm asking you this in terms of trying to understand how everything that you've been given so far is measuring up.
ZHOVKVA: Well, you certainly understand the importance all of West, the material of western weaponry and ammunition, which is of great need in
Ukraine. We -- when preparing the counteroffensive, we really, you know, wanted this level of ammunition and weapons to be on -- in enough quantity.
But you certainly understand when you are at war, you're not, you know, have the ammunitions somewhere in the war houses of or the artillery,
somewhere in stockpiles, we're using them. We're using them when defending our territory in the east. We were using them before, when we are having
the counteroffensives around Kharkiv and Kherson, and we will be using them. And definitely, we will need more in order to gain the successes.
[13:05:00]
The counteroffensive should be successful, and the success would mean deliberating as many parts of Ukrainian territory as possible. And yes, for
that, we will need more artillery and ammunition. Yes, for battle we'll need more battle tanks and armored vehicles. Yes, the later phases, we will
definitely need the fighter jets.
We're talking with you ahead of the Ramstein meeting this week. So, it would be very important for the defense ministers to get concrete decision
on further providing of this kind of weaponry to my country in order to have this counteroffensive successful.
AMANPOUR: So, that's interesting what you say, the objective is to win back as much territory as possible, because in the past, it has been very clear
that you want to win back every last inch of territory, including Crimea. And regarding these -- the defense ministers meeting in a Ramstein, your
own defense minister, Reznikov, has said, the expectation of this counteroffensive is overestimated, overheated. Most people are waiting for
something huge, I would say. That is my main concern.
How much pressure are you feeling? Is it overheated? What do you define as success in this counteroffensive?
ZHOVKVA: Once again, this is not the first counteroffensive operation we were having and definitely, probably, would not be the last
counteroffensive operation. The ultimate goal of the counteroffensive, as a process, is to win back all the territories, including the Crimea.
So, here, you cannot have any speculations and any doubts. And this is the ultimate goal for the general campaign, for the general counteroffensive.
While as we are talking now, they can create operation. And again, I will not comment to you on where this operation is going on. So, obvious, the
part where this operation is going on is to be liberated, as well as the other parts of Ukrainian territory who should be liberated, including
Crimea.
So -- but I can agree that, you know, these speculations are overheated, because you might remember that the first person to announce about the
Ukrainian counteroffensive this time was President Putin, strangely. He's announced not about his counteroffensive but about Ukraine's
counteroffensive. So, an interesting tendency.
I'll ask again, please, Christine, to avoid any speculations and misunderstanding, the ultimate goal of Ukraine's counteroffensive campaign
is to win back all the territories of Ukraine, including the Crimea. And when we our partners for telling, we will stand with Ukraine as long as it
takes, and when we hear from our partners, only the Ukrainian authority, Ukrainian president, Ukrainian people who will define the scope of the
victory, we are agreeing with this.
Ukrainians, Ukraine will have the understanding of the ultimate victory. For us, it is very clear, to liberate all the territories of Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: So, I hear you keep saying the ultimate aim, the ultimate aim. So, it's not tomorrow, it's not next week, and it's not in the next couple
of months, maybe, to get back Crimea. I say that because you yourself mentioned President Putin. I just want to play a little clip of what he
told Russian people today on Russia Day. Acknowledge, you know, that it is a difficult time. Let's just listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Russia is based on faith and people, people who go from the victory to victory, basing their
lives and all their work on faith, faith and victory, faith and justice. Faith in Russia.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, as you said, your morale is high and the morale on the battlefield amongst the commanders, he is saying the same thing, and that
the faith is very strong there. What's your reaction to that?
ZHOVKVA: You know what, unlike Russia, we can demonstrate the clear successes on the battlefield, I think, throughout the last eight months.
Once again, we started with liberating the areas around Kyiv and in the north of Ukraine, then we came down to east of Ukraine, Kharkiv and the
area, then it was Kherson and the most of part the southern areas of Ukraine.
This is what is on the battlefield. We managed to liberate more than 50 percent of the territory captured by Russia during this open aggression. We
started in February last year. So, very simple. We will continue on the same path with the same level of success. And this is due to our armed
forces, and this is due to the support of the western community rendering to us the necessary level of resistance and necessary level of weapons and
ammunition.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: You have lost, like the Russians have, a lot of your -- in your case, your best people on the battlefield. The deaths are, you know, very,
very tragic. And I'm sure it must cause a human amount of pain to you and your government and to the families. But also, you're undergoing a terrible
humanitarian crisis. What is the situation around Kherson, the floodwaters, and is it under control or is that dam still compromised?
ZHOVKVA: Well, after this terrorist attack the Russians made on the dam, on the Kakhovka Hydro Power Plant, there was this clearly act of terrorism.
They mined this territory immediately when they captured it in the beginning of open aggression in February last year. And they were planning
it, and they did exactly on this time. I don't know, maybe hearing of possible Ukrainian counteroffensive in this part of our territory.
But what we're having now, we are liquidating the aftermath, the immediate aftermaths of this terrorist attack. We are saving people, almost 30,000
people are saved on the controlled part of Ukrainian territory. Unfortunately, the situation on the uncontrolled part of Ukrainian
territory, of Kherson region, is much more difficult, because these are those areas which were mostly affected by this flood. And unfortunately,
more than 25,000 people are still in poor conditions on this uncontrolled part. And Russians would not take any actions to evacuate people nor they
allowing international institutions to approach the areas and to save the people, which is giving them elementary conditions for living.
But as far as the longer-term aftermath of the disaster is our concern, we can only calculate (ph) when the water will go down and we can be thinking
of that in several days, this will be the case. And only after that, we will count and collect what the aftermath will for the food security of the
world, because that's one the most horrible (ph) land, we are situated in the south of Ukraine.
What will be the aftermaths for the environmental situation? What will be the aftermaths for biodiversity? What will be the aftermath for the
Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and the Kakhovka reservoir? So, the main source for cooling of the reactions in the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power
plant? And here, where the International Community should help us, not only to -- you know, to examine the aftermath, but also to bring to justice
those people and this leadership was responsible to making this terrible eco side in the 21str century.
AMANPOUR: Igor Zhovkva, thank you very much. Amid the counteroffensive that appears to be underway. Thank you.
Donald Trump is vowing to fight on in a different way as he prepares to appear in Miami Federal Court tomorrow on 37 counts of illegally possessing
classified documents, denying he had them, and obstructing the government's attempt to retrieve them.
He is the first United States president to face federal charges, but he joins the list of former leaders in other countries who face criminal
prosecution, including Italy's Silvio Berlusconi who has died today at the age of 86.
Meanwhile, here in the U.K., a different kind of reckoning for Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He resigned as a member of parliament on Friday as
he faces a damning report concluding that he lied about his involvement in parties during the COVID lockdowns.
Alastair Campbell, host a very popular bipartisan political podcast, and he was director of communications for Prime Minister Tony Blair. He also has a
new book out called, "But What Can I Do? Why Politics has Gone so Wrong and How You Can Help Fix It." He's joining me here at the studio.
Before we get to why it's gone so wrong and how people -- ordinary people can help fix it, let me ask you about the substance of these political
earthquakes that are happening. I mean, elected leaders facing really, really serious censure. How bad is it for Boris Johnson?
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL, FORMER DOWNING STREET DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS AND AUTHOR, "BUT WHAT CAN I DO?": Oh, he -- I think -- and Boris Johnson --
AMANPOUR: Is he done?
CAMPBELL: I think he's finished. I think there's no way back for him at all. Look, you look at somebody like Donald Trump and you can sort of see a
way back just -- but I think it's going to be very, very difficult because Americas are even more polarized than we are, I would say.
But Johnson has -- he's gone full Trump now. He's absolutely gone full Trump. So, the report that he resigned over is a report by the Privileges
Committee, which is dominated by his own party, the conservative party. They've clearly gone through all the evidence, concluded that he lied to
parliament, which is a resignation offense, and he's just gone full Trump in saying, it's kangaroo court, they don't -- they're not interested in the
truth, et cetera.
And I think the other thing that's happened with Johnson is that people have realized that this is a guy who should never have been near the bottom
of the political parklet (ph), alone the top. And I think he's now got his little cult around him, he's got people who will always say that he's a
great guy, he's got people who are always media enablers. I think our media is largely culpable in his rise. So, yes, I think he's absolutely done.
He's finished.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: So, his crime, so to speak, it's not, you know, a federal crime like that with which Donald Trump is being indicted. What is -- given that
Donald Trump has got so many legal cases mounting up against him, and this one is particularly serious. And you've read, haven't you, you've read on
it.
CAMPBELL: I have, yes.
AMANPOUR: What did you take away from that?
CAMPBELL: I took away the detail. I took away the sense of how do they even think that this could be the right thing to do. I didn't take away a witch
hunt at all. I took away a pretty detailed case that read, quite compellingly. And if I were Trump, I'd be looking a little bit scared.
AMANPOUR: Well, I do want to play a soundbite from his own attorney general, Former Attorney General William Barr, who talked over the weekend
to Fox News about kind of saying what you just summed up.
CAMPBELL: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: If even half of it is true, then he's toast. I mean, it's a pretty -- it's a very detailed indictment
and it's a very, very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, let's drill down on that, because very few members of the Republican Party speak like William Barr. We've got Chris Christie a little
bit, but certainly we have Mitt Romney, but all the others, including those who are running for the presidency on the Republican side, are calling it a
politically motivated trial.
So, Donald Trump is doing that, Boris Johnson was doing that, playing the martyr. How successful can that be today? How successful might it be?
CAMPBELL: Well, you said in the introduction, Silvio Berlusconi died today. Bizarrely, in the book that I've written, I cite him as, in a sense, the
author of this approach to politics, the so-called three P's, populism, polarization, post-trust. Johnson is opposed post-truth politician. Trump
is a populist, polarizing, post-truth politician. Berlusconi was a populist, polarizing, post-trust politician.
So, you'd say for Berlusconi, OK, he's ended his life and his career out of power, but this is a guy who probably should've gone to jail quite a few
times. And yet --
AMANPOUR: He was convicted of --
CAMPBELL: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: -- finally, of tax --
CAMPBELL: Right. But -- so, this is a guy who got away with an awful lot. So, Trump probably, even now, is thinking, I think, I can probably get away
with this. Boris Johnson is somebody who's got away with stuff his whole life, both in his private life and his political life. So, you can get away
with a lot.
I think -- what I really, really hope, it's funny how these things sometimes you get these historical moments, it is quite interesting, you
think that Trump and Johnson, literally on the same day, were attacking institutional bodies which had decided that they had offended the norms and
conventions by which they should abide. In Trump's case, the law, in Johnson's case, the rules of parliament.
And then, literally two days later, Berlusconi dies. And you -- there's a part of me thinking, is this a kind of inflection point? Might it be an
inflection point? And, you know, I hope so, because I really do worry, when you think -- I mean, 50 years ago, Nixon. OK. Nixon gets hounded out of
office on the back of something that Trump would probably consider barely a misdemeanor what was done. Trump gets -- loses a case for a serious sexual
offense, and the medias out there are saying, does this help or does this (INAUDIBLE) campaign free election?
AMANPOUR: Well --
CAMPBELL: And --
AMANPOUR: This is where we -- I want to just stop you a second. I mean, I want to go through some what you've just said. Because in your book, you do
say this about Berlusconi. You say, when it comes to the use about post- truth strategies in western democracies, perhaps the first big mover was the media magnate Silvio Berlusconi.
So, again, populism, I guess, was his legacy. Do you really -- he had his own media, Trump had Fox and the Rupert Murdoch media and everything else.
So, does Boris Trump -- Boris Trump -- Boris Johnson here has a lot of the --
CAMPBELL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- Murdoch media and the other populous media. You know, they've successfully used this and weaponized it for many, many years. And you've
been at this for a long, long time. Do you -- I mean, you talked about an inflection point, really?
CAMPBELL: No, I don't know. I'm simply saying that I think it's -- I do think that one of the reasons. So, you mentioned the podcast that I do with
Rory Stewart, right?
AMANPOUR: A former Tory MP.
CAMPBELL: Former Tory cabinet minister.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
CAMPBELL: The numbers on it, for a U.K. podcast, are through the roof. It's regularly being the most popular, most listened to podcasts in the U.K., at
a time when people are saying they're sick to death of politics and they hate politics.
[13:20:00]
Likewise, you know, this morning I was in the school talking about the book to kids who -- this group of kids showing me a picture of them out in a
field reading the book, on a reading book, about politics. There's a hunger and there's a yearning.
Now, if we carry on producing politicians -- excuse me -- like Johnson and Trump, then I think we're going to (INAUDIBLE). If on the other hand enough
people understand we do have agency, we can make change, then it can be an inflection point.
AMANPOUR: We didn't mention also that today -- or yesterday over the weekend, as well as Trump and Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon, who's well
known here, obviously, around the world, and she was arrested, taken away for questioning, then released without charge.
All that to say that the U.S. may not be used to their presidents being federally charged, but around the world there is this legacy, the rule of
law matters. It's not just in this country --
CAMPBELL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- it's in another parts of Europe, in East Asia. A lot of former leaders do get held up and held accountable.
CAMPBELL: Listen, I absolutely believe that people should be held accountable. Now, I don't know the details of the -- what Nichola Surgeon
was interviewed other than what we've heard about it is to do with party funding and so forth.
But, you know, the other example of this is situations such as, for example, recent -- the election in Turkey, where the guy that actually
might have had a better chance of beating Erdogan, he's locked up, he's away, he's off the scene. So, that's going on as well.
So, I think this whole sense, the feeling that politicians have a political impunity. Trump, Johnson, Berlusconi, these guys they feel that they should
be beyond. This is what brought down Johnson in the end, designing the laws on COVID and then, clearly, breaking them. And people find that
unfathomable.
Even now, even today, our news in the U.K. is leading on this row between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak about whether or not Rishi Sunak could've
helped Boris Johnson stick even more of his ridiculous friends and cronies into the House of Laws. I mean, we are a global joke on this front and yet,
that is him still believing he is beyond the normal rules and conventions.
AMANPOUR: So, let's play the Rishi Sunak soundbite --
CAMPBELL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- where he addressed this, and he said, yes, he might have wanted me to do it, but I wasn't prepared to do this. Here is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RISHI SUNAK, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Boris Johnson asked me to do something that I wasn't prepared to do, because I don't think it was right. That was
to, you know, either overrule the whole committee or to make promises with people. Now, I wasn't prepared to do that. As I said, I didn't think it was
right. And if people don't like that, then tough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, he's -- I know, your Labour Party --
CAMPBELL: No. I'll tell you why I don't like that.
AMANPOUR: Yes?
CAMPBELL: Because he's pretending that he's acting out of principle. If he was acting out of principle, he would've said to Boris Johnson, I'm sorry,
you're a prime minister resigning in disgrace. The idea you can put anybody into the House of Laws, I -- he has to sign off the names, Sunak. He has to
send them off to our poor king (ph) and say, yes, it's marvelous that this 25-year-old intern is being put into the House of Law. So, the whole thing
is absurd. So, he could've blocked the whole thing. So, I'm not quite buying that.
AMANPOUR: All right. But on a bigger level, here in the U.K., do you agree, at least, that members of the Tory Party, by and large, have not rushed to
Boris Johnson's defense?
CAMPBELL: Oh, yes.
AMANPOUR: In fact, the opposite, which is not the same in the United States of America.
CAMPBELL: Correct.
AMANPOUR: And even now, we've got, you know, a graphic to show, Donald Trump still at 61 percent, his closest rival is at 23 percent, Ron
DeSantis. And, up until now, he's been making a lot of money in terms of funding and donations.
CAMPBELL: Correct.
AMANPOUR: And he may even get some kind of hostile crowd, because he's calling for that.
CAMPBELL: Well, that's why I said to you earlier --
AMANPOUR: But that's not happening here?
CAMPBELL: No, and that's why said to you earlier, I don't think that we are yet anywhere near as bad a position as what's happening in the United
States. I happen to think -- in fact, we just interviewed on the podcast, Michael Ignatieff, former Canadian politician. He was making the point that
actually Joe Biden, by any rational assessment, is doing a pretty amazing job considering the politics of that country at the moment.
Trump has got a real following, a deep following. Johnson had that following whilst he was a leader of the conservative party. But it's
perfectly clear now, look, he's claiming some great establishment plot against him. He got kicked out by his colleagues, because they no longer
thought he was a winner. He's now being kicked out of -- he's run from parliament because they've decided he's a liar, and you can't come back
from that.
But I think that's why, we in the U.K., should be very, very careful that we don't go any further down this road of populism and post-truth because
that is where Trump is taking his side of the American debate.
AMANPOUR: And has been doing.
CAMPBELL: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: And there's been years and years of populism. So, how do we fix it? That's the frame of your book. Finally, how do people fix this?
[13:25:00]
CAMPBELL: Well, I think my understanding that we can't turn away from it. So, what's the charlatans, like Trump and Berlusconi and Johnson, what they
want is people to say, oh, just let them get on with it, because there's no point even thinking about it, they're all terrible, they're all the same,
nothing ever changes anyway. Just let them do it and get on with your life. That way, they keep winning.
So, the first thing to do, we have to understand we all have agency. We have to ask ourselves how much we care. And individuals -- that's why it's
so wonderful when you go into schools and you see how much they do care, kids understand what's going wrong with the world. They understand the
stuff about climate. They understand the stuff about inequality and all this populism nonsense.
Now, some of them may not care, enough of them do, but they've got to step up and understand activism. The key is in the word act. It's not about
Twitter.
AMANPOUR: Right.
CAMPBELL: It's not about your phone. It's about getting out and doing stuff and fighting for what you believe in. And get rid of these bloody
charlatans.
AMANPOUR: You said it, not me. Alastair Campbell, thank you very much for being here.
CAMPBELL: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Now, the United States and China are looking to reset relations as the U.S. secretary of state prepares to visit Beijing this weekend. The
trip comes months after the meeting was canceled, when the U.S. shot down a Chinese spy balloon over its airspace.
Our next guest was born in China, educated in the United States, and she is a world-renowned economist. They Keyu Jin traces China's rise and
relationship with the West in her new book, and she is joining Walter Isaacson with your valuable perspective.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER ISAACSON, CNN HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And, Keyu Jin, welcome to the show.
KEYU JIN, AUTHOR, "THE NEW CHINA PLAYBOOK": Thank you. Great to be with you, Walter.
ISAACSON: The news in the past few days has been about China, perhaps, developing a listening or a spy station in Cuba, that comes out on the
heels of the balloons that perhaps China sent over, that were surveillance balloons. As somebody who was born in China, has three degrees from
Harvard, now lives in London and Beijing, you understand this relationship well. To what extent is there something alarming about the increase in
surveillance, or is that just a normal order of business between the two countries that we should live with?
JIN: Well, I think there are a few people who will disagree with the statement that everybody spies on everybody. But to be fair, you know, it
is -- China is a rising nation with rising aspirations. And as we've seen throughout history, all of these rising nations have had their global
agenda, and China certainly wants to have a greater say in the global norms and order, and it's often interpreted as aggressive tactics and acts.
But the Chinese also have their own perspective. They consider their influence in the region to be increasingly important. Yes, they probably
have aspirations to diminish U.S. power and influence in what they believe to be their sphere of influence. As we know, from the Monroe Doctrine way
back, the U.S. always also interested in ousting European powers as it became a much stronger nation.
But leaving all of that aside, I think, you know, in the short-term, the Chinese and the Americans are pointing fingers at each other and talking
past each other. But most recently, they do have a desire to stabilize the relationship for their own good and to take the temperature down.
ISAACSON: Well, the big news in the coming weeks will be the fact that Secretary of State Antony Blinken is traveling to China. A trip that was
canceled earlier on or postponed earlier on because of the balloon surveillance issue. What do you think he should say on that trip, and do
you have hopes that that will lower the temperature in this confrontation?
JIN: Look, the dialogue channels have to be open. As in any relationship, as we all know, communication is key here. But they have to start really
having substantive dialogue, and there's also a Chinese perspective on this. For the whole list of U.S. grievance on China, there's a similar one
of Chinese grievances against the U.S.
And so, the dialogue needs to be kept open, but the U.S. should also focus on subspecific issues, subspecific areas where China is pushed to negotiate
or change, rather than having all of this tension corrode the entire economic and trading relationship, and the world economy.
I think that China believes it's new normal now with U.S. restrictions on technology, but they do have hope that trading and investment relationships
can resume normality and further talks about discussions on collaboration. And China has also accepted it has a new normal that these technology
restrictions are simply going to be around. But for the U.S., is China going to go away? No.
ISAACSON: What fundamental misunderstandings do you think that Americans have about China?
[13:30:00]
JIN: Well, how the model works, the unique economic system, the fact that there's just a centralized state with an almighty -- a centralized system
with an almighty state. I think they often miss the very creative, entrepreneurial, on the ground decentralized mechanisms that China -- has
made China very successful and early reformer and an innovative power. But I think we also miss a cultural and historical lens. This is why Americans
and Chinese will look at the same question and come to radically different conclusions.
For one, the tolerance of state. In some cases, the Chinese State intervention is not only expected, they are also desired. But the same
actions would be totally intolerable to other cultures. So, we come back with a different take on the similar issues, and this is why we keep on
talking past each other, by not seeing the others perspective.
ISAACSON: Do you think that also exists the other way, which is that China's leadership, or the Chinese people, have some fundamental
misunderstandings about the U.S.?
JIN: Absolutely. I think the fundamental understanding that the U.S. wants to suppress China's growth, wants to hold back China's growth, is also
misplaced. I think the Chinese government underestimates the scope and room for dialogue, and to ease tensions, with China negotiating and giving up
some. And also, the huge impact that China could have by opening up its economy further and much more enthusiastically to American businesses, let
them make money, give them level playing fields. I think these could be real accomplishments, and American businessmen will then go on and lobby
their governments. So, I think there's a lot more to do.
But from the Chinese perspective, it's almost like, this is it. There's nothing we can improve on, there is no ground for really improving the
relationship, and I think that's mistaken.
ISAACSON: One of the misunderstandings we had, I think, was that if we had a greater trade relationship with China, if they were more networked into
the world, if they became part of the World Trade Organization, which they did, that would lead to a gradual liberalization in China. It's worked the
other way. Why is that and was that a misunderstanding?
JIN: Well, I think that the common assumption that somehow globalization will bring convergences of all sorts, apart from economic convergence, was
probably a mistake. And this is not just of China, but many other countries and cultures where their peoples are firmly rooted to their local
communities. And China, after the WTO, is still very much Chinese. That hasn't changed.
There's superficial levels of convergence. The new generation, they aspire to the American lifestyle to a certain degree. They like Hollywood and NBA,
but their identity is still firmly local. And the fact that 80 percent of these half a million students studying abroad every year returning to
native soil is an indication of that, even though they have great economic opportunities elsewhere.
And I think, yes, you are absolutely right, political liberalization has totally stalled. But we also have to ask, you know, what does the new
generation want? Yes, they have very different appetite for consumption and borrowing compared to their risk averse parents' generation, but
politically, what is their mentality?
Now, there are many international surveys that showed they're much more open-minded and socially conscious, and I think there is a lot more
convergence of social values of the new generation around the world with the Chinese, but they also look abroad and do not find inspiration. They
don't look at western liberal democracies as paragons of success, or the other democracies that was transposed onto native soil as models that they
aspire to.
Instead, the appetite, again, for stability, for government accountability, for economic opportunities is still dominant in their thinking.
ISAACSON: One of the values of the United States, sort of a moral compass, is that liberties, free press, democracy, these are good in and of
themselves. Are you saying this new more cosmopolitan generation of Chinese don't really believe that?
JIN: No. I don't think that's true. I'm not suggesting that in any way. I think they would want to have a freer and more open society. I think that
is the desire that the general public have on the -- for the -- for China. But -- and I think these values are evolving. I just don't think that
anything we should treat as totally cultural, totally indigenous, and that things won't change. That's not the case.
[13:35:00]
I think if you look at China in the 1990s, there was a totally very liberal era. And people were debating, talking about all kinds of things. So, I'm
not suggesting that these are fixed preferences. But I'm -- what I'm saying is that, first of all, if they had to choose, and I'm not saying there's
necessarily a trade-off, between freedom and security, as international surveys show, 95 percent of the Chinese population choose security over
freedom. In the U.S., 37 percent would make the same choice.
ISAACSON: You talk about surveys. You talk about the opinions that the younger generation have, some of that is in your book. To what extent are
those surveys something that is reliable? To what extent would you or, for that matter, a younger person in China, want to speak out against the
state?
JIN: Well, these are world values surveys, which are widely recognized and used, and as random selection as possible. They are also American
economists or sociologists' own gathering of data. There's a wide range of sources that would basically suggest the same.
It's true that the new generation has aspirations for more liberalism. But it's interesting that their sentiment towards the U.S. or western
democracies did also make a turn in 2017, and that's during Trump era. So, we can't underestimate how the external environment and what's perceived to
be greater pressure on China, the kind of idea that somehow the West doesn't want China to become a richer nation, and other developing
countries. That really do shift their preference -- their sentiment and shape their understandings. And so, we can't underestimate that as well.
So, I think we can't take these preferences as given. But the external environment, their observations have made them come to a conclusion that
maybe the western democracy doesn't really suit China.
ISAACSON: You say that some of the reaction that's happened in China against the liberalization that had occurred 20 years ago or so happened
out of reaction to Donald Trump or reaction to what the U.S. did. But to what extent is Xi Jinping's own values that have changed, and to what
extent might China change after he's no longer in power?
JIN: Well, the one thing is true is that China has been constantly evolving, adapting, and adjusting. And maybe because the West has been so
focused on the three set of issues that they have often missed, the vast changes and the evolution. And yes, we can maybe say that there are some
references on the top that are imposed on the general public, but China, you know, faces a real challenge. It's no longer the country where the
entire population revolves around one goal, which is higher income and more GDP. It's becoming a much more complex nation with individual preferences,
diverse opinions.
And how do you manage a greater complex society is going to be the key critical challenge for the leadership going forward, and it's not going to
be easy. If you look at the youth unemployment rate, 25 percent of people with bachelor's degrees without a have job, I mean, that is really
signaling social instability issues.
But also, don't underestimate the Chinese government in their rapidity and swift adjustment to policies. In the U.S., policies take a time -- take a
long time to change, but the parties change. In China, parties -- the party doesn't change, but policies can change very quickly. If the government has
a mind on something and they believe that's the right thing to do, things will happen swiftly.
So, never read anything as being permanent, even this rhetoric or the ambitions, the grandiose messages, they aren't permanent. They are always
recalibrated, fine-tuned to fit the circumstances and accommodate the reality.
ISAACSON: You talk about a 25 percent unemployment rate among young people, people who have just graduated from college. That seems explosive. Why is
that happening? Is that a basic economic problem and what could that mean?
JIN: It is very high, stunningly high, because the world averages is around 14.5 percent of youth unemployment. I think there are some short-term
economic reasons. The economy is doing very poorly in China. But I think the more general problem is that diplomas have raced ahead of the economy.
The Chinese economy is still very much manufacturing base. They don't need that many bachelor degrees. But what they do need is vocational, technical
skill training, especially when China aspired to be a giant Germany with this industrial power.
[13:40:00]
At the same time, there's youth unemployment. There's 30 million manufacturing jobs to be filled by 2025, and every year, 300,000 skill gap
in the semiconductors industry. So, it's really a skill education mismatch.
And also, the big chasm lies in the expectations and reality, the difference between expectations and reality for the youth. They have high
expectations. They went to get a college degree, and yet, they have only jobs as nannies or as workers in a cigarette manufacturing company. And
that really leads to disappointment, a lost -- reduced expectations, and that affects the families as well. And that's a sign -- a real sign to be
aware of.
ISAACSON: Chinese lived under zero COVID policy, I think it was almost three years, and the government seemed to begin to pivot away from that
following the protests of the -- two weeks of protests. How did the COVID zero policy impact the relationship between the state and the people? And
what does it show about the Chinese government that it would really do a pirouette on this issue?
JIN: I think in the beginning, early stages of the pandemic, the Chinese public were generally supportive of the controls in place and saw China as
a success. But as we know, as the virus evolved, the policies did not involve, and that became a huge problem. And towards the very end, you
know, people were losing jobs, they weren't having any income and they were pretty much fed up with the lockdowns.
And in a very surprising turn, you saw how the people's voices and people's preferences, ultimately, you can say, it was way too slow, but it did move
the government. It did change the government, way faster than anyone had ever expected. And so, I think that it's one example of this feedback. And
this most important thing is that the communist party -- the boat stays afloat because of the sea of people.
So, that's something that is really important in China. And so, they always have to answer to the vast majority, not every single individual Chinese,
but the vast majority. And if they're not happy, it will topple the boat. So, do you remember that about China.
ISAACSON: Let me read you a sentence from your book that I found fascinating. You said about China, it's ambitions to not include exporting
its ideology or foisting itself development model on the rest of the world. That, in some ways, said to the part from we always thought about Russia
for the past, whatever, 400 years, that it wanted to spread its ideological models.
That's also is unlike the U.S., which from the days of Woodrow Wilson to the days of George W. Bush and Joe Biden, has felt that we're supposed to
spread democracy. Do you see that as a fundamental clash?
JIN: China is more practical. It understands that its unique model is impossible to be replicated elsewhere. So, it doesn't strive to do so. But
it does also believe that some of the developmental lessons that it can impart on developing countries could be important. For instance, like
infrastructure development, on which it has a great amount of expertise. But I don't think spreading ideologies is really a goal for China.
But, you know, this leadership, especially past generation of leadership, have eminently practical. We have to remember that 80 percent of the global
population still lives in the developing countries. So, China wants to work more with developing countries, and I think Chinese technology it eminently
more suitable for developing countries than many American or European ones.
But -- and you can say that, you know, the current leadership is more ideological, but it's more internally driven rather than trying to
replicate, trying to want to replicate or export some ideals onto the rest of the world.
ISAACSON: Keyu Jin, thank you so much for joining us.
JIN: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And next, to the extraordinary megastar, the queen of disco, Donna Summer. She changed the course of dance music with smash hits like,
"I Feel Love" and "Hot Stuff." She died of cancer in 2012 at the age of 63. And now, a documentary is taking a closer look at her complicated life.
Here's a bit of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good life. You are looking at me, but what you see is not what I am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who is she?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My approach to singing, I approach it as an actress. I don't approach it as a singer. And it's really acting. I'm not trying to be
me.
I came out with Georgia with the -- which just changed the face of music for a while.
[13:45:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was the first female black artist to ever have a video on MTV.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And that is a clip from the trailer for "Love to Love You, Donna Summer." It's made by the singer's daughter, Brooklyn Sudano. And she's
joining me now from Los Angeles. Welcome to the program.
I am sure there's not a single person watching this, of my particular age, who doesn't immediately remember dancing to Donna Summer for all those
wonderful decades. I love the fact that she says, I did this as an actress. Tell me about that. You yourself are one as well.
BROOKLYN SUDANO, DIRECTOR, "LOVE TO LOVE YOU, DONNA SUMMER": Yes. No, I think that's one of the things that made her almost fundamentally different
than other artists of her time is that she really took each song and approached it as a character for that particular song. And I think that's
why each song has such specificity to it in reaching the audience in such a dynamic way.
And, you know, I think, in some ways, she would have had an acting career if she felt like she could have had a sustainable career at that time.
There weren't as many opportunities for women of color to have a sustainable acting career. And so, she use that dream and that talent in
her singing.
AMANPOUR: And to hear what she was the first black female singer to get a music video on MTV, I mean, that's also a stunner. How did that change her
impact?
SUDANO: Yes. Well, I think she was the first for many things, and that was one. You know, there was a changing dynamic in the way people were
consuming music. And MTV obviously was a groundbreaking tool and medium. And so, she was always very visual in her productions, very theatrical. And
so, taking that -- again, going back to the acting, taking that into the music video realm and allowing music to have this visual impact was
something that I think she innately felt comfortable with.
And so, you know, she works hard for the money. Was -- this breakout song. And I think that music video really opened up doors for many other female -
- black female artist afterwards.
AMANPOUR: And the other, I mean, obviously, iconic song is "Love to Love You, Baby," which is presumably part of the reason why you named the
documentary that. It's so identified with her. We're going to play a little bit of it, what we can play on a family television show.
SUDANO: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there is the throb there, but in other versions there's, you know, the sultry size and the ecstatic size, you know, practically orgasm.
And I just wonder, you know, she was your mom. First of all, what did you make of that song when you first heard it?
SUDANO: Well, I think there was a little bit of shock. You know, there's a moment in the film where my sister, Amanda, and I have this interaction of,
like, oh, my god, who is this woman? We don't know her. And that was very true. That really happened.
I think, you know, at the time where my sister and I were kind of going through our middle school years is really when we first discovered the
song, because at the time, even though we were very much a part of my mother and her career and would go to shows and things, she's stopped
performing that song live. And so, we didn't really have any kind of true understanding of what that song was, or the impact for culture and for her
life in particular.
AMANPOUR: Did she realize? I mean, you know, we read that she -- you know, she grew up in a very religious environment, she was -- you know, came from
a conservative background. Did she understand what she was letting herself into or was it totally agency? And again, performing, as you said, like an
actress?
SUDANO: I think it was all of those things. I think, you know, she always had this very deep sense that she was going to be on the world stage. That
she was going to be famous. That she had this very strong calling over her life. So, I think she understood that that was going to be her path. But I
think the way that it happened was much different than she had anticipated.
And while -- you know, she was one of the writers, she came up with the idea of "Love to Love You." I just think she thought, oh, well, someone
else will sing that song. And so, when it became her -- you know, her entry into superstardom, I think, you know, balancing her real identity and her
real personality with this persona that was very sexualized and very forward, when she was really kind of this goofy theatrical person, there
was a bit of conflict there.
[13:50:00]
And it took hard bit of time to find her footing and, you know, take ownership of it. But also have people understand that that was not her
limitation, that this persona was just only a part of who she was.
AMANPOUR: And look, you know, Tina Turner died recently, and apart from her mega talent, she also became a real mentor and an icon for young women,
because she finally spoke out about the domestic abuse that she suffered from Ike Turner. Your mother also suffered abuse until finally finding your
father and settling down. This is a part of what she said about that, her thoughts on motherhood and, you know, marriage from the doc. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONNA SUMMER, SINGER: My life sort of started to quiet down. One of the things that happened was that I married Bruce. It was also this time when I
started becoming more spiritual. I had to make a decision about being a mother and how much mother I was going to be.
There's just nothing in my life that was worth more to me than my jewels, my children are my jewels. And my husband and my family. I love to perform,
you know, and that's extremely important. But it doesn't bring me what they bring me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That's marvelous. And I can see your face as you're listening to that. What kind of a mother was she? And did she sort of -- you know, sort
of scale back the highly sexualized performances once, you know, you are there?
SUDANO: Yes. She -- like I said earlier, that that was a part of her that we didn't really have a real understanding of until we got a bit older. You
know, my mom was a very nurturing person. I always say that she was everybody's stage mom. If she saw a gift or a talent in you, she would
champion that and say, go for your dreams.
And, you know, she really empowered us to do that for ourselves and, you know, included us in her artistry and in her creativity. It wasn't
something that was separated from our daily lives. We were very much a part of all the different aspects of her life at that point. And so, I think, it
allowed us to feel very close to her, even though we had to really share her with the world most of the time.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And she is still being, you know, remembered and utilized by some of the fantastic generational now. Beyonce has, I think, done a cover
or sampled, "I Feel Love" on her new album, "Renaissance." Talk to me about her lasting legacy. How would Donna Summer wanted to have been remembered?
SUDANO: You know, I think she would like to be remembered as a real artist. I think people kind of know her as the moniker, disco queen, or this
persona of disco, and she really was a true artist. She wrote a lot of her music. She was a painter. And so, everything in her life was about
creation. And I think she would really want to be, you know, up there with the other artists of her time and respected as that. And, you know, as
somebody who brought love and joy to people by using her gift.
AMANPOUR: Amazing. Brooklyn Sudano, thank you so much. And "Love to Love You, Donna Summer," is available on HBO and streaming on Max.
And finally, tonight, even days later, this story continues to amaze, the sheer will to survive of four small children. The youngest, only one-year-
old. They have been found alive, as we know, in Colombia's Amazon jungle. But it was after more than a month after a plane crash where they lost
their mother.
The general who led the massive search for the kids has told CNN he believes rescuers came within 100 feet of them at one point, but didn't
find them right away because of the rainforest density. All three adults on board, including, as I said, their mother, were killed. But here's why
their father said he remains hopeful for his children.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANUEL RANOQUE, FATHER OF RESCUE CHILDREN (through translator): We are indigenous people. I believe in the jungle, which is our mother. And that's
why I've always kept the faith and would say that both the jungle and nature have never betrayed me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Such powerful words about nature. Apparently eating cassava flour helped save those children, who also reportedly hid from torrential rains
and dangerous animals in hollowed out tree trunks. They are now recovering in hospital in Bogota.
[13:55:00]
And that is it for us. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episodes shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Thanks for watching. Bye- bye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
