Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib; Interview with Retired IDF Major General Guy Zur; Interview with "Kingmaker" Author Sonia Purnell; Interview with "What If We Get It Right?" Author Ayana Elizabeth Johnson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 18, 2024 - 13:00 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.
More devices explode in Lebanon as Israel targets Hezbollah. Amid fear and panic and spiraling war, Lebanon's foreign minister joins me.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAMELA HARRIMAN, WINSTON CHURCHILL'S DAUGHTER-IN-LAW: We are prepared to fight the new right and the extremists in the Senate races of 1984.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the untold story of Churchill's daughter-in-law who became a Democratic Party power broker. Author Sonia Purnell examines the
extraordinary life of Pamela Harriman in her new book, "Kingmaker."
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYANA ELIZABETH JOHNSON, AUTHOR, "WHAT IF WE GET IT RIGHT?": We're not really thinking about all the solutions we have at our fingertips.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: -- "What If We Get It Right?" Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson with Hari Sreenivasan imagines a world in which we don't just combat climate
change, but we thrive in the process.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Walkie-talkies exploded today in Lebanon, a day after Israel remotely detonated Hezbollah's network of pagers. Israel's defense minister today
says a new phase of war is beginning, and that the center of gravity is moving north, meaning towards Lebanon.
The two stunning attacks killed more than a dozen people and injured thousands. Hezbollah is vowing revenge. The group, which while the West
designates it as a terrorist organization, is actually also a powerful political party with 13 seats in the Lebanese parliament.
Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib was the country's ambassador to the United States, also worked once as the economist at the World Bank, and he
is now joining us from Beirut.
Welcome to the program, Foreign Minister.
ABDALLAH BOU HABIB, LEBANESE FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: What do you think is going on?
HABIB: A pleasure.
AMANPOUR: What do you know is going on? What's happening right now in your country?
HABIB: Well, you described it a little bit. And it is worse than one can say. There are a lot of people who were be killed and a lot of people
injured, and a lot of them maimed for good, you know. So, it's a very hard situation. And I don't know what's Israel intention. I don't think they can
return -- the those who -- refugees who went from their villages in the north in this way because Israel was in Lebanon and had to run away in
Lebanon. Of course, they stayed 22 years, but there were too many killings of Israelis there.
So, I don't think Israel would want to occupy South (INAUDIBLE), because this time there is just as stronger than it was in the past. So, I really
don't understand the Israelis because they -- if they want to go to get back their people to the north, those who were displaced to the north, to
their villages and settlements, they have to negotiate. And they have to negotiate with the Lebanese government through mediators like the Americans
as well.
AMANPOUR: So, have there been any negotiations -- before I get to the nitty-gritty of the exploding walkie-talkies. Has there been any kind of
diplomatic attempt? Because Hezbollah, obviously, also got into this war after October 7th in support of Hamas. So, there's been an ongoing exchange
of fire between the two sides for nearly a year now.
HABIB: That's true. The -- October 8th it will be a year. So, yes, the Americans got involved, the French get involved. U.N. tries its best as
well. And -- but we depend on the Americans now to really take them. And Mr. Amos Hochstein is our -- I don't know if he still is, in Israel. And I
think he was supposed to come here if he has any message. It seems he doesn't have any message.
AMANPOUR: So --
[13:05:00]
HABIB: He has been negotiating. He has been talking to people here and in Israel, but so far nothing came out.
AMANPOUR: So, Foreign Minister, the Americans say they were not told of these details. Now the Israelis are saying they did warn the Americans. But
apparently, by consensus, there is -- there was no details given to the Americans. Neither to Mr. Hochstein, nor to the State Department. And the
secretary of state is in the region right now. This is what he's saying about the general situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We've been very clear, and we remain very clear, about the importance of all parties avoiding any steps
that could further escalate the conflict that we're trying to resolve in Gaza, to see it spread to other fronts. It's clearly not in the interest of
anyone involved to see that happen. And that's why, again, it's imperative that all parties refrain from any actions that could escalate the conflict.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister, he's talking about trying to get a ceasefire in Gaza in order to calm the whole area. A, do you think that's what it's
going to take to stop Hezbollah from its activities?
HABIB: Look, Hezbollah is a resistance movement and let's deal government to government. We are willing to talk to Hezbollah at the right time and we
communicate with them all the time. And I think if Israel wants peace, we are ready for peace, for a ceasefire. Not a peace treaty, but for a
ceasefire on the border and an agreement on what are the conditions for this ceasefire.
Granted that 1701, which is the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, is a very important resolution for us. And if we implemented for us
and the Israelis, and we both said that that's implemented but Israel violates Lebanon, the sovereignty of Lebanon every day, every day that is a
violation.
So, I'm not defending Hezbollah because, yes, they are also, you know, retaliating. Escalation has been all the time Israelis. Like, what happened
yesterday, what happened today, is escalation you know? We cannot talk to Hezbollah anymore now in the way we were talking to them in the past,
because they are -- of course, they were hit very badly and therefore retaliation is a must to them.
We'll try to do something, but I don't know how much we have power to stop them.
AMANPOUR: It all sounds --
HABIB: And (INAUDIBLE) resistance in the south --
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes, yes. It all sounds --
HABIB: -- with the (INAUDIBLE) occupation of --
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister, it all sounds really hopeless. On the one hand, you say, you know, the U.S. has to do something. The U.S. didn't even
know what was about to happen. Israel as its main ally. Israel takes his weapons from the United States. Nobody knew according to Secretary of State
Antony Blinken. How is it going to fix this?
Then you say, you can't talk to Hezbollah because they are, you know, now without their pagers or their walkie-talkies. Are you afraid that this is
going to escalate into a regional war, not just Israel going to war with Hezbollah, but a regional war with Iran, et cetera?
HABIB: We have warned about this for a long time, that this will end up with a regional war. And this is not in the interest of any side, any
country in the region. We really want peace as a government. And we are really going to New York, to the Security Council, Friday afternoon we have
a meeting of Security Council. We want peace.
I don't mean to say peace with Israel and have like a peace treaty. We want peace in the borders between us and Israel. And we want to go back to the
truce line, which was approved by Israel and by Lebanon in 1949. So, you know, we really want peace and we're really working for peace, but we did
not receive any good sign from the Israelis in this sense.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you, has this weakened Hezbollah, because, first of all, you know, it's quite a stunning coordinated attack. We don't
know what the strategy of this was and what's the next step by Israel. But those who get off on this kind of daring do are calling it brilliant.
My question to you is, does this weaken Hezbollah in terms of its intelligence that's been penetrated, its hardware has been penetrated? I
mean, what's your view on that?
HABIB: Well, so far, of course. Now, Hezbollah, for a few days, through -- or a week or so there would be trouble. It's not easy for them to receive
such kind of a blow in two days. You know, I don't know what's expected more, if there is anything else is expected tomorrow. I mean they're
penetrating their intelligence. They penetrated their communication. There's no doubt there would be a little bit in disarray.
[13:10:00]
But I think this is an organization that can come back quickly. That's what happened in 2006, and they can come back quickly. Also, Israel for a year
almost, has been, you know, we were going to finish for Hamas. Yes, Hamas has been weakened, but it's still there.
So, you know, ideas -- you cannot kill ideas by war. This is if you have an army -- I guess an army, one would win. But this case, it is not the case.
It's not the same case as a war. You know, you have an idea. An idea does not die. The contrary, there would be more people really rallying towards
this idea.
AMANPOUR: And finally, Foreign Minister, you know, CNN has learned that it was a joint Mossad IDF operation. How do you know? What do you know? Why do
you say it was Israel? And how do you assess the ability to do what they did?
HABIB: How do I?
AMANPOUR: Know that it was Israel and how do you --
HABIB: Access. Is that --
AMANPOUR: Just your -- how did you feel when all these exploding pagers started going off, and today more walkie-talkies?
HABIB: Well, there -- there's no doubt it's a scary moment and we are afraid from -- commit war because we don't want the war. There were
skirmishes on the border, sometimes escalated. Well, OK, accepted. But now you're talking about a war. It's an introduction to a war. That's why we're
going to the Security Council, U.N. Security Council, to stop such kind of things.
We are against war in Lebanon. The government of Lebanon does not want war and does not want even the skirmishes in the south of Lebanon. So, we need
the help of the United Nations. We need the help of the United States also in order to really reestablish some kind of peace in South Lebanon.
AMANPOUR: And just very briefly --
HABIB: And which is also happened to be North Israel as well.
AMANPOUR: How do you know it was Israel?
HABIB: How do I know -- I didn't get the question.
AMANPOUR: Yes. How do you know Israel did it?
HABIB: What? Can you -- well, I don't know. But the perception, which is a strong perception, that they did it. Even Americans are saying, nobody
could do it except the Israelis.
AMANPOUR: And finally --
HABIB: And the Americans can put a lot of pressure on the Israelis. As you -- yes.
AMANPOUR: Is war inevitable now, a bigger war?
HABIB: You know, if United States is the only country that can stop the war. The United States supplies Israel with weapons, with ammunition, with
money, whatever.
AMANPOUR: OK.
HABIB: And they can stop it. And this happened before. Kissinger stopped the war and Bush also got the Israelis to the peace conference in Madrid.
So, United States has the means to stop the war if it wants to stop the war.
AMANPOUR: We're going back more than 30 years now, Mr. Foreign Minister. Thank you so much indeed for being with us at this really tense time.
And meantime, as the foreign minister said, they are going to the U.N. this weekend. And the U.N. secretary general is calling on all parties to de-
escalate immediately The U.N. General Assembly today adopted a historic resolution demanding that Israel ends its illegal presence in the occupied
Palestinian territories within 12 months, which Israel swiftly rejected.
Let's turn now to the retired IDF Major General Guy Zur. Major General, welcome back to the program. You're in Herzliya. Welcome back. You just
maybe heard what the Lebanese foreign minister said. I just want to ask you from your perspective, is war now inevitable? What do you make of what
Defense Minister Gallant said on top of all these explosions?
GUY ZUR, RETIRED IDF MAJOR GENERAL: Good evening. I think that it's not inevitable. I think that if the leaders of both sides will think
strategically, it will be delayed or stopped. We can stop this war. Because we understand, all of us, that in the end of a war, that both sides will
pay a very high price on the war. We will be back close to the same point that we are now.
[13:15:00]
So, if Hezbollah will stop its attacks and will agree to make the 7001 decision, I think that it's a good start to eliminate the war that is
already going to implement.
AMANPOUR: OK. I mean, before I get to these exploding devices, you say that, but your own defense minister at a air force base today said, the
center of gravity is moving north through the diversion of our resources and forces. We are opening a new phase in the war. This requires courage,
determination, and perseverance from us. It's very important to do things at this stage in close cooperation between all organizations at all levels.
Now, that's the defense minister who is a member of your government. He doesn't seem to think -- it doesn't look like they want to stop war.
ZUR: Well, I'm not sure. You know, it has been almost a year that the Israelis northern citizens left their homes and the attacks of Hezbollah
are not understandable, because Hezbollah is going to pay a very, very high price for its support in the murderers of Hamas.
He has to consider again if the Hamas is important enough to ruin Lebanon, but we can't get the situation. We can't accept the situation that the
Israeli are more than 11 months out of their homes because of the attacks of Hezbollah. So, the defense forces of Israel should do the right steps in
order to make it in war, if not in agreement. That's the role of the defense minister. That's the role of the army. So, that's what they are
doing.
And if Hezbollah will not agree to stop, it will deteriorate to a total war. That the prices of two -- of both sides will be very high. I think
that Hezbollah so today and yesterday, the capabilities that he has never - - hasn't known for the last few years that we that we developed if Israel did it. So, I think that he has to consider (ph) again.
AMANPOUR: So, you say if Israel did it, are you -- is there any doubt in your mind this was allegedly a joint Mossad-IDF operation? Everybody's busy
-- you know, your supporters all over the world are busy congratulating. Is there any doubt in your mind, you're a former IDF, that this was the IDF?
And if so, what's the point?
ZUR: Well, I was a former. I'm not in an official role now. So, it's not important what I think. But I think that probably it can be Israel, Mossad,
and the IDF is probably who did it. And I think that the goal is to tell Hezbollah, you are very penetrated. We know almost everything of Hezbollah.
And if you want to continue to deteriorate the situation in order to get to total war, consider again because the prices will be very high.
And I think that Nasrallah, 16 years ago or 18 years ago, after the Second Lebanon War, he said that if he would know what are the prices that Lebanon
would pay, he didn't -- he wouldn't start the war that he started, the hijack of the soldiers of Israel.
So, now, I have to remind him that he has to consider again because the prices will be unbearable for Lebanon. Also, for Israel, it will be very
hard, but unbearable for Lebanon.
AMANPOUR: You know, when you pull back and see the whole picture, as the Lebanese foreign minister just said accurately, that it's been 11 months,
nearly a year now, since October 7th, and since the Israeli war against Hamas. Hamas has been weakened, but not eliminated. It's been 11 months of
this back and forth on the northern border with Hezbollah and all sides are still there.
You mentioned the war of 2006, which created a huge amount of pain. You're absolutely right. But Israel is not considered to have won that war. At
best it was a draw. Do you think Hamas is going to retaliate now? And do you think that Iran will be dragged in the whole thing that everybody says
they don't want? Do you think that might happen now?
[13:20:00]
ZUR: I think that both sides should act and think strategically. I'm not sure that the Israeli government think and act strategically, and I don't
think that the other side is acting strategically. We will not gain more profits from the war with Hamas because the Hamas is already controlled
again. And because of the fact that the military capabilities of the Hamas were eliminated. He is still with terror capabilities, but not with
military capabilities.
So, now, what Israel strategy should be is lie on four legs. One is to stop the war and -- with Hamas and bring back the hostages. This the most
important and more most moral act to do. Secondly, it has to make a new agreement with the coalition that Biden is offer -- has been offered for us
since the beginning of this war. Third, we have to bring back the people of the northern part of Israel to their homes in agreement or in a war. And
third -- and fourth, and this maybe the most important thing, all the coalition with Israel, but not Israel alone, should attack Iran before it
become a nuclear weapon -- a nuclear country. So, these are the four strategic lines -- pills that I think that we have to put ahead.
Does Israel government do it? Not yet. I think that the Israeli prime minister deal too much with politics and less with the interest of Israel.
And this very concerning point.
AMANPOUR: Right. Let me --
ZUR: And I think that Hezbollah should also think in -- on his strategy.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just ask you something beyond this sort of national power play. You know, you mentioned the hostages. It's the one thing your
people have been consistent about since the beginning. They've demanded that their government and their prime minister, first and foremost, bring
back the hostages, who, the remainder, are languishing, rotting in some horrible tunnels and they're in danger of being killed, as you've seen
others have.
Is your prime minister focusing on the right thing right now, escalating with Hezbollah and Lebanon? And do you think there is a -- I mean, is
enough attention being put on the people who need to be brought home?
ZUR: No, my opinion, and I'm saying it whenever I can say, is that the prime minister deal too much with politics and not enough with the
ostentation, that they are the most important thing for the confidence of Israel and the future of Israel, because the Israeli society should
understand that when there are people who are hostages, the government of Israel does all that it can to bring them back home.
And because of politics, Netanyahu doesn't do it. And this a very, very concerning issue and that's why we demonstrate wherever we can.
AMANPOUR: It's really tragic to think of all those people and all those lives. Major General Zur, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
Next, we turn to a story of power, sex, and some of the most important figures in modern history. From America's involvement in World War II to
Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency, to the end of the war in Bosnia, one woman played a key usually unseen role behind the scenes.
Pamela Harriman, daughter-in-law of Winston Churchill and eventual American ambassador to France, was frequently dismissed as little more than a sexy
social climber. But nearly three decades after her death, a new biography is re-examining the legacy of Harriman and her extraordinary life.
"Kingmaker" reveals an amazing tale of subterfuge, seduction, and high society that ended in shaping some of the 20th century's critical moments.
It's author Sonia Purnell is joining us right now live here on the set. Welcome to the program.
SONIA PURNELL, AUTHOR, "KINGMAKER": Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: So, I mean, it's quite a story, quite a life that Pamela Harriman had. Why three decades after her death, did you think that she was
an interesting subject and that you wanted to set the record straight?
[13:25:00]
PURNELL: Well, two things. I first came across her when I was writing a book about Winston Churchill's wife, Clementine. So, I knew that she'd been
a crucial part of their war effort, that they depended on her and that she had a very, very special war mission, if you like, which I'll come on to
shortly, I'm sure.
So, I knew about her then but I also knew that her own papers, huge numbers of letters and diaries and minutes and transcripts were going to be made
open for the first time in the Library of Congress. Now, this was during COVID, but I beetled over there in a window in the lockdown and went into
the library there. And what I found really blew my socks off. I thought this was going to be a book that might take me two or three years. In the
end, it was five years.
She did so much more to create what you just described as modern history than even I had any idea. And I'd already looked into her past a fair
amount. But really, any big event that you can possibly think of in the 20th century she almost always had a ringside seat and had some kind of
impact on it.
AMANPOUR: Let's start a little bit at the beginning. OK. So, she was born to a middle-class family. She was a little bit sort of, you know, wanted to
get out of that sort of stultifying life, right, and wanted to get married. She didn't do very well in the debutante season. And she was pushed towards
Randolph Churchill.
PURNELL: It was very much her decision. She was the eldest daughter of a lord in Dorset, quite rural, very remote house.
AMANPOUR: Upper class, sorry.
PURNELL: Upper class, privileged lifestyle, but shut off from the rest of the world. And this fold in the Dorset Hills. You can't see any other night
-- lights at night. It's very, very remote. Her parents had gone there after the last pandemic in 1918 for sort of big healthy outdoor spaces, but
their daughter reacted against that. What she wanted was fun and excitement and she'd taken a very early interest in politics.
Now, at the beginning of the war, she met Randolph Churchill. He asked nine women to marry him. He wanted to sire a son before he went to war. Nine had
said no, probably for a very good reason because he was an appalling husband, a brute and a bully, really.
AMANPOUR: And a philanderer.
PURNELL: And a philanderer, and a drunkard, and pretty much anything else you can think of. But Pamela said yes for one very good reason. She saw it
as an exit out of Dorset and into high society and a center of power in London. And she succeeded in finding that.
AMANPOUR: And do you think she thought that it would lead to what you -- you know, you obviously write about, and that is this close relationship
with Winston Churchill, and this very, you know, critical role in trying to get America in on Britain's side, and being kind of at Winston Churchill's
side throughout?
PURNELL: Well, she was also his secret weapon. I think she set out right from the start that she was going to make herself indispensable to Winston
Churchill. I remember at the beginning of the war he was pretty unpopular. Everyone thought he'd been on the wrong side of history before -- that he'd
made too much of the threat from Hitler. Now, OK, we were at war, but still he was unpopular.
And here was an attractive young woman who laughed at his joke, but also took a huge interest in what he -- in the serious, very serious nature that
-- of the events that were now facing Britain (ph). The peril from invasion from the Germans was indescribable. Some way had to be found to lure the
Americans into the war. And if not short of that gain their support in the form of planes or weapons or even food and medicines. So, he unleashed her
as his secret weapon.
AMANPOUR: Cut to the secret weapon was directed at, as you say, the head of America's Lend Lease program, Averell Harriman, who was dispatched to
the U.K., right, by Roosevelt?
PURNELL: By Roosevelt, yes.
AMANPOUR: And she met him and?
PURNELL: Well, she met him and I think it's fair to say fireworks happened. But that was all deliberate. It was part of a strategic sex life.
She had to seduce this guy. She was provided with a beautiful golden skin type dress. She was put next to him at a dinner at the Dorchester Hotel.
Max Beaverbrook, one of Churchill's confidants arranged all of this, and then by the time they got to dessert, she was doing what people came to
call her mating dance, which involved a lot of stroking of the forearm, laughing at his jokes.
He was a rather -- he was a tough guy, but quite shy and insecure, and there was this gorgeous aristocrat, you know, soaking up every single word
he said. This was unusual, never really happened before. It was a very, very bad air raid that night. They went down to his suite in the hotel,
which was seen as relatively safe. And I think it's fair to say, without going into too much detail, then her very special war work started that
night and went on from there.
AMANPOUR: And what was the result? I mean, can we say it was because of her and Averell Harriman that Roosevelt came in? No, not --
[13:30:00]
PURNELL: No, we can't, but what we can say is that she was very much instrumental in recruiting him and many others, journalists, generals, all
sorts of people, to the British cause.
So, let's just take Averell Harriman there for a second. He was now completely well briefed on what Britain needed. Not only that, but he was
in love with this woman, and was determined to try and save Britain that she now, you know, embodied. And by the time he went back on his first trip
to Washington, this tough nosed son of a, you know, Roberr baron railroad tycoon was so pro-Brit that people said, have you been bewitched? What's
happened to you?
But it wasn't just him, it was a whole series of Americans that were all in love with Pamela, and all would do anything to please her and be in with
her. Meanwhile, she was, you know, peddling the British line, but also extracting information from them and passing that back to Churchill, to try
and establish what later became the special relationship.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and obviously, a woman of substance. I mean, you're right. History has reduced Pamela to a distorted stereotype. In her case, a
conniving and ridiculous gold-digger obsessed by sex. You call your book, though, "Kingmaker" for a reason.
PURNELL: Well, that's right. I mean, you know, her portrayal, even now, is totally unfair. So, what I've just described wasn't done for fun, although,
I'm sure there were moments of fun. It was a strategic campaign. She was only 22, 23 when she was doing this. She knew exactly what she was doing.
The pressure on her was immense. But she got the taste for power. She was beside Churchill as he waged a world war.
She spent the rest of her life after the war, once she was divorced from Churchill's son, trying to recreate that sense of power, that access to the
center of everything. Eventually, she found that, and this where the kingmaker comes in, she found that in the state. She married one American,
he died. She then married Averell Harriman, that she had seduced all those years before. He always said that he wished he'd married her there and
then, but he didn't.
He was her entree into Democratic politics. Just really, as the Republicans were taking a very firm grip of the White House. Her job was, how do we get
the White House back for the Democrats?
AMANPOUR: Yes. And you did talk to President Clinton, right, about Pamela and I think we have a little bit here of what he acknowledged at Pamela's
funeral.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Today, I am here, in no small measure, because she was there. She was one of the easiest choices I made
for any appointments when I became president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, he's talking about the appointment as ambassador to France. That's where I met her, and I obviously talked to you a little bit for your
book, because she was a real powerhouse during the phases of the Bosnia War, and she was a convener, whether she had, you know, American officials
there, or the Balkan leaders. It was an extraordinary thing.
And you write also about how she was, you know, besieged by then-President Jacques Chirac to help smooth relations with the United States.
PURNELL: Yes, that's right. I mean, as helping, you know, Clinton into the White House, which he has frequently acknowledged and he, as a reward, made
her ambassador to France where, again, people expected her just to be a sort of, you know, a socialite, but my goodness, behind closed doors she
was anything but.
Bosnia was her big test. She remembered what it was like from the war, what it was like to be in the blitz. She gave birth during an air raid. She knew
the horror and terror of war in a way that these guys that she was working with didn't. They were too young to remember or they'd been born after the
war.
She brought her a moral compass, if you like, to those negotiations. And she also became super trusted by both President Chirac of France and
Clinton back in Washington in a way that's really unusual. All ambassadors are trying to perform that role. Very, very few, probably numbered on the
fingers of one hand, ever quite achieve it in the way that she did.
And she created that feeling of trust, that alliance, that eventually led to the intervention in Bosnia and the sort of peace that we have now,
however imperfect that might be. And both sides say that she was absolutely a key part in making that happen. And yet, that's never been talked about.
It's remained behind closed doors.
This part of her astonishing story, which scan, you know, all sorts of things during the 20th century, that being just one of them.
AMANPOUR: You've made a bit of a career on exposing the true face of some of these amazing public women, Pamela Harriman, Clementine Churchill, a
woman of substance about a British World War II spy who didn't get her due at the time, right?
[13:35:00]
Reflect on that a little bit. There's so much misogyny, so much sexism in the way these women, particularly Pamela, obviously, was portrayed. Do you
feel. I don't know, a mission to correct that record?
PURNELL: It's interesting you say that word mission. I do. I'm quite affected by what these women did and how they've never been given much
credit, if any credit for it. But more than that, they've often been portrayed in the most unflattering way.
With Pamela, that still happens. People still say, oh, well, she was, you know, she was just a seductress, she was just a courtesan, she was just a
gold digger. OK. She had a glamorous life, and OK, she was the mistress of wife of a number of rich and powerful men. But what she did with that
access, what she did with that wealth, what she did with that position is extraordinary and perhaps unique. And we actually owe her an awful lot.
Another thing that she did was try and bring Russia and America together. She went to Moscow at one point in 1983, saw Andropov, and took a message
back to Washington saying that Russia or the Soviet Union's that was then was finally open to creating new channels of communication and perhaps,
ultimately, some kind of arms reduction treaty. So, you know, she was way more than just a courtesan.
AMANPOUR: Which then led to Gorbachev, who then came to have that deal with Ronald Reagan. It is extraordinary. And I really did admire her. I
thought she was an incredibly clever and an amazing woman. And it's really interesting because your book has had tremendous reviews. People have
acknowledged the fact that here you have actually told a story about an important woman of history who never got her due properly.
PURNELL: Well, that's what I'm trying to do. And a lot of people helped me along the way, including President Clinton, who was -- and including your
good self. It was amazing to get your insight, too. I thought it was a really important thing to do, and I'm really glad that I did.
There are very few people like Pamela's history. We may never see her like Harriman, we never see her like again.
AMANPOUR: Sonia Purnell, "Kingmaker," thank you so much indeed.
And now, a slightly hopeful look, maybe a very hopeful look at how to not only confront the climate crisis that grips our world, but also how to
flourish in the process.
Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, a leading marine biologist and climate policy expert sat down with Hari Sreenivasan to discuss her vision for a thriving,
sustainable future. And she explains how a diverse set of experts in fields such as farming, finance, and fashion helped shape her ideas.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Professor Ayana Johnson, thanks so much for joining us.
First of all, the title of your book, "What If We Get It Right?: Visions of Climate Futures." I have read several books about kind of climate change
and climate science, never really one with this particular kind of twist on it. Why did you want to approach all the conversations that you featured in
this book with this particular band or this thesis?
AYANA ELIZABETH JOHNSON, AUTHOR, "WHAT IF WE GET IT RIGHT?": The title question really helps to frame or reframe the climate conversation around
solutions. I think so often we're talking about the problem or we're talking exclusively about technology and electricity, and we're not really
thinking about all the solutions we have at our fingertips and the transformation that's required to our economy and society in order to
accelerate implementation of all of those.
So, I really just wanted to say to people, we have the solutions we need, right? We know how to do clean energy and public transit and green our
buildings and shift our agriculture and protect and restore ecosystems, right? None of this like a big mystery. We -- it's just a matter of the
speed and scale at which we're able to get those solutions happening out in the world.
And as you mentioned, this book is, in many ways, an anthology that features interviews with 20 experts, colleagues who are friends of mine,
who have helped me to answer this question and see the way forward in terms of visions of climate futures.
SREENIVASAN: You know, how do you kind of walk that line, I guess, between giving people some hope and maybe breaking them out of their existing
narrative? OK. Well, this well beyond our reach. The scale of this so massive. I've seen these numbers. Ah, what can I do? Sort of that level of
kind of hopelessness, to kind of making sure that it's not the other way or the other extreme, we're like, well, we can fix this if you just start
recycling tomorrow?
JOHNSON: Well, first, I'll say people feel overwhelmed by the climate crisis. That's actually a totally reasonable thing to feel. It's the
biggest challenge humanity has ever faced, right? And we have really done a lot to throw our ecosystems, our atmosphere out of balance. So, it is a lot
to process. I can understand why people are anxious and worried or depressed about it. But we don't get to like give up on the future of life
on this planet, right? Like, who are we to give up on Earth, each other, like we can't actually all go to Mars.
[13:40:00]
So, we have to make it work here. It's just a matter of, really, I guess a more accurate title for the book would be, "What If We Get It as Right as
Possible?" Because I feel like so often the conversation is as if it's binary, right, as if it's either apocalypse or paradise when, of course,
it's anything in between. And the difference between getting it like 60 percent right and 80 percent right is huge in terms of our quality of life
on this planet, the kinds of heat waves and storms and droughts and floods and fires and amount of sea level rise that we're going to have to deal
with.
So, we're talking about, you know, hundreds of millions of lives on the line if we veer much more on the apocalypse side than the paradise side.
So, I would just say to people who are feeling like, where do we even begin? Like, is it worth it? Yes. Those increments are so big that they
matter, even if they seem small, like a 10th or a half of a degree of warming that we can collectively prevent would be a very big improvement.
And for the people who are like, technology is just going to fix this, like, well, when? You know, I mean, fusion energy would be really cool, but
it's not here yet. So, we do have to think about energy efficiency, and we do have to think about green buildings and insulation and public transit
and all of these things that we can do. We have to think about composting and bike lanes and offshore wind energy and protecting and restoring
ecosystems. Like, we could just start on all of that now. Essentially, in some ways, to buy us time until we have these other solutions.
SREENIVASAN: You know, you and your guests point out in several different ways in the book, how across party lines it is when it comes to the polling
on whether or not people think climate change is real, whether they want to do something about it. And then there seems to be also a gap on whether
they feel like they can do something.
JOHNSON: Yes. I mean, to be clear, there is a huge division in this country politically between the Democrats and Republicans on climate. I
don't want to sugarcoat that, right? We have one party who many will deny it exists and another party passing sweeping legislation to advance
solutions.
And the constituents, when you poll, there is definitely a difference between Republicans and Democrats. But interestingly still, the majority of
people would like our government to do more to protect clean air and clean water, right? So, we don't actually have to spend all of our time arguing
about the details of climate change or even the origins of it, we can just agree to get to work on the solutions.
People in Ohio and Texas are very excited that their states have the biggest amount of wind energy. Those are good jobs, right? It's not just
for hippies. It's like a really financially viable market, renewable energy, right?
And for young people, there is a ton of concern across party lines but much more than others might expect for young Republicans who are like, well,
you're setting our planet on fire. Can you please stop? Right? So, there's this generational shift happening, which I think is really promising. And
there's also very significant differences across race in the country. It's something like 47 percent of white Americans are concerned about climate
change compared to 65 percent of black and Asian Americans, and 70 percent of Latinos.
So, when we think about the typical environmentalist, we probably are thinking of a notion that's not actually borne out by the demographics and
the polling. And if we want to successfully build the biggest, strongest team to address the climate crisis, we need to think about welcoming
everyone in who's concerned and helping everyone find their role.
SREENIVASAN: So, when you start talking about race and demographics and how people of color are interested in solving this, how did you get
interested in science? How did you get interested in specifically in the climate as you were growing up? Because most likely the climate science
role models did not look like you.
JOHNSON: Well, first, I think it's important to say on that issue of like the racial differences that it's not because people of color are more
impacted by the effects of climate change, although that is true. There is a grave injustice to the climate crisis that the people who did the least
to cause it in terms of emissions are bearing the greatest brunt of the impacts.
It is, in fact, because people of color tend to have a more communal worldview as opposed to individualist, right? This sense that we're all in
it together, and like we better figure out how to collectively address this crisis.
[13:45:00]
So, I would just encourage us all to embrace more of that collective wisdom, collective action as the solution, as opposed to just making sure
we, as individuals, get through this moment OK. And that, you know, sort of reflects on my career, as you asked. I mean, I found -- fell in love with
the ocean at a young age, as many people do, and then realized it was threatened and was like, oh, how do we save coral reefs? How do we protect
coastal communities that depend on the ocean for their economies, their livelihoods, their cultures, right?
My dad is from Jamaica. So, many people who live especially in the tropics are very heavily dependent on the ocean for food security, et cetera, their
economies. So, I always -- you know, when you love something, you want to help protect it. So, I encourage all of us to think about how to harness
that love of nature as part of our inspiration.
But then, you know, I quickly learned that it's not just about snorkeling with colorful fish, it is this question of policy, economics, politics,
sort of sociology, anthropology, even like behavioral psychology that you have to fit all these pieces together to think about solutions that would
actually be practical. And so, my work has evolved to -- I mean, I co-lead an ocean policy think tank because I think we need to change the policy
frameworks for our coastal cities.
So, Urban Ocean Lab is making recommendations for how to address a lot of these climate impacts in the place where one in five Americans live, which
is our coastal cities.
SREENIVASAN: I mean, what you do really well and your guests do really well is talk about how kind of climate change is exacerbated by lots of
other things that we don't connect on a daily basis, right? I mean, fast fashion, for example, is an incredibly massive industry. And, you know,
people are constantly looking for low prices, walking into some of these stores for practically disposable clothing. But there are these other much
more significant costs with this entire infrastructure.
JOHNSON: Yes, I was just flipping to the page in the book. Each section opens with a list of 10 problems and 10 possibilities. I think it's
important to always put those two side by side. And the one on fashion is that Americans dispose of about 13 million tons of clothing and footwear
each year, of which only 13 percent is recycled.
The average fast fashion garment is worn only seven times before it's discarded. And overall, the fashion industry is responsible for about 10
percent of global carbon emissions and 20 percent of industrial water pollution, and that is rising.
So, as much as, you know, it's an inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase from Al Gore, I mean, a movie title I did not appreciate, truly, until
writing this book, like we're going to have to change some of the ways that we live on this planet, like Earth cannot support this level of consumerism
and disposability based on fossil fuels.
SREENIVASAN: You know, something that caught my kind of eye a few times in this read was there's almost like this sort of war of narratives, and
people who have a lot of resources can try to push the blame on to the individual, maybe, away from governments or corporations.
JOHNSON: Yes. Yes, the follow the money section. One of the statistics that backs that up in detail is that the richest 10 percent of the
population owned 76 percent of the wealth, takes 52 percent of the income and accounts for 48 percent of global carbon emissions. That's the richest
10 percent accounting for 48 percent of emissions. And the poorest 50 percent of the world gets only 8.5 percent of the income and accounts for
12 percent of the emissions.
And so, that's the kind of discrepancy that we're talking about here. And there's, you know, a similar challenge with what the banks are doing. The
top U.S. banks, since in the last decade, so we're talking about JPMorganChase, City Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, have provided about
$1.5 trillion to fossil fuel companies to help them expand their operations, right?
So, in a moment where we need to be investing in the transition to clean energy as quickly as possible, we're seeing massive investments still in
building out new fossil fuel infrastructure, which is totally ridiculous. And probably one of the most important things you can do at a household
level is move where you have your money.
[13:50:00]
So, if you have your money in one of those banks, you're probably financing the fossil fuel industry to some degree. And there's been research that
shows by Bank Forward and others, if you have $125,000 saved up for retirement, and that money is not in a climate friendly fund, that money
being loaned out to fund fossil fuel stuff is doing more harm than all the good you could possibly do to balance it out in terms of just eating
plants, only walking and riding your bike, et cetera.
So, if people are looking for a specific thing they can do, you know, it's kind of a pain in the butt to spend a day researching it and filling out
the forms to move your money, but that can make a big difference. And, you know, green energy companies are making a bunch of profit. They're growing
really quickly. So, that's something I hope people would look into.
SREENIVASAN: And there's a quote in your book from Angela Davis. It says, you have to act as if it were possible to radically transform the world.
And you have to do it all the time.
How do people balance kind of that sense of urgency, especially when climate as a problem seems so daunting?
JOHNSON: And it's something that we have to deal with for the rest of our lives, right? It's not like we can all work really hard for a month and
then it's over. And so, what I encourage people to do is really think about how they specifically can be useful. So, I propose this framework of a
climate action Venn diagram with three circles.
And the first one is, what are you good at? You know, what are the skills, the resources, the networks that you specifically can bring to the table?
The second circle is, what work needs doing, right? There are hundreds of climate and justice solutions. So, pick one or a few that you want to
contribute your skills to.
And then the third circle is, what brings you joy or satisfaction, gratification, right? This sense that you're energized to keep doing this,
because this something that we're just going to have to keep chipping away at and making better and leaning into this sense of possibility and
creation for as long as we can possibly be around to contribute.
And being at the heart of this kind of Venn diagram, I think, is where everyone needs to find their way to. And of course, Hari, what you would do
and what I would do should be different because we're bringing different things to the table. So, I would encourage people to look beyond what they
would think about in their personal life, right?
Don't just think about your own carbon footprint and your own money and your own family, think about what you can contribute within your
professional life. How can you help the corporation you work for help to lead become something that's contributing to climate solutions instead of a
problem, right? How can you help your community, your city, your town start to make these shifts?
And I think there's just so much opportunity there for us to each roll up our sleeves and find ways to be useful. That's the word I keep coming back
to is like, we just all need to find ways to be useful.
SREENIVASAN: I've got to ask, how do you stay in the art of the possible? You have a quote in here that says, we find ourselves in a time of
reckoning, at an inflection point for humanity. What we will inflect toward is not clear.
I mean, what gives you confidence that we can get it right?
JACKSON: I don't have confidence. I have no idea what the future may hold. And I actually think back to civil rights movement leaders, the phrase
that's been coming to mind a lot lately as I am out in the world talking about this book is Martin Luther King saying, I may not get there with you.
And not because we may not ever see the results of our work because it may not be addressed thoroughly in our lifetimes doesn't mean we should give
up, right? Who are we to give up on life on this planet? That's a ridiculous thing to do, to give up on each other, to give up on making the
world better than it would otherwise be.
And so, I kind of don't worry about the end, the outcome, because even if - - even though I personally can't solve climate change, I will feel better living as a person who is contributing to getting it as right as possible
instead of just watching the world fall apart before my eyes.
SREENIVASAN: Professor Ayana Johnson, and author of the book, "What If We Get It Right?: Visions of Climate Futures," thanks so much for joining us.
JOHNSON: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, exactly one year ago today, Siamak Namazi, the wrongfully detained, longest held American citizen in Iran, was set
free along with four other prisoners.
[13:55:00]
It's hard to forget the emotional moment when Namazi stepped off that plane and embraced his brother and his father. Six months earlier, he had made an
audacious appeal on this program from inside Evin for President Biden to negotiate their release with Iran.
Namazi has spent most of this past year, in fact, all of it, in freedom, privately recovering from the ordeal, but gradually, he's coming out.
First, with a letter to the editor of The Economist. A powerful fellow inmate had agreed to smuggle the weekly news magazine into the notorious
prison for him, and it became a lifeline.
He writes, these contraband copies of The Economist became our secret treasure, offering a respite from the monotony of captivity. We devoured
the articles cover to cover, momentarily forgetting our dire circumstances and feeling a sense of normalcy. He goes on to say, though you were denied
a few years' worth of subscription fees, I hope you can forgive this captive enthusiast.
And that's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
