Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona's Immigration Law; Interview With Robert Dudley
Aired July 28, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MAX FOSTER, GUEST HOST: A U.S. federal judge drops key parts of a controversial immigration law in the state of Arizona. It's a case that's gripped Americans for and against and will continue to be fought in the highest courts. But it also resonates on the border and far beyond. Tonight, we speak with a former Mexican president about what today's decision means for the people of his continent.
On CNN, this is the hour we connect the world.
Law S.B. 1070 goes into effect in 11 hours. But the section that calls for officers to check a person's immigration status has been put on hold. From coast to coast in the U.S. and around the world, this is a story with real ramifications.
I'm Max Foster in London.
And we're going to hear from a former Mexican president, Vicente Fox.
Also tonight, BP's next boss.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT DUDLEY, BP CEO-DESIGNATE: Great emphasis on safety, operating systems that are not safe enough.
FOSTER: Well, if you're improving safety now...
DUDLEY: Obviously, we have to accelerate greatly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Bob Dudley admits to me BP's safety protocols weren't good enough. The full interview up ahead.
And Hans Blix.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANS BLIX: Well, I think it is a tragedy. And I've got (INAUDIBLE). And they justified the war by many things, but the main one was that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: The UN's chief weapons inspector at the time of shock and awe in Iraq answers your questions tonight. He's your Connector of the Day.
Keep getting involved in the show. You cannot only ask guests questions, you can suggest people we should be speaking to, as well. Head to CNN.com/connect for details.
An eleventh hour decision the day before a new immigration law was set to take effect in the U.S. state of Arizona, a judge has blocked the most controversial part of it. That portion of the law would have required police to investigate the immigration status of anyone detained for another reason, if there was reason to suspect the person was in the United States illegally.
The decision to block that part of the law was handed down just a few hours ago. But other parts of the law will still be implemented starting tonight.
All of this took place at the federal courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona.
And that's where CNN's Jessica Yellin has been gauging opinion -- Jessica.
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Max.
The views here in Arizona, as you might imagine, are dividend. Folks who oppose this law tell us they believe this is a -- a partial victory because she has not struck down those controversial pieces of the law, but simply halted them from going into effect because this could continue. They say, though, it is a relief -- a great relief, in particular, to law enforcement officers who object to the law and did not want to begin enforcing it tomorrow.
However, there are a great many law enforcement officers who support the law and others who are chagrined right now. And the governor, who supports this law, says she vows to fight on. She has already made it clear that she will appeal this ruling, take it to the 9th Circuit here in the United States, appealing it to the next level.
And I spoke earlier today, Max, with the man who wrote this law. He said he welcomes this fight. He said he's not surprised the judge did this. And he believes -- he said he actually wrote the law for it to be challenged all the way up the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants that fight, he says, so that the court can uphold his right -- and this state's right, in his view -- to enforce federal immigration laws because folks in Arizona who are on his side believe that the Feds aren't doing their job so the state has to step in.
It is an emotional, bitter fight that now clearly is going to continue. Now, Max, many masses of protesters are still expected to pour into this state to object to the law in principle for protests throughout the day tomorrow -- Max.
FOSTER: There are many parts of this law, of course, but the key part has been put on hold.
Does that mean that people feel less strongly about it right now and will focus, then, on the legal processes being moved ahead, which focuses on that -- on that key part of the law that most people seem concerned about?
YELLIN: It is said -- you might expect that this would relax people because it means that the most controversial piece of this is put off. But, in fact, it's almost a thorn in the side of supporters of the law, because their whole complaint all along has been the federal government isn't really doing its job here. And they're saying the federal government isn't doing its job here, therefore the state has to.
Now, this renews that frustration all over again, because the federal government has stepped in and asked them to hold this law. They think that's unfair. They say this is a battle of epic proportions. And it's a sign that the federal -- the Feds are fighting the states. And that's only stirring up more dissension here in Arizona and, actually, throughout this country, where there is a movement -- a growing movement here -- and the Tea Party in particular, of states' rightists who feel the Feds are overstepping their power -- Max.
FOSTER: Jessica, thank you so much for that.
Well, as of now, Arizona is home to nearly half a million illegal immigrants. But that's just a small fraction, really, of the total number living in the United States, overall. Most are from Latin America. Around 6.7 million from Mexico and more than one million others are from Central American nations, including El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
So regardless of what happens in Arizona, there are still millions of Mexicans living in the United States illegally, with more trying to cross the border every day.
Joining me now to discuss the issues, the former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox.
Mr. Fox, you're joining us from the library that's been set up in your name.
Thank you so much for joining us with that.
I -- I just want to ask you, first of all, about your reaction about this latest bit of news that we have that, actually, the full law isn't going to efficient straightaway and the most controversial part of it is on hold.
Is that good news, as far as you're concerned?
VICENTE FOX, FORMER MEXICAN PRESIDENT: Well, it -- well, thank you for the interview.
It does show it's a positive step, but, of course, it's not enough, because we have here a law that is basically mandatory against precisely Mexican immigrants which are working for somebody there, that do have a job, that somebody is hiring them and that they are contributing to the better of the U.S. economy's competitiveness.
Number two, it's a unilateral decision, that law, because we are partners through NAFTA. We are supposed to be working together, building a better future for both of our nations.
Number three, it's shortsighted, because immigration is (INAUDIBLE) to all nations. The United States has been constructed, it's been built by migrants. All people in the United States, further by or sooner back, would have a -- a migrant heritage. And it's -- it's absolutely against what should be the responsibility of the better government. I don't know why there is a bill in Congress which I discussed with Senator Kennedy and with Senator McCain when I was president and that initiative, that bill is right there in Congress. And unfortunately, Congress does not consider that and then states move on their own and they start coming with this short-sighted, discriminatory, unilateral kind of moves with these kind of laws.
FOSTER: OK. I just want to throw now to some video we've got for you, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. I'm just going to get her perspective, because she comes from a completely different perspective. And I want to just get your reaction to it.
Let's hear what she had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: They need to step up, the Feds do, and do the job that they have the responsibility to do for the people of America and for the people of Arizona. And with that, we'll just...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A victory or a defeat for the state of Arizona today?
BREWER: Well, it's -- obviously, it's a little bump in the road, I believe, and that, you know, until I get my whole arms around it, we don't really exactly know where we're going to go. We knew regardless of what happened today, of course, that one side or the other side was going to appeal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Jan Brewer there.
I -- I know you had problems hearing that. So effectively, she was saying this is just a bump in the road and the full law, she thinks, will be fully enacted at some point in future.
Do you think it will eventually be put into law?
And, if so, what sort of impact will that have?
What sort of reaction will it be from Mexico, for example?
FOX: Well, our reaction is that it is an unfair law. It's discriminatory but more so it affects the same United States. It affects the leadership of the United States and the state of Arizona, because we do have a commitment, through NAFTA. And we are building that better future.
Now, these people should be considered documented, should be documented as soon as possible, as long as they have a job. When they don't have a job, I would understand that they send them back. But that doesn't mean that human rights can be violated, that our people can be greeted with violence by police or anybody else.
I don't think the leader is proceeding with the passion and the compassion that has always worked this leading nation of the United States.
FOSTER: What we have here is a situation, though, where you're defending workers in the United States and Mexico who are adding to that economy and there's no -- no doubt true. But the only people that should be affected by this are illegal immigrants.
So are you suggesting, also, that illegal immigrants add to the U.S. economy and they should be defended somehow?
FOX: Well, but this is policing and enforcing actions against citizens that should deserve free transit in the United States and should have the opportunity to be there and -- and not necessarily meaning legally. But how a policeman is going to distinguish who is what and who is who, I think that this is going to be against -- it's totally discriminatory to our people there.
But -- but I want to see the long rung -- the long run, which is where we are building that future. And I think that we should sit down and not act unilaterally, that the state of Arizona, the federal government, Congress, we should discuss and they should sit down, use wisdom, use intelligence because building walls and taking these kind of actions is not working together. It's not working as partners.
Many people in the States -- and this is a good opportunity -- don't know that Mexico buys more products and services from the United States than from Italy, Germany, France and -- and Britain together. We are a solid partner of that nation. We account for millions and millions and millions of jobs for U.S. citizens. And we're not building walls, we're not avoiding U.S. citizens to come and work here in Mexico.
I think that we should use reason. We should use intelligence. We should use wisdom to take the decisions that we must take, we, both partners, the United States and Mexico.
FOSTER: But what about Mexico taking a greater responsibility in this and building a future for Mexicans which they don't want to escape from and go to Arizona for?
FOX: Well, we -- we are doing our part of the -- of the job. We're trying to build the jobs. We do have jobs. Of course, not enough. But it's still people that even having that job, they like to move out and look for better opportunities, better salaries. Like U.S. citizens are doing right now, going to China.
I mean why are they going to China?
Why doesn't China say, OK, we don't want Americans here?
Or the ones that come to Mexico or Brazil?
This is people looking for a better life and they deserve to be treated equally. They deserve to be respected in their dignity and they deserve to be appreciated on the work they are doing. And of course if somebody is there a criminal, somebody is not complying with the law, if somebody is -- it's -- is that kind of people, send them back or like we do here.
FOSTER: OK.
President Vicente Fox, thank you very much, indeed for joining us on the program today.
Now, before today's court injunction, many immigrant families were moving out of Arizona to avoid the law.
CNN's Thelma Gutierrez spent time with one of those families just before they left.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In a middle class suburb near Mesa, Arizona, a family is packing it up -- preparing to flee the state. They asked us to call them "Carlos" and "Samantha."
CARLOS, LEAVING ARIZONA: This is the living room. This is my boy's room.
GUTIERREZ (on camera): Yes, they're all empty.
CARLOS: Yes. I mean, everything we worked for.
GUTIERREZ (voice-over): They say they were living the American dream -- a house, two kids, a small jewelry business that catered to Latinos. But when his customers, many of whom were immigrants, started losing their jobs and leaving the state, his business collapsed. Now, he says, he, too, wants to get out before S.B. 1070 goes into effect.
(on camera): You love the state?
CARLOS: Arizona, yes.
GUTIERREZ: And now?
CARLOS: Little by little, they're pushing us out.
GUTIERREZ: They would say you're leaving because you want to go. You don't have to go.
CARLOS: I don't -- I don't have to go, but yes, for my -- for my family's sake.
GUTIERREZ (on camera): Your wife is undocumented?
CARLOS: Yes.
GUTIERREZ (voice-over): Carlos is a legal resident. Their children are American. But he says he can't run the risk that his wife could be arrested and deported.
(on camera): You're one family who's leaving.
Do you think that there are others?
CARLOS: There's many. There is a lot of people that left from here as soon as this started.
GUTIERREZ (voice-over): Todd Landfried agrees.
TODD LANDFRIED, ARIZONA EMPLOYERS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM: There's an empty car dealership. This was just a -- another strip mall in a Latino neighborhood of Mesa.
GUTIERREZ: Landfried represents a group called Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform. He drove us through Mesa, Arizona and pointed out what he says is the fallout from the state's tough immigration laws and a bad economy.
LANDFRIED: Any time you start running people out of a state, you make it harder for the businesses that provide services to those people, whether they're here legally or not. They're not going to be able to fill their strip malls. They're not going to be able to fill their apartment complexes.
RUSSELL PEARCE, ARIZONA STATE SENATE: If it comes with that invasion of illegal aliens, it's a destruction to the rule of law and a damage to the taxpayer. There's a cost to that.
GUTIERREZ: Russell Pearce is a state senator and the author of S.B. 1070. He also lives in Mesa, Arizona.
(on camera): Do you believe that there's any correlation between those empty businesses and Russell Pearce's law?
PEARCE: Well, I think there's a correlation, probably. I think there's a correlation (INAUDIBLE). I think there's a correlation to the tough economy. I don't think I can take credit for all of that. I'd be willing to take credit for all of that.
GUTIERREZ (voice-over): Credit, he says, for forcing people like Carlos and Samantha to self-deport.
(on camera): What do those boxes represent to you?
SAMANTHA (through translator): A lot of memories.
GUTIERREZ: You don't want to go?
SAMANTHA: After 18 years of being here, we have to start all over again in another state.
GUTIERREZ (voice-over): Carlos says he will remember Arizona as the state that allowed him to achieve his American dream and as the state that took it away.
Thelma Gutierrez, CNN, Mesa, Arizona.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Now, although the Arizona law will not take effect in its planned form, Thelma Gutierrez reports that Carlos and Samantha have already purchased a new home in another state.
And meanwhile, the proposed law has dividend people not just in Arizona, but all over the world. All this week, CONNECT THE WORLD has been soliciting your opinions on our Web site, asking you to weigh in on the controversial law.
Here's what some of you have said.
QUINTON BUTTERFIELD: A lot of people say that, you know, it's not racist or it doesn't kind of promote racial profiling. But I believe it does. If someone doesn't sound like an American or, quote, unquote, look like an American, you know, it allows the police to -- to kind of pull them over and harass that person. It doesn't seem fair that, you know, someone should have to go through that.
PETER ZIVANOVIC: I'm for all immigration reforms. I'm for the law. I mean to tell you the truth, that law didn't bother me. I came in under all necessary paperwork. I had paperwork. I believe they should make it even stricter.
MARY BETH HENSON: I feel strongly against the Arizona law, because I feel that it's a question of racial profiling and I just feel that the law, in its spirit, is mean and sort of nasty.
But I actually had an interesting conversation with my friend's husband, who says that, you know, the law is basically just requiring people to carry I.D. and saying that they could be asked for I.D. at any time. And interestingly enough, they have that law here in France for everyone and they have always. And he just accepts that as being normal. And I didn't realize that that's a law. I know that I have to have my I.D. on me in France, even though I've never been asked for it. So I found to be kind of a -- I'm against the law, but I actually have that law here in France.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Well, those stories are just a few of the responds we've been getting on our Web site ahead of our special immigration coverage tomorrow. That's when we're bringing you a special edition of CONNECT THE WORLD devoted entirely to this issue.
And we want to hear from you, too. Head to CNN.com/connect to share your thoughts.
This is all part of a special week of coverage on CNN devoted to the worldwide debate over immigration and the conflicts that arise because of it. It's an issue that knows no specific borders and we'll look at all the viewpoints -- those stories of people who cross borders willingly.
Now we turn our attention to those who are forced to -- forced or deceived, even, into -- into leaving their homes. (INAUDIBLE) the issue of human trafficking from the words -- one of the world's experts on the subject. As Siddarth Kara travels through South Asia, he's bringing us a glimpse into how this global problem is playing out right before our eyes. That's just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: in the next few weeks, we're going to take you on a bit of a journey. And I'll tell you now, it's not always going to be easy.
We're on the trail of human trafficking with Siddarth Kara. The Harvard researcher is traveling through South Asia, documenting where it's taking place and what, if anything, is being done to stop it.
The trip begins in New Delhi. Siddarth right there last week and straightaway filed a blog for us. He wrote: "Slave exploitation takes place everywhere, in the middle of major cities and in the deepest rural reaches of the globe, from
forced prostitution of minors to organ harvesting and everything in between."
You can read more at CNN.com/connect.
Now, a few days after Siddarth filed that, Becky Anderson spoke to him about the more specific claims he was making and to get more of a sense of what he hopes to accomplish.
And here's what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SIDDARTH KARA, HUMAN TRAFFICKING RESEARCHER: Well, this is one in a series of trips I've taken around the world trying to research human trafficking and forced labor and other forms of labor exploitation.
This particular trip is focused on South Asia. I'll be traveling through several countries here, documenting more of the trafficking that's going on, as well as, in particular, debt bondage and child labor throughout the region.
BECKY ANDERSON, HOST: And you've sent us pictures which our viewers are -- are looking at now. Just tell us what we're seeing here.
KARA: Well, I've sent you a handful of photos of individuals or families that have been trafficked from other parts of India. There's a handful of photos of child laborers. I mean and when I say child, we literally mean child -- four, five, six years old with hammers and carting gravel around. And you've got, as well, pictures of kind of the shantytowns and shacks and tents that are erected for these trafficked individuals to live in day by day as they work in this construction throughout the city.
ANDERSON: Siddarth, how do you know that these people have been trafficked and where are they coming from?
KARA: Well, the photos I've sent are cases that I've actually verified and documented. And that's much easier said than done. Of course, with child labor, it's -- it's quite easy. If you see something that's about two-and-a-half feet tall with two legs, you know that's child labor.
With trafficking for, you know, adults and labor, you know, the line between migrant labor or just low wage labor and some form of trafficking or forced labor can be very blurry.
But in the course of having conversations and asking people, where are you from, how did you get here, have you been paid, are you free to go, what are the terms of your situation, is there any sort of contract?
And when the answers to these types of questions throw up certain red flags, then you can start to reasonably identify that someone is a victim of trafficking and is in some sort of forced labor situation.
ANDERSON: How do the stories that you are hearing there compare to those that you've heard witnessed, documented in the past?
KARA: You know, that's a really interesting question. And one thing that I've learned across 10 years of research is that business is business. And slavery is a business. And wherever I go, there are certain things that are almost always the same -- a certain deception or ruse is used to prey on the desperate and the poor. There's virtual ease of reallocating people from just a village to a town or all the way around the world. And then they're put in a situation where they're not free to leave, they're forced to work, often under the threat of violence or threats against family members. And they're almost never paid. Or if they are paid, it's only a small amount.
And these sort of key factors are true across all the countries I've been to on six continents and across industries. It's not just construction, but commercial sex, agriculture, mining, leather works, fishing, what have you. Business is business and slavery is no different.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
FOSTER: Siddarth makes some serious allegations there that imply complicity on the part of various levels of the Indian government, if only in terms of looking the other way.
For almost a week now, we have been reaching out to officials in New Delhi to respond to those claims and so far no one has, but we are still trying to get comment.
And tonight, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: This video was shot by a U.S. fisherman earlier this month and it's one of the hottest things on CNN's Web site and you're about to see why. Ray Cason was heading to a fishing hole in Georgia's Okefenokee Swamp when he realized he was surrounded by alligators -- not a few gators, more like 300. Ray and the reptiles were all crowded into a 10 meter wide canal.
Wildlife officials say the gators were in a feeding frenzy, gobbling up thousands of mud fish at the time. Instead of turning around, Ray slowly weaved his way through and headed to his fishing spot. In this fish story, it seems that Ray was the one that got away. A brave man.
You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD.
And our videos of the day deal with women and crime, plus men behaving strangely. Police in the U.S. state of Georgia are calling her the soccer mom burglar. They may soon be able to call her by her first name, because she's just been caught on tape. The woman, who is suspected in a number of suburban burglaries, picked the home of a man who installs security cameras for a living. So far, she hasn't been caught.
But this woman has. The so-called underwear bandit was caught on tape raiding the till of a fast food drive through. Despite the underwear face mask and the blonde waiting, police in Oklahoma tracked her down. The police chief described her crime spree as brief.
And in football, it's common to celebrate after scoring a goal, but this team in Iceland had a very uncommon way of celebrating. The player scored then pretended he was fishing.
Why not?
As you can see, he tore up one with his teammates. The choreographed affair ended with a group shot.
The world headlines are up next.
And looking to the Gulf Coast's future, as well, BP's incoming CEO talks about his goals for helping the region recovery from the oil disaster.
Do stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: We're back with CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Max Foster in London. Coming up, big changes at BP. That's the promise from the man taking over for Tony Hayward at the helm of the oil giant. Hear how Bob Dudley's hoping to turn the company around in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Plus, a ban on bullfighting. That's now the case in Catalonia. Emotions are running high following a surprising decision.
And he's said of his weapons inspections in Iraq that he was asked to search for smoking guns that could lead the US into war. Hans Blix tells us why he controversially opposed the conflict, and he answers your questions as well, because he's your Connector of the Day.
All these stories ahead in the show for you, but first, let's have a check of the headlines this hour.
A US judge has blocked a key provision of Arizona's immigration law a day before it was to take effect. The provision requires police to question the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest. The US Justice Department hailed the ruling. Arizona officials say they'll appeal.
British Prime Minister David Cameron is in India looking to boost trade and investments. He's also using the visit to warn Pakistan not to export terror. His remarks come after WikiLeaks published what appeared to be leaked US military documents suggesting Pakistan's spy service had been helping the Taliban. Pakistan denies it.
All 152 people on board a passenger plane were killed on Wednesday when the aircraft crashed just north of Islamabad in Pakistan. It was raining heavily at the time of the crash, but it's not known if the weather was a factor. Reza Sayah reports on the tragic scene.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REZA SAYAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They worked for hours in rain, in mud, amid the charred and bloody wreckage of the plane that crashed in the low-lying range of hills just north of Islamabad. Rescue crews, even local residents, toil to gather debris, sometimes not knowing what they were holding. Sometimes knowing it was someone's loved one.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (through translator): Me and my friends all went up hill and carried a dead body down. The bodies are not intact. They are in pieces. Even if you take the whole day, it's not possible to finish the work.
SAYAH (voice-over): A few hours earlier, the debris that littered Islamabad's Margalla Hills was this Airbus A321, owned by Pakistani-based Air Blue Airlines. The plane, with its 146 passengers and six crew took off from Karachi with a pilot who'd been flying for 35 years, an airline spokesman said. The plane was supposed to land at the Islamabad airport just south of the city. Instead, it crash-landed in the hills about 20 kilometers north.
Despite heavy rainfall at the time of the crash, investigators say it's too early to tell if weather was a factor. Torrential rain did hamper rescue efforts, and so did the rugged terrain. Without any flat ground or roads nearby, rescue choppers couldn't land at the scene, and most vehicles couldn't get there. For many, there was no choice but to walk.
Eventually, with rescue workers on the ground and choppers up above, bodies were airlifted one-by-one to a nearby hospital where shocked friends and family waited in agony.
"This is God's wish," said Baqa Ullah. He says his brother-in-law was in the plane. "We are just waiting. Whatever God wants, we will accept it."
As the hours went by, hope was replaced by grief.
SAYAH (on camera): Pakistan's Interior Minister says as this Airbus 321 was approaching the airport in Islamabad, it descended to 2600 feet, and then suddenly went back up to 3000 feet before eventually crashing. Investigators say they won't be able to explain the plane's unusual movements and why it crashed until they review the aircraft's black box. Reza Sayah, CNN, Islamabad.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Max Foster. And we are at 100 days now since the start of the worst oil disaster in US history. We're at 100 days, and people are still talking about it and will be for some time.
BP says the containment cap, though, is holding. That's the crucial thing. Pressure inside continues to rise, and that's an encouraging sign. Crews have resumed work on a relief well, the permanent solution to stopping the leak. And skimmers patrolling the Gulf report almost no visible oil on the surface anymore.
That's all good news, but it doesn't negate the spill's massive impact on the region. BP's incoming CEO says helping the Gulf recover will be his top priority. Bob Dudley talked to me earlier about what to expect in the weeks and the months ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERT DUDLEY, CEO-DESIGNATE, BP: After an incident like that, we can't sit back and say, "Oh, well, we were unlucky." We've had accidents in the US before. We've made progress on our safety thinking and getting it into the culture.
But Max, there's no question, there's going to be some big changes at BP. We're going to look at our safety, our culture. We're going to make sure that we put in place the safeguards, the checks that this doesn't happen again.
FOSTER: The suggestion is there that there was a laxity in safety before, under Tony Hayward.
DUDLEY: Tony -- I do have great admiration for Tony. He came in three years ago in response to accidents that is mainly the legacy of the middle part of the last decade. Great emphasis on safety, operating systems --
FOSTER: But not safe enough.
DUDLEY: Well, we've had this--
FOSTER: If you're improving safety now.
DUDLEY: Obviously we have to accelerate greatly any change that needs to happen in the company. And one of the things I will do over the next -- between now and the end of the year, is probably turn that upside-down.
FOSTER: You put aside something like $32 billion, a huge amount, to deal with this huge problem that you've had on the Gulf coast. It's a guess, though, isn't it? That's a complete guesstimate about what this is going to cost. Number one, it's based on the fact that you won't be found grossly negligent.
I just want to put a point to you. Yesterday, I spoke to Congressman Peter Welsh, someone you'll know, US House, a Democrat. I asked him, "Is BP grossly negligent?" And he said, "I would understand that term as a layman, really, I would say 'yes.'"
DUDLEY: The testimony that's just come out of the Marine Board last week in New Orleans begin -- I think begins to lay out the complexity of this accident. It's going to be a series of errors of judgment of individuals, highly experienced individuals, from many companies. And then a systematic set of failures of equipment. Equipment that BP has relied on, some of it by our contractors.
And I think this is going to find a very complicated, very low- probability but very high-impact accident. Now the industry needs to look at everywhere, around the globe. And I think that gross negligence is not what I think is --
FOSTER: Congressman Peter Welsh says, "The gross negligence here was really that every time there was an opportunity for BP to make a choice for safety or to save money, they chose to save money."
DUDLEY: I don't believe that to be the fact. I've seen statements that we'd cut corners, that we've somehow drilled a well that's unusual. I don't think that's what the facts that I have show. And I don't think the facts as we really get through these investigations show. There's still a lot yet to come out in the investigation.
FOSTER: And back to the $32 billion figure. It's also a guesstimate, really, because you don't know how much has leaked, and you don't know what the penalties will be. It could be a lot more than 32 billion.
DUDLEY: Well, when we made that estimate and included that in our figures, we were not sure the well was capped. So I think now we have -- I believe, it's not completely done yet, we're not quite across the goal line yet --
FOSTER: But it's a better guess.
DUDLEY: But I believe it's a better guess. And I think that it's a finite, now, amount of oil, I believe, that has been in the Gulf. And that begins to cut the range down on how high the liabilities will be.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Bob Dudley will take over for outgoing CEO Tony Hayward on October the 1st. But he's already held a leadership role in BP in Russia. Matthew Chance examines Dudley's rocky tenure there, and what his promotion may mean for the oil giant's future relations with Moscow.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (on camera): The appointment of Bob Dudley has been welcomed in Russia, which is surprising, because the new BP chief executive has had a turbulent past in this country. Dudley was the chairman of BP's lucrative joint venture in Russia, TNK-BP, which produces nearly 25 percent of the company's oil.
But in 2008, amid a bitter commercial dispute with the four Russian billionaires who own 50 percent of the operation, Dudley had to flee the country, and ran it from a secret location. The Russian shareholders accused BP of treating the joint venture like a subsidiary, and of blocking its expansion to compete for oil contracts overseas, for instance.
BP officials accused the Russians of withdrawing work visas for Dudley and placing him under surveillance, charges the Russians deny. It was all very public and very damaging. And, of course, Dudley was eventually replaced.
But now, the prospect of him returning as the head of BP is raising concerns that those old tensions could resurface. It's interesting, but Tony Hayward, BP's outgoing CEO, is being given a seat, now, on the board of TNK-BP. He's seen as the executive who essentially mended BP's battered relations with Russia after the TNK spat.
And so, if there are concerns in Russia about Bob Dudley taking over the reins at BP, Tony Hayward may once again be the man to help smooth things over. Matthew Chance, CNN, Moscow.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Critics in one Spanish region feel like part of their culture and heritage is being ripped away. The supporters say it's about time the animal cruelty came to an end. We'll look at both sides of the controversial new bullfighting ban.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Now to a tradition both revered and reviled around the world. The ancient practice of bullfighting. Perhaps nowhere is it more deeply cherished, though, than in Spain. But as Al Goodman now reports, one region has now banned it, triggering a firestorm of controversy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AL GOODMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An historic day for Barcelona and its region of Catalonia, and Spain. The Catalan regional parliament voted to ban bullfighting, the first time a region on Spain's mainland has dared to challenge the ancient national tradition.
The lawmakers seem to give priority to the arguments of animal rights activists, who brought the initiative to parliament. They say bullfighting is cruel to animals, and activists erupted outside parliament after the vote.
JOSEP TORRES, WAITER: It's very wonderful. For animals, for Catalonia, for the world.
XAVIER ESCLUSA, DESIGNER: It's great because it's not normal to take this cruelty for animals, and Catalonia is very different than Spain.
GOODMAN (voice-over): Too different, say many in the crowd outside parliament, who lobbied hard but failed to keep bullfights in Catalonia. They argued bullfighting is a deep cultural tradition, and part of the very essence of Spain. And they are not going quietly.
LUIS CORRALES, PRO-BULLFIGHTING PLATFORM PPDF (through translator): We will take this to Spain's constitutional court. The fight continues. This vote was a step, but it's not finished.
FRANCISCO MANCHON, CIVIL SERVANT (through translator): In the rest of Spain, bullfighting will continue because the bulls are part of the national heritage. What they've done here is unconstitutional.
GOODMAN (on camera): Many analysts said the subtext of this vote was about Catalan nationalism. There's a strong independence movement here, and some say this vote was really about showing how different Catalonia is from the rest of Spain.
GOODMAN (voice-over): But Catalan lawmakers didn't talk about that in the final hours leading up to the vote after months of debate on bullfights. In the end, they say it came down to a question of whether to keep the old tradition, or stop animal cruelty.
Activist Aida Gascon was a leader in the animal rights lobby, urging the lawmakers to make a big change.
AIDA GASCON, ANTI-BULLFIGHTING PARTY, PACMA (through translator): Bullfighting is part of Spanish culture. But that should change. Many traditions disappear as the society advances.
GOODMAN (voice-over): As it is, bullfights for years have been in sharp decline in Catalonia, and the ban will take effect in 2012. But the vote already has animal rights activists calling for more bans in other Spanish regions, which has bullfighting fans in Madrid, Seville, and beyond seeing red. Al Goodman, CNN, Barcelona, Spain.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Bullfighting is popular not only in Spain, but also across Latin America, where many countries practice the traditional form of bullfighting known as corrida. The event takes place in three stages, and ends when the bull is stabbed to death.
Bullfighting also popular in Portugal, but there is a major difference. The matador fights the bull whilst riding a horse. It's illegal, though, to kill the bull in the ring, although in some cases, the bull is butchered later.
A bloodless form of the sport called Jallikattu is practiced in southern India during the Hindu festival of Pongal. And a similar type of bloodless bullfighting takes place in some parts of southern France as well. There the goal is to snatch a rosette from the bull's horn.
Now, the new ban in Catalonia is providing and provoking a passionate reaction across Spain and around the world, in fact. Many of you are speaking out. Here's a sample from our blog.
Janece says, "I usually root for the bull. I feel no sympathy or pity for anyone injured during the running of the bulls or during a bullfight. It's bloody, barbaric, and outdated."
Lance is also not a fan. "Sport means that both sides know they are playing and have the same gear."
And from Dd. "Funny how Spain joined the EU ban against the seal hunt, yet still permits bullfighting. Can you say hypocrisy?"
But Traditionalist writes this. "Bullfighting is an awesome entertainment and sport and should be kept forever. Those bulls live a better life than most dairy or beef cows," he says. "Whilst their death does entail some suffering, they at least have a fighting chance."
We'd love to hear from you on the subject, or any issue, in fact. Head to cnn.com/connect and share your thoughts there.
Now, he took UN inspectors into Iraq, but Hans Blix did not agree with the US-led war. Find out why and what he thinks the UN Security Council is most concerned about these days. All that, plus answers to your questions. Hans Blix is your Connector of the Day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Hans Blix, the man who led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq before the 2003 invasion and famously accused the US and Britain of exaggerating the case for war.
A well-regarded diplomat, Blix had been called out of retirement in 2000 to help lead the UN's efforts in Iraq, as well as their monitoring verification and inspection commission. He was responsible for making sure Iraq followed proper disengagement guidelines.
He said of his inspections efforts that he was, quote, "looking for smoking guns, but didn't find any." After stepping down from the role in 2003, he went on to write two books about his experience.
And yesterday, he appeared at the Iraq inquiry in London to testify on his role. Standing his ground no matter what the cost, Hans Blix is your Connector of the Day.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: As an international inspector in Iraq in the run-up to the war, Hans Blix has a unique perspective on the legality of the conflict. My colleague Becky spoke to him earlier on, and she began by asking him a question from one of our viewers, William Marlowe, who said, "In your opinion, what's the reason the United States invaded Iraq?"
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HANS BLIX, FORMER UN WEAPONS INSPECTOR: There were several reasons, and the reasons why they have referred to weapons of mass destruction, I think, was that there was no salable reason. Both which said that, yes, this was the only reason on which the whole diverse US administration could agree.
But there were others. Among them, importantly, that Saddam was defying the United States. The oil was another one, I think. They -- US needed to take troops out to Saudi Arabia, where they're not welcome. What would be better than to place them in a secularized Iraq, which will, moreover, to give them a way to keep Iran somewhat under control.
So there were many reasons, but weapons of mass destruction on which they could sell, and it was not right.
ANDERSON: I have a question from one of our viewers. "What is your opinion on the way that Barack Obama, the president of the US now, is handling Iraq, out of interest?"
BLIX: With Obama, there is a very radical change in the US outlook, in the national security -- what are called doctrine or something -- that came out this spring. He talks about when can the US use force unilaterally. And, of course, the Bush administration in 2002 said that in this day of missiles and nuclear weapons, we decide ourselves when we can use force. And Bush used to talk about a growing threat. He decided, was it a growing threat? And they could smash anybody anywhere.
When Kerry talked about the need to have some sort of standard, he said, "You mean that we should have to have a permission slip from the Security Council?" It was utterly ridiculous, in the view of the Bush administration.
Well, Obama, I mentioned, he has come out with a new national security strategy. And it says that, "Yes, we reserve to ourselves the possibility of using force unilaterally," implied, "but we will seek to respect the international rules." And I think that's a respectable position.
ANDERSON: John Smith has three questions here. He says, "Did Saddam mislead you? Did Saddam mislead the world? And did you mislead us?"
BLIX: Saddam did not mislead us, in a way. Not in 2002, 2003, because he said in declaration of 12,000 pages that they had no weapons of mass destruction, and that was true. We were the ones who were wrong.
ANDERSON: Do you think that your -- that the way that you communicated the work that you were doing, hand on heart, you can say that you didn't mislead the general public?
BLIX: No, absolutely. Certainly did not mislead. But I was, perhaps, a tiny bit too harsh on Iraq in 2000 -- in January, 27th of January, when I said that Iraq may not have really taken to heart or accepted fully the idea of disarmament.
ANDERSON: 2003 was a war. To a certain extent, it's almost over. The soldiers are pulling out, we have a war going on Afghanistan at the moment not associated with weapons of mass destruction, of course. But where do we go next?
BLIX: I think the Obama administration has change things very, very much. And in particular, when the Bush administration -- we were more almost heading to a new cold war. But efforts to get the Ukraine and to get Georgia into NATO, building up missile bases around the Soviet -- around Russia. Russia was feeling that this is a new policy of containment.
Now, Obama, I think, has -- he's not going to talk about the resetting of the buttons for the Russians. But they do. And the first thing was to move the missile things from Poland and Czech Republic to Bulgaria and maybe Romania, which was certainly an improvement.
ANDERSON: You're an advocate of the use of a civilian nuclear program. Does that mean that you are a defender of Iran's civil nuclear program?
BLIX: Yes. I don't see any opposition to it. In fact, the Europeans, I think, one of the better things that they've done is to say to the Iranians, "Look, we are worried that you're enrichment program will gain suspicions, and we all wonder whether you'll go for a weapon. We are not against your civilian nuclear power program, down in Bushehr, the two reactors, and perhaps building more. In fact, we are ready to help you with it, and give support, and invest in it, so they can export."
So they are not against it. They are not against Jordan trying to go for nuclear, or Saudi Arabia, or Abu Dhabi. And I think these states are right. That they need a lot of electricity in the future, and they feel it's better that they do it by nuclear, and then sell the oil, which is going to be very expensive. And moreover, they will then not generate carbon dioxide by their electricity generation.
ANDERSON: To your mind, though, is Iran actively pursuing a nuclear weapon?
BLIX: Well, I'm not contending that. I certainly think that the suspicions are very understandable, because they are building a research reactor that is used in heavy water. And it's a very good plutonium producers.
I don't think that the program for enrichment of Iranian is economic. They have two reactors. My own country, Sweden, has ten reactors. We import it and find it less expensive. The South Koreans have 20 reactors, they also import it. So I don't see an economic justification for the program. Maybe, that couldn't be a justification that they would want to be energy independent. Their sureness of supply. They can't trust the Russians, they don't trust the Americans, getting fuel for their reactors. That's conceivable.
But I see it as a solution, a zone not only for your weapons of mass destruction, which would affect Israel, but also a zone in which they agree between themselves to have neither enrichment nor pre-processing.
There are lots of people -- trigger-happy people, say that, well, force is the only thing that remains. I profoundly disagree. And I don't think that Iran, certainly, has not committed any aggression. So it's not a question of self-defense against armed attack. It's inconceivable that Security Council would authorize the use of armed force against Iran at the present time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Hans Blix. Remember, you can check out more of our Connectors of the Day and leave your questions and comments for them at cnn.com/connect. And remember to tell us where you're writing from.
Tonight, though, we'll be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Latin American celebration as we take you through the lens tonight. Kids in Lima dressed up as police on the last day of school. They take part in a mock military parade to mark Peru's independence today.
"V is for victory." This boy commemorates the 31st anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua.
A clown poses for the camera in Guatemala City. Hundreds of these jesters have come from across the region to their very own Latin American clown congress.
And fashion fever as this model sports a fancy floral hat on the catwalk. She can't see very well, though, they think. Colombia's foremost fashion show is currently in full swing.
Celebrating in style in Our World in Pictures tonight.
It's time to recap the top story for you on CONNECT THE WORLD. A US federal judge has blocked the southern border state of Arizona from implementing key parts of a tough new immigration law. This story is generating lots of comments on our website. The question we asked was, how has immigration affected your life?
This is one comment from Henry Schinaman. He tells us, "I do not like the way our government is addressing this issue. I now live in Europe.
Concerning the Arizona case, Amy O'Connor feels rules are being broken on both sides of the border. "I'm all for legal immigration. Those hiring illegal immigrants are the ones who should be punished."
A viewer who calls herself MikeyMike says the question is legal vs. illegal. "It's ridiculous to think that lawbreakers should be allowed to roam freely."
And finally, Mildred Atonnelli is bothered by what she sees as a short-sighted attitude in the United States. "Many immigrants who come today are here because of what we have done to their societies."
To get your voice heard on CNN, head to our website, cnn.com/connect.
I'm Max Foster. That is it for the show on the TV. Do stay connected with us, though, online. "BackStory" is next, but we're going to check the headlines next.
END
