Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Afghanistan Leak Spurs Debate About Censorship; Interview with Kenya's Prime Minister
Aired July 30, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS: Secretary Gates spoke about a hypothetical problem. But the grounds of Iraq and Afghanistan are covered with real bodies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MAX FOSTER, GUEST HOST: In an exclusive statement to CNN, WikiLeaks' chief, Julian Assange, respond to U.S. claims that he has put people's lives at risk. But we reveal a harsh reality in Afghanistan -- the Taliban will go to any lengths to kill suspected informers. Tonight, the debate on how much information the world needs to know and the best way to release it in a digital age.
On CNN, this is the hour we connect the world.
Amid the verbal sparring between Washington and WikiLeaks, a wider debate has emerged on the censorship and the role of the media. We'll explore that with the man who says Julian Assange is nothing but an information pimp. And we'll have the counterpoint from a man who helped Assange set up WikiLeaks.
I'm Max Foster in London.
Also tonight, an exclusive interview with the Kenyan prime minister.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRIME MINISTER RAILA ODINGA, KENYA: You see, we have a -- a responsibility to protect ourselves. As we have seen, the Al Shabab have been attacking our people at the border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Why Kenya's on the fence on contributing to the African Union forces in Somalia. We'll have the view from both sides of that border.
And, yes, you're reading it correctly -- wine from the house of Nelson Mandela. We're going to look at how iconic names from around the world become marketing brands, whether intentionally or not.
Well, if you have comments on that story and any others, head to our Web sites, CNN.com/connect.
We begin with the latest on the WikiLeaks, the -- the documents revealed potential secrets on the battlefield. Now, they've sparked a war of words between top U.S. military officials and the man who leaked them, WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange.
First, let's hear from the U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADM. MIKE MULLEN, U.S. JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: And I think we always need to be mindful of the unknown potential for damage in any particular document that we handle. Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: CNN met up with Julian Assange and requested an interview. He declined to answer our questions. Instead, he sat down and prepared a statement in front of us -- a pre-prepared statement -- and he read it exclusively for us.
Here's a portion of that statement, focusing on comments by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ASSANGE: We are disappointed in what was left out of Secretary Gates' comments. Secretary Gates spoke about hypothetical blood. But the grounds of Iraq and Afghanistan are covered with real blood. Secretary Gates has overseen the killings of thousands of children and adults in these two countries. Secretary Gates could have used his time, as other nations have done, to announce a broad inquiry into these killings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Julian Assange there, who refused to answer our questions, instead giving us that taped statement to our cameras.
When information is available freely, then secret informants find their positions a lot more vulnerable, of course. And a story beginning with a leak from London could impact the lives of people in Afghanistan.
I put that to Nic Robertson, who spent years covering the Taliban.
And I asked him how easy or difficult it would be for the Taliban to find these informants and what will happen to them if they were caught.
A word of caution -- you may find some of the Taliban video disturbing.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It can be relatively easy. If the Taliban can get into those WikiLeaks files, they can look at the locations of the bases. If they can find names of informants, these towns and villages are small. They're not huge cities. So if you've got the name of a base, people know people there. These are small communities. So with the name of the base, the Taliban should be able to find some of those people. They can find the names. If they're named, they should be able to find them relatively easily. And we know what happens if they do.
FOSTER: And you've reported on this widely, previous examples.
What happens once they find them?
ROBERTSON: Well, this is a Taliban tape here. This is what the Taliban do to informants. They sit them down in front of a camera like this. These men are clearly frightened. They've clearly been held for several days. And they're forced into confessions, true or false.
And what is about to happen to these men on this videotape that the Taliban have made here -- a propaganda tape, if you will -- these men are going to be executed after the Taliban -- there you see them being shot.
FOSTER: The consequence?
ROBERTSON: That is the consequence. And -- and we see it again over here. Here's an old man. He has got his Afghan I.D. card in his mouth here. The Taliban are using him as an object lesson here for villagers. What we're about to see here is the Taliban execute him. That -- that's him laying in the street there. And these are the...
FOSTER: There's the body.
ROBERTSON: Yes. There's the body.
FOSTER: There's the Taliban.
ROBERTSON: There's the Taliban and they're waving. And tsars that they're waving. They're waving at the other villagers there. They're wanting the other villagers to sort of show their support for the Taliban, wave at them, too.
So this is part of their intimidation campaign.
FOSTER: Sending out a message. It's saying this isn't just punishment, this is a message to everyone in the community.
ROBERTSON: An object lesson -- you spy, you're going to be dead, so don't do it. And -- and we see the same again here. Here you have two very unfortunate men about to meet their deaths. This is -- this video required heavy editing. But, again, this is the Taliban taking these men for a very public execution. They're not just worried about putting it on videotape. This is a public execution. Look at all the people in the background there. They're not all Taliban fighters. They're villagers that appear to have been brought in to witness this brutal killing.
It's an object lesson for Afghans -- don't work with the coalition.
FOSTER: But this is going to become more common. You're going to get more of these videos, aren't you, after this massive leak?
ROBERTSON: The implication is that because of the leak, if the names can be found by the Taliban, if the names are there, then this will lead to people being killed, rest assured. That's what the Taliban will do. That's what they've done in the past and you can be sure they'll do it in the future. And, of course, there are bigger implications.
FOSTER: Which are that you're not going to be able to get informers in Afghanistan anymore.
ROBERTSON: No. And -- and you look at the way the -- the British military worked in Northern Ireland, for example, the way they were able to infiltrate the IRA was with informers. They would encourage people in the country to inform on the IRA.
How can you -- how can you encourage Afghans to come in and form -- for the -- for NATO forces, for the coalition, if they know that they're going to be named and they already know what's going to happen to them?
The Taliban will kill them. There's no incentive. It's a disincentive. So this potentially makes U.S. troops, NATO troops, British troops in a much less safe environment in Afghanistan.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
FOSTER: Nic Robertson.
Well, one big question swirl -- swirling through this whole story is just who offered that classified material to WikiLeaks in the very first place. Suspicion is cast on an Army private who's been transferred from Kuwait back to the United States.
Barbara Starr picks up that story from the Pentagon.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Private 1st Class Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old military intelligence analyst suspected in this case, has now been moved from a military detention facility in Kuwait, a U.S. military facility, to the U.S. Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia, outside of Washington, D.C. This is a signal he is likely to remain in military confinement for some time as the military justice proceeding moves forward.
Right now, an Article 32 investigation -- the equivalent, if you will, of a grand jury proceeding in the civilian world. Manning could potentially face a full courts-martial proceeding.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Barbara Starr there.
So we've seen two instants -- instances of leaks affecting the lives of two different types of informants.
Let's explore a normative question now -- should sensitive information be freely disseminated and in what form?
Our next two guests come from opposite ends of that spectrum.
John Young calls himself a friend of Julian Assange. He helped him set up WikiLeaks and is an advocate for open information at all costs.
Alongside him at CNN New York is "The Daily Beast" editor-at-large, Tunku Varadarajan. Tunku -- Tunku's latest article describes WikiLeaks as a brothel of self-promotion and Assange as its puffed up pimp.
Welcome to both of you.
First of all to you, John.
The defense to release this information seems to be that it is of the public interest. But it does create the risk to more lives. So it's adding to the risk to lives.
How do you justify that?
JOHN YOUNG, CRYPTOME.ORG, HELPED ASSANGE SET UP WIKILEAKS: Well, the principal thing that WikiLeaks is doing and as I'm -- and I'm doing, also on another side, is we're trying to give a more fuller picture of the -- of the terrible situation in these countries, that the -- the U.S. military is killing thousands of people over there and that that is not being reported very well.
We regularly publish photographs put out by the Department of Defense about Afghanistan and Iraq. And there's never any carnage shown. You seldom see any of the carnage caused by the military in these wars. And war is carnage. But what you see are a kind of scenes you've just shown. And that's a -- that's an unbalanced view of what's happening there.
There is far more killing being done by the military in Afghanistan than there is by the Taliban, including innocent people. And we just don't get to see that. That is heavily censored. It's classified. It's not put out. What we get is the sanitized version that makes it look like the young soldiers are at risk or innocent civilians are at risk of being killed by the Taliban. But that is a completely inaccurate picture.
And WikiLeaks is to be commended for putting that kind of information out and we need more of it.
FOSTER: We've heard from -- we've heard from Nic Robertson how WikiLeaks has added to the danger, it will cost more lives.
Is that worth the price?
YOUNG: If it will stop the military killing, it's worth the price, because right now more people are being killed by the military...
FOSTER: You're saying that people should die for this information?
You're adding -- you're adding to the argument that people should die to get this information out.
YOUNG: No, you're misconstruing what I'm saying that you seem to be completely drunk on the military view of this. And Admiral Mullen is completely besotted with these accusations he's making against WikiLeaks.
You should listen to what I'm saying. You're not covering the full story. You're covering a very biased version of the story. And that the fact that you're accusing me of wanting people to be killed means you want to ignore the killing that's actually going on.
FOSTER: No, I was responding to the way you answered my question and we've got you on the program so that it is balanced, with all due -- due respect.
And we're going to bring in Tunku at this point, because how would you respond to what you've heard so far on this interview?
TUNKU VARADARAJAN, COLUMNIST, "THE DAILY BEAST": Well, I'd start by asking which planet your guest is from. I'll continue by saying that it's clear that -- to people like him and to the WikiLeaks people -- the deaths of the Afghan informers, which are now surely to follow, given the fact that their homes, addresses and names of family and kin have been published on WikiLeaks, is an acceptable quantum of collateral damage in their quixotic, idiotic, vainglorious war against the warmongers.
You know, this gentleman is basically equating the Taliban with the United States American forces, equating the Taliban with Obama. I mean this sort of moral equivalence is, in my view, hysterical, paranoid.
FOSTER: John Young, how would you respond to that?
YOUNG: Well, I appreciate this gentleman's view. I've read his work and he seems to be completely uniformed about the war. He seems to, in fact, be on -- pursuing some other planetary agenda, as he said, but it's not the one that's dealing with Afghanistan as it really is.
He seems to be, in fact, more fascinated with the media's cover-up of this than to actually explain it in detail and provide evidence. He is a rhetorician. And he's very artful at it. And so he's calling people names because he has nothing else to offer. And so I appreciate that, because that's what people are hired to do.
WikiLeaks is not paid to do this. I'm not paid to do it. This man is a hired shill.
FOSTER: OK, Tunku...
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: -- I just want to take the argument on about it, if I can.
VARADARAJAN: Sure.
FOSTER: You know, there is two different ways of disseminating information. You can go the WikiLeaks way, which is to bub -- publish it raw. You can go "The New York Times"/"Guardian" way and publish the bits that you think are in the public interest.
Do you think there is a way of getting this information out in the public interest without putting lives at risk?
VARADARAJAN: Oh, of course there is. You know, "The Times" didn't publish the names that were on the WikiLeaks data dump. "The Guardian" didn't either. "Der Spiegel" didn't either. I don't read German, but I -- I believe "Der Spiegel" didn't.
Look, I'm not against openness. I'm all in favor of openness. There was very little in the WikiLeaks' data dump that wasn't already known to readers of national and international newspapers. So this gentleman's conceit that WikiLeaks is somehow bringing us stuff that is being hidden by a propaganda and collusive media is completely wrong.
What WikiLeaks -- what was new and dangerous in the WikiLeaks data dump was the fact that we now have access -- public access to the names of hundreds of Afghan informers -- brave men and women who have collaborated with the U.S. American forces, with the American forces of NATO in Afghanistan in order to bring their country and their people a better life, a better government, freedom from Taliban oppression. And their names are now in the public domain and their lives are at risk.
How is that in the public interest?
How is that sort of openness?
What -- what purpose does it serve?
I mean I -- I fail to see a...
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: John, you could have still got a -- WikiLeaks could have got the information out and the gist of the -- and the information by -- and -- and blocked out the names of the informants and given less information about the informants.
Why do you think they shouldn't have done that?
YOUNG: Well, I'd like to comment on the fact that about the two talking points that are now being used to change the -- the dialogue about this leak. One is the risk of these informants. The other is that there's nothing new here. Those are talking points that are used by people who are trying to change the topic away from the carnage caused by the military into a polite kind of talking head version, as though there's nothing new here.
Notice that Admiral Mullen talked about blood on the soldiers' hands. WikiLeaks has answered that very effectively. He's changing the topic. He does not want to talk about what the military is doing in Afghanistan.
It is uncontrolled carnage going on over there as American policy. Otherwise, they'd be showing more of the truth.
And so WikiLeaks is on the right track. We just need more of that coming out. I need to do more. People need to do more. The media must get off their -- their -- their tactic to cooperate with government in deceiving the public about what's going on in Afghanistan. And I'll just say this...
FOSTER: There's no tactic here at CNN...
YOUNG: (INAUDIBLE).
FOSTER: -- I can assure you of that. We're being completely impartial on this. We're just trying to get to the bottom of the fact that you can get the story out without...
YOUNG: But you're not (INAUDIBLE)...
FOSTER: -- putting extra lives at risk.
YOUNG: No, you're not being impartial. You -- you're actually on the same talking points that the government is on. You have not listened closely to me or WikiLeaks. You may not know it, but you're actually engaged in propaganda that (INAUDIBLE)...
FOSTER: But you won't answer my question about whether or not people's lives are being put at risk. So you're not answering...
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: -- my questions, either.
YOUNG: No. Many thousands of lives are being put at risk by the American military, not by the Taliban...
FOSTER: No, by the WikiLeaks' leak...
YOUNG: No.
FOSTER: We're focusing on that...
YOUNG: No.
FOSTER: -- in this interview.
YOUNG: No, they're actually calling attention to the carnage that's going on in the war, not only about the things you've chosen to cherry pick out of it. And you're cherry picking pieces out of it and not looking at the whole picture of what WikiLeaks is up to and what I'm trying to tell you. And that's because I think that you're afraid of talking about the stuff I want to talk about.
FOSTER: OK, John Young...
VARADARAJAN: May...
FOSTER: Yes, you know, do come in, because I wish John Young could have seen more of our coverage and then he could have made a better judgment.
Tunku?
VARADARAJAN: May I add something here?
You know, in publishing the names of these Afghan -- brave Afghan collaborators, WikiLeaks isn't just acting as a sort of information pimp, which is my phrase in my piece. I would go so far as to say that they are information terrorists. You know, they are directly responsible for the lives -- for shedding innocent blood in Afghanistan.
So I would say they are not activists, they are not -- they're not doing good. They are information terrorists with the conceit (ph) that they are somehow, through their openness, contributing something of value to society. It's been quite the opposite.
FOSTER: Tunku Varadarajan, thank you very much (INAUDIBLE)...
YOUNG: I'm sorry, I have to answer that...
(CROSSTALK)
YOUNG: I'm sorry, but I need...
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: OK, briefly, if you would, John. Briefly.
Yes?
YOUNG: Well, is the fact that he's just calling names?
In fact, I have some wonderful names to fit him, too, which I'm not so impolite or irresponsible to use. I'm offering actual information. This man is a rhetorician and a shill.
FOSTER: We're going to leave it...
VARADARAJAN: I work for a living.
FOSTER: OK. And we're going to leave it there.
We're going to let the viewers decide on this.
Actually, we want to point people to our Web site and continue the discussion there, because that's...
YOUNG: That's the best thing...
(CROSSTALK)
FOSTER: CNN.com/connect is the place to go for that.
We'll be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: The next few weeks, we are on the trail of human trafficking. We're following Siddharth Kara, a researcher from Harvard University traveling through South Asia, documenting what he finds. And so far, what he's come across is very shocking, indeed.
Last week, we spoke to him in New Delhi. He described talking with entire families lured there with the promise of work that would have paid a pittance but cheated even of that and unable to return home. You can see that interview along with Siddarth's own photos at CNN.com/connect.
From there, Siddarth traveled to neighboring Bangladesh. He says human trafficking there is not only just as evident, it's, in many ways, more disturbing that it often involved children separated entirely from their families.
I spoke with Siddarth on Thursday from Dakar.
I began by asking him what stood out so far, as he begins this leg of the journey.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SIDDARTH KARA, HUMAN TRAFFICKING EXPERT: Well, I think what's really sticking in my mind right now is the magnitude of child labor and child trafficking I've encountered in various sectors. I've sent a few photos of some child laborers in Taka and spent much more time at a shelter interviewing a lot of children who have been brought in. They're trying to help these children who were on the streets in garbage, cleaning and collecting shoe repair, plastics and recycling. Some of them are, of course, just orphaned children or homeless children. Some of them have been trafficked in by certain networks.
And, in fact, I met a few who had been trafficked from Bangladesh through the Middle East as camel jockeys then sent back to Bangladesh and left on the streets of Taka.
FOSTER: I want to just ask you, Siddarth, how you managed to ascertain whether or not they're just working or whether they've been trafficked and they're not getting any money for that work and that they're working very long hours.
How are you managing to get all the information from these kids?
KARA: Sure. That's probably one of the most difficult and delicate exercises. My presumption is always that I'm looking at a non-trafficking or non-slave labor situation. And then I have to get convinced that it is.
Obviously, I don't speak the language, so I rely on translators at the local NGOs, who ask -- ask the questions that I'm asking. And in -- and in those questions, I'm trying to get out certain bits of information that start to point red flags in my mind that someone might not just be a poor homeless child in the streets of Taka, but may be the victim of trafficking or some form of abuse or involved in a very hazardous enterprise, as well.
FOSTER: And you talked about some of the industries that the -- the kids are working in. I understand the shrimp industry is actually one area of work where these kids end up in.
KARA: Yes. In fact, I've been learning a lot about how shrimp ends up on our dining tables back in the E.U. and the United States. And there's a very complex supply chain. And children are very much at the bottom of it. They're involved in what's called shrimp fry collection, gathering the little one inch, stick like, baby shrimp along riverbeds. It's pretty difficult and hazardous work. There's certainly exceedingly low wages -- 30 cents, 40 cents a day. And this is a $600 million industry.
FOSTER: how can you be sure that the -- the child labor shrimps are the ones that are -- that are being exported and being consumed in the West?
KARA: Well, the child labor -- the shrimp (INAUDIBLE) collection -- and I'll verify this tomorrow when I go to the region -- is almost all done by children. These are the baby shrimp that are then taken to the shrimp farms. The shrimp then grow on those farms for several months -- and you've got some photos of some of the ones that have gotten pretty big. And from there, they're sent to the shrimp processor, where they may be deheaded, peeled, whatnot, frozen. And you've got some photos of those, too, I think. And then they're shipped to the U.S. and the EU.
So they can't get shipped until they've grown and they can't grow until they've been collected as fried. And that's almost all done with children's hands. And that part I will definitely either verify or -- or disprove when I go into that region tomorrow.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
FOSTER: We'll end up on that last point with Siddarth when we speak to him next.
We should also note that many of these accusations aren't new. Just this past April, a report presented to the UN's Food and Agriculture organization cited Bangladesh as one place where indentured children work in the fishing industry. That same report also credits the government there for working to achieve universal primary education for all children.
To follow Siddarth's journey and to add your comments, actually, to the issue of human trafficking, do log onto our Web site at CNN.com/connect.
Now, it was about this time yesterday that we brought you a video clip that -- that was, frankly, a bit hard to watch in places. It shows police in a Paris suburb facing off against a group of immigrants, we are told, who were protesting their eviction from a nearby housing estate. Coming up, your comments on that very controversial story.
Please stay with us.
The world headlines are also coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: You are back with CONNECT THE WORLD.
I'm Max Foster in London.
Coming up, what's in a name?
Nelson Mandela's family is hoping it will be the key to success in a new business -- wine production. We'll explain just ahead.
Then, can anything save Somalia from the terrorist group, Al Shabab?
The Somalia information minister says yes and he'll tell us what his country needs most.
And finally, our Connector of the Day is British tabloid queen, Katie Price. She's adding singer to her list of titles, along with topless model, best-selling author and paparazzi darling. And she'll answer your questions a little later in this show.
All those stories ahead in the show for you.
But first, we're going to check the headlines this hour.
The WikiLeaks founder is lashing back at criticism leveled on him by top U.S. military officials. Julian Assange recorded a statement for CNN, calling comments that he has blood on his hands hypothetical. U.S. officials say the leaked documents put Americans fighting in Afghanistan at risk.
An official in Pakistan says at least 408 peopled have died in monsoon flooding across the country and 35 more in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Floodwaters swept away hundreds of houses in Swat Valley and the Shangla and Tank Districts. The floods have also washed away thousands of hectares of crops.
The death toll rises as wildfires rage in Western Russia. The fires have left 25 people dead, including two firefighters. They follow in the wake of one of the hottest and driest months in Russian history. More than 1,200 houses have been consumed and 2,000 Russians have been left homeless.
For many people, Nelson Mandela is the image of South Africa. His face has been used to sell everything from t-shirts to wall clocks to tote bags.
Now, as Robyn Curnow reports, his family is launching a new product carrying the Mandela name.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBYN CURNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Wine and song launched this newest venture from the Mandela family -- a trio of South African fine wines that are marketed under the label, "House of Mandela," which the family is selling in South Africa and hopes to launch in the United States by the end of the year.
CHIEF ZWELIVELILE MANDELA, NELSON MANDELA'S GRANDSON: We would like, on behalf of our family, to welcome you to the launch of the Royal Reserve fine wines. The House of Mandela is one of heritage, strong values and royalty.
CURNOW: Nelson Mandela's eldest daughter Maki and her daughter Taqini (ph), seen here at Mandela's 90th birthday celebrations, are spearheading the Mandela wine project.
MAKI MANDELA, NELSON MANDELA'S DAUGHTER: We want to say to people, in a sense, taste our story and tell yours, by sharing this bottle of wine.
CURNOW (voice-over): The three wines were hand-picked by the Mandelas and their wine consultants from some of South Africa's best vineyards in the Cape. They'll sell between $25 and $57 a bottle.
CURNOW (on camera): So this is just basically the beginning.
MAKI MANDELA: Yes.
TUKWINI MANDELA, GRANDDAUGHTER OF NELSON MANDELA: This is basically the beginning.
MAKI MANDELA: This is definitely --
TUKWINI MANDELA: It's the beginning of great things to come.
MAKI MANDELA: Yes.
CURNOW (voice-over): But with a growing industry of tacky Nelson Mandela memorabilia, the family know they all face criticism for what some might see as a commercialization of the Mandela name.
TUKWINI MANDELA: I think that the Mandela name has been commercialized already, Robyn. And when you look at all the people that have used my grandfather's name to benefit themselves. You look at my grandfather's -- his face is on a clock, a piece of clock. His face is on a gold coin.
And what we're saying is that that is not the true story and the true reflection of Nelson Mandela.
MAKI MANDELA: Those clocks, no. That's not the truth.
TUKWINI MANDELA: It's a small part. The people that can tell the story, the real story, of Nelson Mandela, or the House of Mandela, is us. His family.
MAKI MANDELA: It's our name. And we have to use our name. And I think that if you look at the history of the wine industry, most of the wine estates are named after families. And the bottles are named after families. And why can't we use our name in a responsible manner? In a manner that actually honors who we are and what -- how we come to this place, and say to people, share a bit of this and tell your own story.
CURNOW (voice-over): Robyn Curnow, CNN, Johannesburg, South Africa.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: And beyond Mandela, a number of world-famous faces have become marketing cash cows. You've probably seen images of Che Guevara before. The Cuban revolutionary has been turned into a capitalist brand, his face appearing on everything from T-shirts to herbal tea.
Mother Theresa dedicated her life to helping the poor and homeless in Calcutta. She's now become a brand name across India. She even has her own US postage stamp as well.
The spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, also has iconic appeal. According to a leading PR firm, in Catholic countries like Italy and Brazil, the Buddhist monk has inspired more consumers to good causes than the pope, would you believe?
So we want to take a closer look at what happens when someone's image becomes so pervasive, and what control people have over how their names and faces are used. We're joined by Marvet Britto in New York. She is the president and CEO of the Britto Agency, a public relations and brand strategy firm. You've worked with some of the biggest names around, haven't you? Helped create them, almost.
MARVET BRITTO, PUBLIC RELATIONS/BRAND STRATEGIST: Yes, pretty much.
FOSTER: Nelson Mandela as a brand is so powerful, isn't it, as a brand?
BRITTO: Nelson Mandela probably has one of the most potent, powerful, global brands in the world. Which is why, when you have a brand with that equity, you need to leverage it against operatives or -- opportunities that are really more parallel with the brand equity you've built, rather than dilute that brand equity by putting your name, or allowing your family's name, to be aligned with things that aren't consistent with how you built your brand equity to begin with. So that's what we're saying in this case.
FOSTER: How can you protect --
BRITTO: Pardon me?
FOSTER: How can you protect your brand? If you don't want your name, for example, on a bottle of wine, is there a way of protecting it, or is everyone allowed to cash in on it?
BRITTO: Well, in this particular case it's his family who's actually leveraging the name, the House of Mandela name. Typically, it's others. The Marley family had an issue with that, and others that have had an issue.
But the way that you protect your brain is to not allow it to be diluted. To make sure you really protect the brand extensions and the partnerships that you develop. And in this case, you really hope and you would want to see Mandela really align himself with brand extensions and partnerships and affiliations that really speak to the life and the legacy that he has built throughout his entire life.
He's educated, empowered, elevated. Social injustices on an oppressed people, in an oppressed region, an oppressed nation. So you would you like to think that those partnerships would really feed and continue to do what he's really built his life legacy upon.
FOSTER: And does that align with a bottle of wine?
BRITTO: I don't think it does. Not unless the proceeds from the sale of the wine can help the region. He's always been a voice for the voiceless. So if he can find a way to use the profits from the sale of the wine to help people, to maybe build schools and universities.
I haven't heard the -- what they plan to do with the proceeds, but if they've used the proceeds in a way that's befitting of his legacy, then maybe it won't be so bad. But overall, I think that the preservation of the Nelson Mandela brand will help lead to the elevation of his brand.
FOSTER: For the next few decades, I'm sure, the Nelson Mandela brand could always get bigger and bigger and bigger. Is there a risk of, at some point, that all the marketing around the name, if it gets out of control, can actually damage the legacy of the person themselves?
BRITTO: Absolutely. Whenever you allow the dilution of the brand, it weakens it, and it no longer has its power and its strength. Nelson Mandela now really represents everything that we fight and strive for every day in our lives. He represents aspiration. He represents a sense of -- he's really the largest global heroic figure that we have. The most celebrated figure.
And so, he really should preserve and be careful what he aligns his brand with. Because certainly his family wants his legacy to be known and felt. But this is not a partnership that I think will do that, unless it's executed in the proper way.
FOSTER: And can we talk a bit about Che Guevara? Because it's true that that image of him has become so pervasive and represents capitalism in a way. Is that an interesting example to you about how a name, an image, can be used? And has that been damaging to him? Because young kids growing up these days wear these T-shirts. They don't really understand where he's coming from in that context.
BRITTO: Absolutely. They wear the T-shirts and some know what it means, and others don't. But if you think about heroic African-Americans in America, for instance, Martin Luther King or Malcolm X and others, you really wouldn't want to see their names or faces on a bottle of wine.
So we really aren't sure how they want the interpretation to be received. But I think with Mother Theresa and others, as you pointed out, you have to be very careful with the alignment and the partnerships and what it represents. Not only in the present, but what it will represent in the future. And Nelson Mandela has such a powerful, powerful brand equity, that it's important that it be preserved and that the right partnership -- so that his legacy will be really known for the work that he really strove hard his entire life to build and really represent.
FOSTER: Marvet Britto, thank you so much for joining us on the program. Great stuff.
BRITTO: You're welcome.
FOSTER: Let's take a look at some best videos coming into us today, then. And a racer in Brazil accidentally putting a sun roof on his competitor's truck in Sao Paulo over the weekend. The brakes on his vehicle failed, and his truck was launched over and into a fellow-racer's vehicle. Rescue crews helped free both drivers, who walked away unharmed, you'll be glad to hear.
A frightening moment in Chicago as well. A sales clerk at a store leapt into action when a robber held a female customer hostage and demanded money from the cash register. Somehow, the clerk got a hold of the robber's gun just in time, saving the female customer, who was grazed by a bullet. The robber fled, and the clerk did not shout -- did not shoot him, saying, "I'm not a violent person." The guy's got guts and a heart. Chicago police are enhancing the video, hoping to learn the robber's identity.
And that's no fly ball in Toronto. An unidentified foam ball floated over a ball field at a Blue Jays game. Ground crews chased the bizarre bubble through the outfield and stomped it apart. But the question remains, what was that stuff? Do you know? Let us know, cnn.com/connect.
The African Union's promised a show of strength against al-Shabab militants in Somalia. But the situation on the ground is somewhat different. In an exclusive interview, the Kenyan prime minister tells CNN why he won't commit his troops to the cause. That's coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Fertile ground for threats to regional peace. That's how the presidents of the African Union Commission has described Somalia, a country that's suffered four years of guerrilla warfare from the radical al-Shabab movement. That violence has now spread beyond Somalia's borders. The group has global ties to al Qaeda and claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, this month.
It's believed the blasts were retaliation against the work of Ugandan forces in Mogadishu. In response, leaders at this week's African Union summit pledged thousands more troops to fight al-Shabab militants. But in practice, many AU member states are reluctant to send their soldiers, fearing reprisals.
One such country is Somalia's neighbor, Kenya. Currently, it is unable to submit troops to the African Union force, but the nation is already subject to cross-border raids from al-Shabab. David McKenzie picks up the story in Nairobi with an exclusive interview with the Kenyan prime minister.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Prime Minister, now with the attacks in Uganda, there's been a lot of talk in the region about committing more troops to Somalia. Would Kenya ever be willing to put troops in Somalia?
RAILA ODINGA, PRIME MINISTER OF KENYA: Well, Kenya is one of those -- you call them front line countries, having a common border with Somalia. That's why it had in the past been ruled out. So you can see that Kenya should not deploy troops directly in Somalia, because that would be seen as invasion.
But then, there were now discussions in Uganda with the African Union meeting about increasing the troops to Somalia. We are going to see how many countries are going to make commitments, and then we are going to review our own position in this regard.
MCKENZIE: Could you ever consider -- do you think it's feasible that Kenya at some point could commit troops to an AU force?
ODINGA: You see, we have a responsibility to protect ourselves. As you have seen, the al-Shabab have been attacking people across the border. The other day they wounded two soldiers just in the border area. Because we take a very grim view of that kind of situation. Therefore, we cannot rule out self defense if these kinds of activities continue.
MCKENZIE: But is one of the reasons you don't want to put troops in there because you're afraid of being attacked by al-Shabab here in Kenya?
ODINGA: Al-Shabab have already issued a threat that they will come to Kenya. So it's just a matter of time. And therefore, we are utterly prepared to deal with al-Shabab's threats if they intend to transmit it into action.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: An exclusive there with the Kenyan prime minister.
Now the number of refugees fleeing Somalia underlines the volatility of the country's security situation. But how much difference will an influx of African Union peacekeeping troops actually make? Well, I put that to Somali information minister Abdirahman Omar Osman just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABDIRAHMAN OMAR OSMAN, INFORMATION MINISTER OF SOMALIA: We have extra troops now, we're expecting 2,000 troops within the week. It will greatly help to improve the situation in the capital and will reduce innocent caught in the fire. It will reduce people fleeing from their homes. And we'll be able to secure in Mogadishu.
FOSTER: We've heard from the Kenyans about how they're apprehensive about sending troops to your country because they don't want a backlash in the way that the Ugandans suffered recently. You can understand that point of view, and you can understand why Africans from other countries don't want their troops exposing them to danger.
OSMAN: We call on all African nations to put more efforts, more troops to Somalia in order to end this chaos. When we end this phenomenon of al Qaeda in Africa, it will be great to the neighbors and to Africa.
FOSTER: A spokesman for al-Shabab has warned that other African troops, or troops from other African nations will be annihilated if they go to your country. How can you expect troops to come to your country with that sort of threat? We know that al-Shabab are very dangerous.
OSMAN: I think this is a tactic for al-Shabab, just to threat to everybody so people will leave them alone and carry on what they're doing, which is what we say in this country, we are there --
FOSTER: It's not just a threat. You see, Ugandans have learned that it's not just a threat.
OSMAN: Well, we say these threats can only be stopped as early as possible by all of us uniting to confront the threat. If we continue, al- Shabab, to count on what they're doing, injure soldier and brainwashing for young children to Jihadism and extremism is something that the future of Somalia will be something -- it will impact on others. So we need the support now.
FOSTER: How do you convince Kenyans that you need that help and it's going to help them eventually if not in the short term?
OSMAN: We have Somali community -- Somali community in Kenya. So we can understand their reluctance of sending troops. But what we need is their political support for convincing other African troops to join to Somalia to help the people fleeing from their homes. And this is an issue where the humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia is the worst that we have seen ever. So it's a benefit to all.
FOSTER: What sort of resources are Americans, for example, and Europeans supplying to you right now to tackle this threat? What sort of Americans and Europeans are in your country right now working?
OSMAN: At the moment, we're getting political support and financial assistance, but the financial assistance we receive is nowhere near in assisting us to achieve our objectives, and --
FOSTER: How much more do you need?
OSMAN: We need -- our calculation was for the budget for 2010 for the institutions to run we require around $250 million --
FOSTER: What do you get for it?
OSMAN: For the year. At the moment, what we get is locally, $12 million for the year.
FOSTER: So you think there's no chance you can tackle al-Shabab without more money?
OSMAN: Exactly.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD here on CNN. Just ahead, a change of tact, some glitz and glamor. Your Connector of the Day never shies away from the spotlight. Model, businesswoman, singer and tabloid sensation Katie Price answers your questions after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): She's Britain's tabloid queen and never shies away from the spotlight. But Katie Price insists she doesn't mind the attention.
The former model, known by many as simply Jordan, has become a controversial icon for teenage girls around the country.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: She does what she wants. She doesn't listen to anyone. She's original.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: We would love to be like her, really.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: She's an excellent role model. Beautiful lady, successful, confident.
ANDERSON (voice-over): Her marriage to singer Peter Andre became a national obsession and spawned numerous television shows. And their split in 2009 garnered equal attention.
Price, who refers to herself as a businesswoman, has also written a series of best-selling books, five of which are novels.
And today, she's dipping her toes into the music scene as a solo performer with her new single entitled "Free to Love." Again, never afraid to turn heads, Katie Price is your Connector of the Day.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: Singing's just the latest strand of Katie Price's career, so when Becky sat down with your Connector earlier on, she began by asking her why she'd chosen to release a single right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATIE PRICE, MODEL AND ENTREPENEUR: It's really weird, because three weeks ago, a guy comes to our work with -- nine years ago, with a song. He said, "I saw you in the jungle, I've been trying to get a hold of you, I've got this song."
So I played it. Loved it. And recorded it three weeks ago, and here I am this week, on the third week, releasing it. I've got no record company. I'm doing it all on digital. I've just got one impulsive, proper Gemini person I am to do it that way.
ANDERSON: Is it any good? Are you any good?
PRICE: I actually really like the song, actually. I'm not the best singer in the world. I'm not a singer as such. But I enjoy singing, and I've got an opportunity to do this song. And I love it. I didn't write it, I've just literally put my vocal to it, and now I'm promoting it.
ANDERSON: All right. And some people will say a right stab in the back to your former husband. Is it?
PRICE: See, it's so boring. Why do I have to keep bringing up the past? I'm with a new man, now. It's a new beginning, and it's a great song that relates to everyone.
ANDERSON: You've got a new man now.
PRICE: Yes.
ANDERSON: You just got married recently. How was the wedding?
PRICE: It was -- well, you'll see. It's on tele, obviously. Apart from the church bit at the beginning, which was an absolute nightmare. Other than that, it was a brilliant day. We've just got back from our honeymoon, which you see, I'm still peeling from it. And now, here I am now, two days later, promoting my single, which I did three weeks ago. Mad.
ANDERSON: All right. You've also got a fifth novel coming out. Am I right in saying that, yes?
PRICE: Yes. "Angel." It's the third series of "Angel," that's out on the 28th of July. That's really good. But there again, when people read that, they're like, "But it's so like you." And of course, it is a bit like me, because I'm the one who thinks up the ideas. And then Rebecca does the bit around it. You know, I'm not a writer. I say that. I don't lie about anything.
ANDERSON: You've said you're not a singer, but you're enjoying doing it. You've said you're a writer --
PRICE: That's so --
ANDERSON: And you're enjoying doing -- what are you?
PRICE: I've just cover my back, really. Instead of everyone else being negative, I'm being positive and saying all the negatives before anyone else can. That's what I'm doing, basically.
ANDERSON: But Katie, what are you? If -- how do you see yourself?
PRICE: An entertainer.
ANDERSON: You do that well.
PRICE: So, even when -- you know, when you fly to different countries, you have to state what your occupation is. I sometimes say, "What is my occupation?" So I just put "entertainer." Because there's lots of things I do, and it's not just people knock me, and I've got some people enjoy what I do. It doesn't stop me. As long as I'm having fun doing stuff, I'm going to do it.
ANDERSON: Let me put some questions that have come from the audience up for you. Gillian says, "Growing up, did you ever think that you'd end up being on the front of so many tabloids?" And in the middle pages, of course.
PRICE: I always wanted to be a model or a pop star, when I was younger. I suppose famous. It's not always what it's set out to be. But I'm here, and I'm enjoying it, and that's my life.
ANDERSON: Gillian says, "Have you got any big regrets?"
PRICE: Eurovision.
ANDERSON: Why?
PRICE: It was -- I can't sing that song, and it was just that -- When people knew the real reason behind all of that, it was just -- it was one of my biggest regrets ever.
ANDERSON: N says, "I admire your ambition and success. Why do you feel the need to live every moment in the spotlight? Do you feel any part of your life is private anymore?"
PRICE: A lot of my life is private. And lot of my life is on show. That's just what I'm used to. That's, obviously, the way my path was meant to go. So I'm not like someone who goes to the office nine through five. This is what I do. And the day it ends is when people are bored and my things stop selling. I'm like mum, right? You either love me or you hate me. I can't please everyone.
But you know, you could be gone tomorrow. You're only put on this Earth once. So enjoy it. And that's what I'm doing.
ANDERSON: Who do you like better? Katie Price or Jordan?
PRICE: Katie Reid, do you mean?
ANDERSON: Oh, my goodness. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I am. Yes.
PRICE: Well, Jordan comes out in the bedroom and Katie Price does everything else.
ANDERSON: Louise says, "Do you ever feel the burden of being looked up to by so many young girls? And shouldn't this really influence the decisions that you make?"
PRICE: I think what point people have got to understand is, as much as I'm in the tabloids, like I've done four interviews this year -- no. In the past year since I split with Pete. Four interviews, that's all I've done. But looking at it as an outsiders, I'm in a mag every week. There's interviews, or speculation, or "source said this," or "source said that." And I haven't done any of them. So although I'm in everything, people think I'm doing it all. And I'm not. I've actually stood back.
ANDERSON: Do you do as much exploiting as you are exploited, do you think?
PRICE: I know the tabloids have to sell and the journalists have to write their own stories and stuff. It's like, Jesus, give us a break? What have I really done that's that bad to deserve it?
ANDERSON: Well somebody might say, "Nothing." You haven't done anything like that.
PRICE: I haven't, but you know --
ANDERSON: They might say nothing in general, do you know what I'm saying?
PRICE: Yes.
ANDERSON: That you've been exploiting them to a certain extent as well.
PRICE: Yes. But I've been in this industry 13 years. It's always been up, down, up, down. I hit down, and now I'm going up again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: The ever-honest Katie Price there, wrapping up another week of big name Connectors from the world of politics, security, religion and, yes, entertainment.
Now it's time to look onwards to Monday, when your Connectors are two of Bollywood's brightest stars, and they're related. Film lovers will recognize Anil Kapoor for his role in the Academy Award-winning "Slum Dog Millionaire." Many other major Indian movies as well. His daughter, Sonam, has also appeared in a number of blockbuster hits, even working opposite former Connector Abhishek Bachchan.
This is your part of the show, so start sending in your questions to us. Remember to tell us where you're writing from, though. Keep suggesting famous names, as well, who you'd like to be connected with. We've been trying to reach out to your favorites, and recently got you Bill Gates and the director Christopher Nolan. So it does work when you suggest them. Head to cnn.com/connect. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: Welcome back to CONNECT THE WORLD. We want to take a moment to return to some video that we brought you last night during our look at immigration. I said it then and I'll say it again, some of you will find it disturbing. It occurred about a week ago when police in a Paris suburb tried to evict a group of squatters from a housing project scheduled for demolition. Things turned very ugly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(INAUDIBLE SHOUTING, RIOTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Unbelievable. The group Right to Housing shot the video. The spokesman told me that most of the demonstrators were from the Ivory Coast, or from Ivory Coast. You can get their background of the story at cnn.com.
Let's be clear, our goal wasn't to accuse the police of racism or using excessive force. We simply wanted to use it as an example of the difficulty one region faces in dealing with its migrant community.
We had dozens of comments on this, because certainly people were shocked by it and have strong opinions about immigration and some of them supported the police, some of them didn't. One reader says, "They were asked to move and they didn't. What kind of parent brings their kids and babies to a protest?"
Some agree with Saritasari, who writes, "You should imply that these police are racist and using excessive force. We need to support immigration reform and justice for immigrants and refugees everywhere." Worth noting that we've not been able to verify the status of the protester. Watch the video, read the story, join the debate. We'd love to hear from you all at cnn.com/international.
I'm Max Foster. That is it for the show on the TV. Thank you for watching. Do stay connected with us online, though. "BackStory" is next, but I'm going to bring you the headlines just ahead of that.
END
