January 17, 2023

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. And welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. Here is what’s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: There will be no impunity for these Russian crimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, tells me that Russia is still on the back foot in Ukraine, and allies are racing to

make sure it stays that way.

Then, after a perilous year for Pakistan, a senior government official tells me she’s putting the climate crisis at the top of the agenda. Also,

ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BERLINGER, DIRECTOR, “MADOFF: THE MONSTER OF WALL STREET”: There is no way you can run a $50 billion Ponzi scheme and not have anybody else know

about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: A con that was much bigger than just one man. Hari Sreenivasan talks to director Joe Berlinger about his new documentary, “Madoff: The

Monster of Wall Street.”

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

Ukraine’s first lady, Olena Zelenska, opened the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with this stark warning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLENA ZELENSKA, UKRAINIAN FIRST LADY (through translator): We are facing the threat of a collapse of the world as we know it. The way that we are

accustomed to it or what to what we aspire. This war can go further and make crises wider if the aggressor does not lose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: This, while back home, her people suffer stepped up horrors and mass killings by the aggressor, Russia. The number of residents killed by a

cruise missile strike on their apartment block in Dnipro has now risen to at least 45 people. Something her husband, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy,

has called a war crime.

Russia’s war in Ukraine is topic number one at the Davos Summit. Leaders, of course, will also discuss climate change and the cost-of-living crisis.

But will the forum be more than just a talking shop? One voice carries a lot of weight.

My first guess, European Commission, President Ursula von der Leyen. Recently named the most powerful women in the world by Forbes Magazine. She

joined me right after delivering a speech that was designed to spur action and to speed up support to Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: President von der Leyen, welcome to the program.

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for having me.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you your assessment? I know your speech was devoted a lot to the war in Ukraine. Russia has had some may be symbolic,

psychological successes, particularly around Soledar, et cetera. And it has stepped up its war against civilians, the terrible death of at least 40

people from a residential attack in Dnipro. How do you assess? Do you think Russia is getting back on the front foot or still on the back foot?

VON DER LEYEN: I think Russia is still on the back foot because, first of all, Russia never accounted for the incredible courage of the Ukrainian

people and Russia never accounted for the strong support the International Community would give Ukraine. The European Union is supporting with

whatever it takes Ukraine, because we know that Ukraine is not only fighting against Russia for its sovereignty and integrity, of its

territory, but also for the respect for the international law and the fundamental rights.

And therefore, we are deeply concerned. Whatever it takes we have to support Ukraine.

AMANPOUR: So, those are great words. And for sure, the EU, NATO partners, the United States have done a huge amount. But we’re hearing from

everybody, including beleaguered Ukrainian soldiers, that it’s just not enough for this onslaught right now. They still don’t have the air defense

systems. They still don’t have all the artillery or the ammunition that they need. And this is what Olena Zelenska, the first lady, told you all at

Davos today.

OLENA ZELENSKA, UKRAINIAN FIRST LADY (through translator): You’re all united by the fact that you are really very influential. But there’s also

something that separates you. And that is that not all of you are using this influence. Well, sometimes you use it in a way that divides even more.

AMANPOUR: So, President von der Leyen, that’s a pretty strong, frankly, accusation from a grateful nation, it has to be said.

And we know that there is a race against time. And we know there’s an argument in your country, Germany. You are a former defense minister, do

you believe that the German chancellor should deliver the Leopard tanks to join what other European countries are doing now?

VON DER LEYEN: As you know, the European level, the European Union does not own any military capability. But I’ve said from the onset of this

atrocious war that Ukraine should get all the military equipment it needs and it can handle. And this also includes the advanced system. So, I hope

very much that, on Ramstein, when the meeting is — I think it’s the 20th of January, that there will be a big move forward and the decision taken

that is so necessary.

Overall, Ukraine also says that it has gotten a lot of support, and that is good too. But, yes, there has — they — we need to step up on that.

AMANPOUR: Do you — I mean, again, you are the former defense minister of Germany. I know you are currently the president of the European Commission,

but you know Chancellor Scholz, you know these people. Will you be urging him to make that decision on behalf of Europe and on behalf of what you all

say is to defend Ukraine to the end, that Putin mustn’t win, and that your credibility is on the line right now?

VON DER LEYEN: Yes. But I do not have to convince the head of state in government because they know that. Of course, we talk a lot about this

topic. It has been, for example, every time a subject at the European council.

And indeed, there is a need to step up now the deliveries. We just made the decision that we will deliver 18 billion Euros in 2023 of financial

support. That is the responsibility, for example, of the commission. Yesterday, we dispatched the first tranche of 3 billion for month of

January and February. So, in many different urgent fields, we are stepping up. And again, I think Ukraine should get that material it needs and it can

handle.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about sanctions. Because, again, you have been very clear —

VON DER LEYEN: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — you have done sanctions after sanctions against Russia. But we are hearing, and I’m sure you’ve seen the reports that despite that, a

lot of these prescribed — proscribed goods are actually getting through by road, and especially according to latest reports, from the country of

Georgia. How does one stop Russia getting what it’s — what it needs even under sanctions?

VON DER LEYEN: Yes, we have issued nine rounds of sanctions. And these sanctions are biting. They are crippling the Russian economy and starving

it of the modern technologies. That is working. But we also see that, of course, there is the attempt of circumvention and we cannot accept that. We

have already started to say that we are going to list those people who take technologies or goods from the European Union and bring them into Russia.

But the 10th package of sanctions will be mainly focused on closing these loopholes, on finishing off with the circumvention, and on having massive

consequences for those who circumvent the sanctions of the European Union. So, the 10th package will be on that.

AMANPOUR: You just mentioned the United States. And Washington is watching you and your speech very closely. There is a U.S. delegation there in

Davos. You are meant to be having a meeting, I don’t know whether you did, to try to calm your fury at what you call protectionism, or what European

nations are calling protectionism because of the U.S. — you know, the IRA law, the Inflation Reduction Bill.

You are very worried about your car (ph) sector and others. Main countries like France and Germany are very, very worried. Is there any resolution to

that, and do you see it happening?

VON DER LEYEN: Yes. So, first of all I must say we welcome that there is the Inflation Reduction Act, which is basically massive investment in the

green transition. That is good. Let’s join forces there. As you know, the European Union has its European green deal, and our massive investment

program of 800 billion for next generation EU. So, it is good that the U.S. are also stepping up their investment in the green transition.

There’s one point where we have to go into deeper discussions, and that is we want to compete on quality, but there needs to be a level playing field.

And therefore indeed, I’m working with the United States on an agreement that these investments on both sides of the Atlantic should be a joint

effort to bring forward the clean tech industry. To boost the clean tech industry.

And on our side, on the European Union, we will come forward with a green deal industrial plan which basically looks at what we can do in a

regulatory environment to speed up the deployment of clean tech. What we can do in the — on the field of funding and state aid? What do we have to

do for scaling people? And how we can improve trade for the clean tech?

So, this is the green deal industrial plan, which is basically the answer to the IRA. And as I said, we work with the United States to have a real

level playing field to compete on content, on substance, on quality, for the clean tech sector.

AMANPOUR: The senator, Joe Manchin, you know, the centrist Democrat says that E.U. worries were overwrought and hyper hypocritical. And he’s already

told the French president that the IRA could never hurt Europe. What is your response to that?

VON DER LEYEN: Well, I like this mutual understanding that we are in this fight against climate change together. And that we know crucial will be the

clean tech industry. Wind power energy, solar panels, hydrogen is very important. All these topics we have to bring forward. We need a lot of

innovation. We need a lot of boosting of this clean tech industry. We need secure supply chains.

So, we also have to look into the question where do we get our rare Earth from? The critical raw materials for that. We also will do the critical raw

materials act, which is creating a clop (ph) of like-minded countries to have these secured supply chains. So, if this is the mutual understanding

we have on both sides of the Atlantic, I’m not at all worried, but very positive that we will be leading in this green transition to the green tech

industry.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you a question about what many, many — including Americans, essentially throw the ball in Europe’s court saying you all were

way too dependent on Russian energy? Now, you have also really done a lot to mitigate that over this year of the war and to make sure it’s not a

freezing winter for your citizens. And some 74 percent, according to the latest polls, of Europeans support the E.U. backing Ukraine.

So — I mean, there are several questions here. But one is, by gathering so many — so much storage of gas and all the rest of it to get you through

the winter, do you think you have maybe setback the goal of climate mitigation? And how do you catch up by relying so heavily on fossil fuels

this winter?

VON DER LEYEN: Yes. So, you’re absolutely right with the diagnosis. We were too reliant and dependent on Russian fossil fuels. That was a

dangerous dependency. And we have to get rid of this. And we have gotten rid of it. We have completely gotten rid of Russian coal. We are weaning

down the oil. Russia cut 80 percent of the pipeline gas. And this made us completely diversify away from Russia towards reliable suppliers like, for

example, our friends in the United States or Norway.

Second point, we have been saving energy, minus 20 percent, this is extraordinary and very good. Hard work of the European people. We filled

our storages with gas. But the most important part is we really accelerated the green and renewable energy supply. We doubled the deployment of

additional renewable energy because this energy is homegrown and it makes us independent and it is clean.

So, now the warm weather in the winter helps a bit. But this is not all. We have really been through joint action being able to reduce the gas price

from — if you look at August last year to today, by more than 80 percent. All of that is a success.

As you rightly said, we have to be very careful. This is a crossroads for us now. Not to change the dependency on Russian fossil fuel into a lock-in

in fossil fuels but leap frock (ph) forward into the renewable, the clean energy’s which are good for the independents and good for the climate. And

that’s where we invest in.

AMANPOUR: You know, back to partly Ukraine, but also another item on your agenda. Iran. Politico is reporting that the E.U. is preparing potentially

40 sanctions against nearly 40 Iranian individuals and entities. Can you confirm that and will you also, at the E.U., designate at the revolutionary

guard corps as a terrorist organization, as the U.K. is saying it will do?

VON DER LEYEN: So, what we see in Iran is atrocious and it is inhuman, these executions. And it is trampling on fundamental rights, human rights.

It is horrible. And it needs a strong responsive message. We have already two rounds of sanctions against Iran. And yes, we are looking into the

third round and nothing is off the table. I also think that we have to have a close look at the revolutionary guards and to find an appropriate

approach by listing them. This will be decided in due course. But there is a lot of agreement here in the European Union that it needs another strong

message against this unbelievable behavior.

AMANPOUR: Do you believe, like some in the British foreign office do, that despite the human rights catastrophe that’s under — that is going on

there, that the area of national and global interests, i.e. keeping Iran non-nuclear, is worth going after this JCPOA again? There are many loud

voices in the U.S. who says these kinds of negotiations cannot happen right now. What do you think as the, you know, E.U.?

VON DER LEYEN: Well, I think that Iran, more or less, paralyzed these negotiations through its behavior. What we have also seen is, for example,

that Iran is delivering drones to Russia. So also, for their role in the Russian war in Ukraine, it is a good reason to sanction them. So0, this is

the main focus at the moment being and rightly so.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about your ongoing and endless problems with the Brexit U.K.? Is there any sense of moving forward on the important issue of

Northern Ireland with the new conservative government? Is there any progress to some kind of more normal trade relationship with the U.K. under

this new Rishi Sunak government?

VON DER LEYEN: Yes, definitely there is. I have a very good relationship with Rishi Sunak, the prime minister. It is a constructive atmosphere. You

know, this is also the result that the two of us, the European Union and the United Kingdom, we realize how much we are partners in supporting

Ukraine and fighting for democracy and the international law.

And therefore, we think we should sort out the problems that we have. It is a constructive negotiation atmosphere. Of course, there are issues that we

have to tackle and they are not trivial, but the approach is constructive and positive. So, our teams are negotiating. As always, we are only done

within the negotiations if everything is agreed upon. But I am positive and confident that we have the possibility and the capacity here to come to a

good end.

AMANPOUR: So more positive than under the Boris Johnson’s government?

VON DER LEYEN: Yes, it is a very constructive way to work together. And indeed, there are very important issues to be solved in the protocol for

the people in Northern Ireland and Ireland, but we also know we are partners in this fight against the aggressor, Russia in Ukraine. And we are

partners, for example, in fighting climate change.

So, we should have better trade relations, and therefore, let’s sit down and solve that problem. That’s the atmosphere at attitude we have right

now.

AMANPOUR: E.U. Commissioner president, Ursula von der Leyen, thank you very much indeed.

VON DER LEYEN: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, as the global elite talk in Davos, the battle continues to rage inside Ukraine and the fiercely contested city of Bakhmut on the

northeastern front. The fighting is becoming even more fiercer, making life a real nightmare as correspondent Ben Wedeman reports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN WEDEMAN, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): Near Bakhmut’s frontlines, lost souls wander the streets. Those who can’t leave,

won’t live or have given up carrying.

I put some food on the fire. I chopped some wood, says Svetlana (ph), and decided to go out for some fresh air.

Dmytro (ph) pays no heed to the shelling.

This is my land, he says. I won’t leave.

The fighting echoes through the fog.

WEDEMAN (on camera): As the Russians seem to be gaining control of Soledar north of here, in Bakhmut, the fighting seems to be intensifying. One local

resident told us, whereas before mortars were flying over their heads, now it’s bullets.

WEDEMAN (voiceover): Soldiers prepare trenches inside the city. New defensive positions if the Russians pushed forward.

There will be sandbags with wood on top, says Valentin, and three firing positions.

On the ever so slightly safer western side of the city, a makeshift market offers the basics. With no electricity or running water, commerce is

conducted in the open.

My two shops were destroyed, says Denis. So, I am selling on the street.

But this food is only for those who can afford it. And Sergei is not one of them. I’m living like an effing animal, he says.

Ivan returns home after collecting firewood. The bitter cold is deadly as the shelling. People have frozen to death in their apartments, he says.

On a bluff overlooking Bakhmut is artillery officer nicknamed “Pilot” says they’re up against troops, many of them convicts, with a private military

company, Wagner.

We are fighting against soldiers brought to the slaughter, he says. These Wagner guys have no choice. They are sentenced to death.

And then the order comes to open fire.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Ben Wedeman reporting from the Ukrainian front lines there. When it comes to climate, few countries have felt the pain, as much as Pakistan

this past year. In just a few months, floods submerged more than a third of the entire country. Now, Pakistan is asking for $16 billion in aid to boost

its reconstruction efforts. Joining me on this is the Pakistani minister of state for foreign affairs, Hina Rabbani Khar.

Welcome back to our program from Davos there. I’m wondering whether you have got any sort of resolution or answer or stepped-up commitment

regarding that request from your country for reconstruction aid.

HINA RABBANI KHAR, PAKISTANI MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Sure, Christiane, as you know, Pakistan is one of the countries which has been

disproportionately hit by the crisis that has, frankly speaking, challenged the entire world, the entire planet.

But throughout this, before we asked around for assistance, we put in — reoriented our own resources and made sure that people were not left to

their own devices or that of climate to fend for themselves. In that reorientation, close to a billion dollar plus was given by the government

of Pakistan immediately to the people for housing and other needs.

Now, when it comes to others, largest — recently in Geneva, we were able to hold a conference for reconstruction, for rebuilding better Pakistan. A

resilient Pakistan. And within that, the total outlay of immediate requirement for rebuilding was about $16 billion. And we are very glad that

the world community came together to commit to about $9 billion towards this resilient rebuilding and reconstruction for the people of Pakistan,

about $33 million.

Whereas, your cameras might have left, some of those people still remain submerged into waters. Where waterboards have been used to reach homes as

we speak. Such is the extent of this crisis.

AMANPOUR: It — I mean, it is huge and it did really knock the world for six. And you know, at COP several months after, the COP that was held in

Egypt, the one piece of actual achievement there was on the mitigation and the loss and damage for countries like yourself, which do not cause climate

change, but are the — you know, bear the brunt of it. You’ve got an agreement from the world for that, but there were no real details and no

real sums. And there are some holdout countries, for instance even the United States. What — I mean, have you got any sort of assurance that will

happen in the future?

KHAR: Look, Christiane, I — it took years and years, and decades I would say, of diplomacy, certainly by the developing world. Pakistan happened to

be the chair of the G77 and worked the Pakistani diplomats and elsewhere had done over years and other diplomats from developing countries was

finally put to fruition, because it seemed like at the time was right.

And the impact of the crisis and its manifestation in — such as in the floods of 2022 in Pakistan were so glaring and alarming that people could

no more say no. So, while the commitment to build that fund is there of loss and damage. I think what we have seen over the years is less about

naming the number, and more about the finer details as to how that fund is going to be operationalized.

Now, as that is negotiated over the next year before COP 28, we would be very — looking very closely whether these would be re-appropriate funds.

How will this fund actually work. And when a country, or the people, or a nation is hit with a crisis like this, is this fund immediately able to

deliver?

Now, interestingly, Pakistan was also hit by earthquakes in 2005, and right after that, surf (ph) fund of the U.N. was set up. So, it’s really

appalling that this fund took that long. Now, I would be very interested, and Pakistan would be looking at it closely, together with other countries

which are disproportionately affected by climate change, as to how easy the mechanisms of that to fund is. And when people say they commit to it, is

this new funding or is this reappropriation of —

AMANPOUR: Well —

KHAR: — you know, older or some other funding?

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you, because again, you know, it was hailed, at the time, as a historic moment. On Sunday at Davos, the U.S. special

presidential envoy for climate, John Kerry, as you know a former secretary of state, he said it actually in Abu Dhabi that the U.S. could be relied

upon for these climate related disaster reliefs. But, he said, the United States will not accept some imposed standard of liability. What do you —

what does he mean and what do you say to that?

KHAR: Look, I think Pakistan’s diplomacy on this has always been forward- looking rather than backward looking. So, we are not interested in reparations. We are not interested in people being for whatever they did in

the past. We want the — we want humanity — you see, the world, whether it’s this issue or any other, we are choosing confrontation over

collaboration. We want this to be a moment where collaboration is chosen over confrontation.

So, we say what is past is past. Let’s be forward looking and make sure that when any country, anywhere, whether it is island states or countries

like Pakistan, or countries in Europe, or the U.S. itself, where enough people are hit by a crisis, which is not of their own making, the world can

come together and has put up a fund which in come to immediate assistance. And people don’t have to wait for years and months and weeks before the

world can start pouring in the money. This is just common sense. It seems common sense is not very common nowadays.

AMANPOUR: Well, you know, to that end, the common sense I think the consensus is, what John Kerry also said, which is that time is running out

on us as a global, you know, society to get this climate under control. But at the same time, there you are at the World Economic Forum, they have

touted the idea of climate, you know, being, you know, so high.

But the risk assessment for next year — of this year says that the WEF, the — says the cost-of-living crisis, not the climate crisis is the

biggest risk facing the world over the next two years. But it did say that failure to mitigate the climate change is the global economy’s biggest

long-term challenge over the next 10 years

So, I guess I’m — I keep — I wonder what you think. It’s like, it’s always one step forward, 10 steps back, that’s what it looks like. How do

you assess that WEF assessment?

KHAR: Well, I assess this very simply. Again, common sense. Climate is an existential threat. Is an existential crisis. The cost-of-living crisis is

an immediate crisis. Now, the cost-of-living crisis is right now at the door of Europe, but to be honest, the cost-of-living crisis has also

disproportionately affected the developing world. And my country is a very good example of that because we were into an IMF program which was pre-

floods, which was pre-Ukraine crisis, which is pre-exceptional — you know, oil prices. And as you know, countries like Pakistan have a high budget

component of oil imports.

Now, with all of those massive changes coming from the floods, and the cost that the Pakistani government has to make, and the cost of oil, and the

cost-of-living crisis, and all of it put together, we are still at a point where we are expected to act as if it’s business as usual in terms of the

distress that — you know, the energy cost, for instance, can cause to people.

So, I will just end — you know, I will just say again, I think that’s clearly an immediate issue that we have to deal with at the global stage.

And the restructuring of financial institutions, the Brexit institution, how we look at order, how we distribute order, how the fund looks at

situation with a bit of a cookie cutter approach. All of that is exceptionally important to be dealt with in a crisis mode.

But the climate crisis is truly an existential threat which doesn’t know any boundaries of geography, nationhood, ethnicity. Anything. And I think

we saw climate come upon us, the climate crisis come upon us, much before we expected.

I thought my children would have to deal with this crisis, and I have to do what I have to do today to make sure that my children are able to live in a

normal world in terms of the atmospherics and the climate. But it seems like this is upon us now.

AMANPOUR: Uh-huh.

KHAR: It’s a clear and present danger. And it is an existential threat both to planet and to humanity. And it doesn’t choose which country is rich

or poor, it is going to — it’s gobbling us all up all at the same time.

AMANPOUR: I want to switch gears just slightly and turn to the plight of women around the world, and especially in your neighborhood, and across

your border. Ever since the Taliban retake power in August of 2021 in Afghanistan, some 250,000 Afghans have come to your country.

But the UNHCR is now saying that quite a lot of Afghans are being deported back, that your country is deporting back, you know, and especially about

several hundreds in the last few days including women and children. Why is that, Hina Rabbani Khar? I mean, they face existential mortal danger over

there.

KHAR: Of course. And Christiane, I think you would appreciate that is — the danger that has been created over the last 20 years of conflict. And

Afghanistan has been — the brunt of it has been, frankly speaking, dealt with countries in the neighborhood. And certainly, a country named Pakistan

which has a 2,600 kilometer border with Afghanistan which has played to close 5 million Afghans allowed them to come in and become part of the

fabric of our society, into our schools.

Gave them, you know, right to stay, to become part of Pakistan commerce and has paid the price for that far more than. I think we have — I don’t look

at — I don’t know any examples in the world where people have opened — accepted refugee flow like Pakistan has for the last 40 years now.

AMANPOUR: Right, but why would you be deporting them now? It’s true, all of that, yes.

KHAR: Now, the number which is said about 250,000 numbers is now 500,000 actually, since 2021, August, the total number of people who have come to

Pakistan. We, like any other country, I think we have to respect borders, we have to respect visa regimes, we have to respect biometrics, we have to

respect a way of going about our business.

While we continue to host Afghans who have already been in Pakistan for decades now. We continue to, as we speak today also, allow Afghans who have

gone through the process to come in, but we expect them to leave at a certain time.

AMANPOUR: OK.

KHAR: Now, this crisis in Afghanistan is certainly not of our making.

AMANPOUR: Right. Let me just —

KHAR: Right? We are —

AMANPOUR: — stop you right there for one second.

KHAR: — the threat — yes.

AMANPOUR: Because I understand all of that, but obviously there is, you know, Afghan presidents have actually often accused Pakistan of meddling

and using the situation for their own good. But in this case, one — you wouldn’t have this problem of girls and women if the Taliban didn’t come

and restrict them so much as they have done in 2021.

I want to know what you are saying to the Taliban and whether, you know, there’s a way to get Muslim countries around the world to, you know, to use

their good officers and influence with the Taliban religious leadership and changes. I’m going to play you something that the former British Prime

Minister, Gordon Brown, told me about this particular emergency and see if you agree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORDON BROWN, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The way that I think we can deal with this is persuading the countries that are predominantly Muslim

countries, that believe that education is important, understand the importance of girls and women’s rights now. That they’ve got to tell the

Taliban and tell the religious leaders in Afghanistan that this is an affront to Islam. It’s not part of any interpretation of that religion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And as you know, you know, it’s not just education, but they’ve banned women from working for NGOs. I mean, literally, the humanitarian

lifeline. And the NGOs have suspended business. What do you make of your countries, you know, sending a convoy to Kandahar?

KHAR: OK. Look, I don’t think it’s on the — I have all the respect for Gordon Brown. But honestly speaking, I think the statements which have come

in from the OIC or any Muslim country have not been seen or read properly. Pakistan makes it a business not to ever interfere in the internal business

of any other country. But Pakistan made it its business to comment on girls not being allowed to go to school and showed our deep disappointment with

that.

Pakistan is a country which doesn’t have the luxury of moral outrage and recommending things like closing down banking channels and holding on to

the reserves because we think that actually enables the starvation of Afghan girls that we are planning — that we’re hoping to save in the first

place. But Pakistan is a country which also faces the eminent threat from a culture which promotes lack of education, or lack of women in the

workforce, anywhere else.

If you look at the Pakistani constitution, if it — if you look at the Pakistani quality — Pakistani politics, Pakistani business houses,

Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, who gave her life for, you know, for the stability of this region, to be honest, and for liberal values to

Islamic liberal values. Because we truly believe that Islam is a country which gave women the right of inheritance.

AMANPOUR: Right.

KHAR: With our Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, his wife was a trader. That is the religion we come from. So, we are absolutely not OK

with the entire Muslim countries, and they have made it very clear, but it seems like people don’t listen too much on that count, and don’t see enough

of that.

I do not know a single Muslim country, including the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, certainly my own country, the UAE, Qatar, everyone. In fact, we’ve

had special meetings with Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto has conducted with his peers in the Muslim world. On that front, make no mistake, there

is no Muslim country in the world which is currently supporting this, especially at the — especially using Islam —

AMANPOUR: Right.

KHAR: — as an excuse for this. I think it is abundantly clear. People are perhaps not reading or listening enough.

AMANPOUR: Yes, well it’s not getting through to the religious hardliners in Kandahar. Anyway, Rina — Hina Rabbani Khar, thank you so much indeed

for joining us.

And turning now to the largest financial fraud in history, the $20 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by the infamous and now deceased Bernie Madoff.

Oscar nominated director Joe Berlinger turned his camera to the crime that shook America, and he is now revealing new details of never before seen

footage for a new Netflix documentary that is called “Madoff: The Monster of Wall Street”. Here is some of the trailer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People lost everything.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What am I going to do? I was in my mid-70s already.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To lose your life-savings and house, too. It’s terrible.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One thing — every one of them was which everybody in the industry is, they’re greedy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trust. Betrayal. Pure evil. 100 years from now, people will remember this story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Director Joe Berlinger talked to Hari Sreenivasan about the film and why it’s about more than just one man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks.

Joe Berlinger, thanks so much for joining us. First question, I guess, is that, you know, there have been so many books written about Bernie Madoff

and what happened. There’ve been, you know, investigations done. Why choose this person and what he did as a topic for a four-part series?

JOE BERLINGER, DIRECTOR, “MADOFF: THE MONSTER OF WALL STREET”: Yes, great question. Well, you know, I think Bernie, over the years, and particularly

in the initial reporting, has and was been mythologized as this incredible evil genius who did something so complex and pulled the wool over Wall

Street’s eyes for decades.

And the truth is, what he did wasn’t so complex. It was so easy to spot. Lots of people spotted it along the way and simple greed caused people to

not ask the right questions. And we see, you know, there’s a big fraud every five to eight years on Wall Street. And the same ingredients come

into play, very simple.

You have regulators asleep at the wheel. You know, the failure of the SEC here was mind-boggling. And you have people who know better. Now, I’m not

talking about the Mom and Pop victims of Madoff. But I’m talking about the sophisticated middlemen who took other people’s money and gave it to

Bernie. They all should have known better. I mean, the red flags were abundant.

And we see this whether NRAN (ph), whether it’s the mortgage crisis, whether it’s Bernie Madoff or FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried. You see the

similar seeds of fraud, which is people so greedy, again, not the victims, but the middlemen, who just don’t want to inquire because they’re making

too much money. And you see regulators not doing their job. I mean, the regulators are great at coming in to clean up the mess, but we want them to

spot it before it becomes a mess, you know?

SREENIVASAN: Most people won’t know the history of Bernie Madoff. And the first episode in this really goes back into, perhaps, one of those pivotal

moments in his life, where he kind of had a choice to make after a financial crisis back then.

BERLINGER: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: And, you know, the — one of the documentarians or one of the journalists that look into his life, Diana Enriquez, you know she — I

think her quote was, the choice he made was he could live with himself as a liar much more easily than he could live with himself as a failure. Tell

people what did Bernie Madoff do back then that was an indicator perhaps for the rest of your life.

BERLINGER: Yes, you know, a poor kid from Queens who looked across the river, wanted to be in the action of Wall Street back in the early ’60s.

Decides to open up his own firm. His father-in-law is an accountant, Saul Alpern, and starts feeding him clients to manage money. And he invested in

some risky stocks in the early ’60s. There was a big market crash in 1962 and he was wiped out.

And it was $30, 000 which were a kid in his twenties in the early ’60s, that’s a lot of money. And so, instead of telling his clients, like, hey,

just like everybody else on the market, we’ve lost your money. He borrowed $30,000 from his father-in-law, gave that money to his clients. He told his

clients that he had gotten out just in time. Of course, he looked like a genius, and that started his reputation. And he made that fundamental

decision he wasn’t going to be a failure like his father.

The fascinating thing is he actually was a financial innovator. If he had just focused on, you know, his legitimate business, which was market

making, you know, he popularized electronic trading. He basically helped create the Nasdaq. So, he is an innovator. He was a smart guy. He had a

legitimate business. Why he felt the need to manage money secretly, at first on the side, and create this Ponzi scheme is a mystery that even the

show doesn’t answer, you know. I mean, I — nobody knows why he would do that.

SREENIVASAN: Yes, because as you’re watching this, you almost see this, sort of, Jekyll and Hyde quality. And wonder like, is this the same guy

that’s in the same place? He has a legitimate business on the 19th floor and in illegitimate Ponzi scheme running on the 17th floor. The staffs

don’t interact. People don’t know what’s going on on either side of it.

BERLINGER: Exactly.

SREENIVASAN: It was just that he’s, you know, on the one hand, he’s handing out big checks to philanthropies, and on the other hand he’s

robbing people.

BERLINGER: He’s taking widows and every dime. And that’s one of the great tragedies of this story is that people were so blinded by his personality

that they gave him everything. You know, one of the basic rules of investing is to diversify. Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.

So, the people had put in 10 or 20 percent of their money with Bernie and lost it all, you know, they would still be OK, like any investment that

goes bad. But people gave them their life savings. I mean, Elie Wiesel, you know, and Mom and Pops across America. It’s tragic.

But, you know, it’s interesting, the last couple of years, I have been doing a lot of shows about serial killers. Literal serial killers, you

know, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy. And I liken Bernie to a financial serial killer because he has the exact same qualities. You know,

lack of empathy. I mean, you can’t look a widow in the eye, take all their money, tell them you are going to take care of them, and wipe them out. So,

there’s a lack of empathy. There is a delusion that somehow it’s all going to work out because I don’t think Bernie ever thought there — this — it

would all blow up, you know.

In fact, one of the great ironies of the story, one of the scariest parts of the story is the fact that I don’t think he would have been caught had

there not been a once in a century black swan event called the financial crisis that where everyone was calling in their chips wherever they could

and that made the Ponzi scheme impossible to sustain. Because a Ponzi scheme depends on more coming — more money coming in than going out.

But he has all of these qualities of a serial killer. Lack of empathy. Blaming of the victims. I mean, you see in the deposition, he blamed his

victims for their greed, as opposed to saying, hey, I did something horrible.

BERNIE MADOFF, MASTERMIND OF THE LARGEST PONZI SCHEME IN HISTORY: I admitted to doing enough things that were totally embarrassing and wrong

that I regret, but this is my own doing. No one had a gun to my head. You had to understand, unless you knew me, and you know my relationship with

this people, might four big clients being the greedy people that they were, they never wanted to close out the transaction.

SREENIVASAN: You know, that’s something that I don’t think most people have seen is Bernie Madoff in deposition.

BERLINGER: Yes.

SREENIVASAN: How did you get that?

BERLINGER: Yes, that’s incredible footage and it was so eye-opening into his mind. And just listening to him matter-of-factly describing the Ponzi

scheme. There was a lot of victim lawsuits related to the claw back. You know, when everything went south, lots of people lost lots of money, but

there were some people who actually had taken more money out then had — they had put in. So, they were net winners over the years, which was the

phrase that was used.

And so — and because (INAUDIBLE) could not have paid all of these claims, they hired a trustee named Irving Picard to oversee this process.

Kind of getting, you know — figuring out who should get what money. You know, basically, what money could be recovered had to be moved around and

equalized things for the losers. And a lot of — that put a lot of people in a very poor position.

So, there was an attorney named Helen Chaitman who represented a lot of the victims in this claw back lawsuits, and she deposed Bernie. And I reached

out to her for an interview and she told me about this footage. And she was gracious enough to let us use it, which was incredible because we haven’t

really seen Bernie, you know, talking so — from prison so forthrightly about what he did.

SREENIVASAN: Yes, kind of explain the claw backs. For people who haven’t been following this, were people who invested with Bernie Madoff made

whole? Did they get, kind of, 10 cents on the dollar, half their money back? What happened?

BERLINGER: Well, the — on paper, there was $64 billion because they thought those investments had belonged (ph) to $64 billion. In reality, it

was a $19 billion had been invested. And so, Irving Picard was hired as the trustee to try to figure out where that $19 billion is. And he was able to

recover $14 billion of the $19 billion.

The problem is, a lot of the money went from individual investors, because they had taken out more than they had put in. And that money was — a lot

of it was transferred to institutions that had lost money. So, it was kind of like almost a reverse Ponzi scheme. Money from one group of investors

was transferred to another.

So, some people, you know, got their money back, but they had been relying on these funds for decades thinking — and paid taxes on it. And so, you

know, if you get back an initial investment, it doesn’t mean you haven’t been also wiped out because of all the money you had spent over the years.

SREENIVASAN: Let’s talk a bit about the role of the regulators here in this massive, massive failure. Because throughout this film, you point out

the number of times Bernie Madoff came so close to being done. That this was so close to being uncovered. And the watchdogs who were supposed to

know better than us, who were supposed to have — who do have better access than us, who can ask any question and supposedly get every answer, time and

time and time again how Bernie Madoff skates by. It’s just — it’s so frustrating to watch.

BERLINGER: This is the main reason I wanted to do the show and what I really wanted to emphasize is the utter failure of the regulators. There’s

so many — there were so many red flags and so many opportunities to bring this to a head much earlier, you know. The hero of the story is Harry

Markopolos, who was a portfolio manager for a competitive company called Rampart Investments in Boston. But he is a mathematician. And his job was

to create new products.

And he looked at the brochure for Bernie, and within four minutes knew something was wrong and told his colleagues, this could be a Ponzi scheme.

And because — as he said, they wanted to throw the, you know, the dirty player off the field. You can’t compete with somebody who’s cheating.

And so, he wrote a voluminous correspondence to the SEC laying out 29 or 30 red flags about why this should be looked into. For example, you know, his

— Bernie’s returns, you know, were a straight line up every year making money. That is impossible at finance. His strategy. He used a certain

options strategy that would have, if you believed that he was using that strategy, it would have required more option contracts to execute those

returns and that strategy. It would have required more options than are, in existence, in the universe of the one exchange in Chicago that trades those

options.

So, the red flags were abundant. And time and time again, Markopolos went to them, five times over eight years, and they were completely ignored.

SREENIVASAN: I think you do a good job in this of trying to humanize some of the victims. Because when the initial news came out about it, besides a

sort of, some high-profile celebrities — like — awe, you know, rich people losing money on a Ponzi scheme. But you actually find people who, I

don’t know, made the mistake of, and sometimes, trusting the watchdogs that should have been helping them and looking out for them as consumers.

And are suffering for the rest of their lives because of the bad decision to place faith in Bernie.

BERLINGER: Yes, that’s a great point. He really wiped out a lot of regular people. And I think the story was misreported or the impression was, as you

said, a bunch of rich people who wanted outsized returns. The people who wanted the outsized returns were the middlemen taking money from regular

people, like a Fairfield Greenwich, which was called a theater fund.

So, those people were greedy. Those people were getting outsized returns in terms of fees. But the regular Mom and Pops who had been investing over the

years, they actually went to Bernie because it was a relatively conservative fund with regular but conservative gains. And they believed

and trusted either Bernie directly, or the people that they were giving their money to. And they were completely wiped out. And so, I wanted to

really focus on some of these victim stories, just to kind of dispel that myth.

SREENIVASAN: The last episode is — it’s sometimes difficult to watch because there’s so many — almost kind of Shakespearean elements to it. I

mean, here’s a guy who was — couldn’t be higher than high on Wall Street and life. Reduced down. His children, his wife, and what they go through

after this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mark and Andrew, take them back to the penthouse in Midtown. Ruth is there. And this is the first time that Bernie comes clean.

MADOFF: I was in a mental state that I was — I could no longer continue it. So, it was almost like a relief to say, this is it. I just can’t

continue this charade any longer. And that’s what forced me to acknowledge to my family that I had been committing this fraud.

BERLINGER: Yes, I know. It’s a Shakespearean tragedy of epic proportions. You know, you have a guy on Wall Street who actually did some great things.

Again, the creation of the Nasdaq, which was a bunch of little opaque stock markets all around the country. Now, Nasdaq is, you know, that’s where

Google, Microsoft, Apple trade upon. And the general democratization of markets through electronic trading, that’s an incredible achievement.

And he would have been a wealthy man had he just done that. And — but he needed more. He needed to be the guy that everyone looks up to. And for

that feeling of importance, he sold out his soul and his family. You know, a lot of people wondered whether the brothers knew. There’s nothing I found

that would suggest that they knew. I do think they should have known better, they were principles of a company and they should have pushed

harder, but there was, you know, a wall that Bernie put up and did not allow the departments to talk to each other.

And some have speculated, while Ruth must have known. But I don’t think she did. So, imagine finding out everything you believed was true is false.

Having, you know, all of her funds taken away from her. Her son, Mark, committed suicide on the two-year anniversary of Bernie admitting to the

Ponzi scheme as, kind of, F.U. to, you know, his father. Andrew, the other brother, who had cancer prior to the Ponzi scheme being revealed, but it

was in remission, the stress of that cancer claimed his life a few years later.

And so, Ruth, you know, who — we tried to reach out multiple times. Tried to get her to be involved in the show, but she did not want to. We actually

didn’t even get a response back. But I would have loved her POV in the show. But, you know, she’s all alone. She has lost her two sons, her

husband. She’s, you know — and the whole house of cards came tumbling down. It’s tragic.

SREENIVASAN: The series is called “Madoff: The Monster of Wall Street”. It’s trending on Netflix all over the world. Director Joe Berlinger, thanks

so much for joining us.

BERLINGER: Thank you so much. Great to be here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: It is a monstrous tragedy indeed.

And finally, tonight, turning back time. For nearly five hours, the perennial warrior Andy Murray rallied against the new guard. Wimbledon

runner-up Matteo Berrettini in the first round of the Australian Open, eventually winning in five grueling sets after a 10-point tie breaker.

Four years ago, Murray wasn’t even sure he would ever compete again after suffering severe hip pain. Now, in a remarkable come back with a bloodied

knee and a new metal hip, he reflected on the last few years right after this match.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY MURRAY, 3-TIME GRAND SLAM CHAMPION: I was impressed with myself, which again, is not something that, you know, I’m hard on myself usually.

But, yes, tonight, I need to — yes, I need to get myself some credit because the last few years have been tough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: He does indeed. It was epic. An epic battle for Murray, a.k.a. “Braveheart”, and a master class as he triumphed over the passing time and

a much younger, much higher seeded opponent.

That is it for now. Goodbye from London. Thank you for watching.