May 5, 2023

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR AND Company. Here’s what’s coming up.

Global hunger hits crisis levels. One month into her new job, I asked the World Food Programme’s new executive director, Cindy McCain, how she’s

helping the unprecedent number of people facing starvation.

Also, ahead, a coronation fit for a king, but is the monarchy still a fit for modern-day Britain. Historian and author, Simon Schama, and with the

American perspective, “The New York Times'” Mark Landler, are here to discuss.

Plus, Michel Martin talks to Oklahoma Republican Toni Hasenbeck back about her proposed law to protect women who kill their abusers.

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

In Sudan, still no lasting cease-fire as the warring parties refused to put down their arms. And the United Nations’ chief now warns that it could all

explode into an all-out war that would affect the region for years to come.

After nearly four weeks, the violence is having a devastating effect on the country, with hundreds killed and thousands fleeing their homes in search

of safety. Those left behind or forced into refugee camps are in dire need of shelter, medicine, clean water and of course, food.

The U.N. World Food Programme is urgently working to get the Sudanese people fed, but it is dangerous work. Three staff members were killed in

the fighting, forcing a temporary suspension of operations.

At the helm of the WFP during this tense time is Cindy McCain, the former ambassador and widow of Senator John McCain. She’s just one month on the

job and the challenges go way beyond Sudan. The number of peaceful facing acute food insecurity worldwide has more than doubled to 345 million since

2019 due to the COVID pandemic, the Ukraine war, regional conflict and, of course, climate change.

And Cindy McCain is joining me now from Nairobi, Kenya, where the U.N. secretary general is sharing emergency meetings. Welcome to our program.

CINDY MCCAIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME: Thank you. I appreciate it.

AMANPOUR: So, here’s your chance to tell the world what you need, and particularly in Sudan right now, can you, as a human organization dedicated

to feeding people in these emergencies do it.

MCCAIN: Well, Christiane, as you know, we are facing an unprecedented year with regards to food and food insecurity around the globe. We — right as

this point, we do not have enough money. We need more money.

But with that said, in a place like Sudan, we — I want everyone to know, we never left Sudan, even though it became — I would say, we lost three

people, we’ve had some very dicey situations, we’re working in the east now and in those — the places that we are relatively safe.

But — so, I want people to know, WFP never left. And this is what we do. This is how we do it. And I think most of all, if I could say anything, I’m

so proud of the WFP people that are working on the ground in Sudan It’s a very tense place right now.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because you are obviously attending meetings, all of this must be, as I said, the secretary general is there, what are the —

what are you trying to hammer out now?

MCCAIN: Well, basically, because we have called for and haven’t acted a completes ability for all of our — of the U.N. agencies to get in and

work. What we’re trying to hammer out is funding. We’re trying to hammer out, you know, security issues, obviously, and where we go with this. And

most of all, trying to make sure that all of us are on the same page with regards to what’s going on and how we proceed.

AMANPOUR: I mean, it’s obviously disturbing to hear that a major U.N. agency — I mean, I know it happens a lot, is short of funds in these kinds

of emergencies. But also, we hear today, that the insecurity in Sudan has led not just to the killing of some of your staffers, but also to the

looting of your food.

If I’m not mistaken, something like, you know, $13 to $14 million worth of food are just being taken from the trucks. Who’s doing this? Is this

desperate hungry people or are these warlords juts trying to sell it off?

MCCAIN: I think it’s a combination of things. They have not only looted our food, but some of our trucks are gone. They’ve — you know, they’ve

completely gone into our housing and destroyed that. It’s an all-out wilding, as far as I’m concerned, in Sudan.

The important thing to remember is that we — with our other U.N. agencies, we’re working on how we can get into more places and work as best we can to

provide food to those who are most vulnerable and left behind because of this, and it’s usually women and children.

AMANPOUR: Indeed. And we see the pictures show that there are so many. I mean, tens of thousands, perhaps, eventually, hundreds of thousands. The

U.N. refugee agency warns that more than 800,000 people may flee to neighboring countries. Right now, it’s mostly to South Sudan, it’s also to

Chad, but we can also see boatloads of people being taken to Saudi Arabia.

How much does this all complicate? Because that could even grow worse, the refugee part of this, with the climate crisis.

MCCAIN: Right. The refugee issue is a very serious and we take our job, providing services for them, very seriously. It’s a — the whole thing is

just — it’s not only outrageous, but it’s very dicey. I met with some folks that got out, some of our WFP folks that were able to get out and

come, they’re in Nairobi now. And these horror stories that they were telling me it’s unconscionable to see and hear what’s going on there.

And at some point, we need to hopefully pray for a peace deal so that we can get back in there and feed in a comprehensive fashion the way we were

before.

AMANPOUR: Give me an idea, just one horror story. What do you mean exactly?

MCCAIN: Well, their homes were looted. One particular person has a child with them. The child saw what was going on and hasn’t spoken in a week.

It’s just — it’s those kinds of things, the trauma and the tragedy. And WFP is providing counseling for those people, as of course we should and

would always do.

AMANPOUR: Yes. These are your staffers, obviously. So, Ethiopia, you have suspended operations in the Tigray region after reports that aid was being

diverted and then sold, as we’ve just been discussing. This is — it’s obviously really difficult, whether in Sudan, in Ethiopia, to provide food

even in situations where you don’t know if it’s going to the right people, not to mention, the danger.

MCCAIN: Right. Yes. This is — WFP immediately launch a comprehensive investigation with regards to this — to the food diversion. And I think,

more importantly, remembering that we condemn anything like that.

And I’m — personally, I’m outraged and from a WFP standpoint, we simply won’t tolerate this. So, we’ll find out exactly happened. But in the

meantime, what this means is that people that would normally be distributed aid to are not going to get it. So, once again, more people, usually the

most vulnerable are being pushed aside.

AMANPOUR: I think there’s a train going past you oir helicopter or something. But we heard you.

MCCAIN: A helicopter.

AMANPOUR: Yes. You’ve just returned from Somalia, Cindy McCain, and we all know, because I’ve covered it and many others have, the Somalia can fall

into famine very, very quickly. It’s very, very fragile. And now, we’re hearing that some 6.5 million people are facing acute food problems there.

It’s the driest conditions in some 40 years, five consecutive failed rainy seasons. And the last time there was a famine, in 2011, some quarter of a

million people died of it. It’s one thing for us to know these stories, but what confronted you when you were there?

MCCAIN: Well, you know, it’s, in many ways, the worst of the worst because of the situation that you just described. To put it in perspective, 135

people a day could die of starvation in Somalia, unless we get assistance in there. We need another $500 million in the next six months just to keep

Somalia floating. It’s right on the brink of famine, and we’re trying to stave that off.

I don’t want people to forget Somalia because of the other countries that are having trouble, like Sudan, Ukraine, Ethiopia, others. Somalia is in

desperate straits. And climate change and everything else that we just talked about is certainly the reason that it is.

I saw firsthand in a place called Daallo, and it was — it usually has been — 80 percent of our work has been cash-based transfer assistance, which is

very important because people can take the money and buy off the local market which helps the economy. Well, that’s not happening now because of

everything that is going on.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because climate change is obviously being hugely politicized. And so people — just governments have not taken it seriously

to be able to mitigate these things for way too long.

You know, your late husband was somebody who worked across the aisle, he was somebody who cared about the world, he was always trying to intervene

in a positive way around the world, in humanitarian or other situations.

Do you see — because clearly all this fund raising, also, it’s essential that the American public and politicians like Congress work together to

help you, you know, raise funds, as well as other parts of the world.

MCCAIN: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Do you see more bipartisanship in the Biden era, less? What do you think you and your husband would think of the state of affairs right

now, particularly when it comes to, well, looking after people around the world and trying to make people care about them?

MCCAIN: Well, we make a compelling case to any of our donors, and we want to make sure that they understand the dire straits in all of this. And the

U.S. is no different from that. So, part of my job is to do just that and make sure that we make the case, we can make people understand why this is

important and why we should continue to do it and even give more.

I know there’s frustration. There is donor fatigue in the world right now, because last year was such an unprecedented year for fundraising for food

and security. But — so, this year, we know we’re not going to have the same amount. So, we’re learning not only how to work better with less,

we’re also making sure that we can use science and technology to help us out, do things in a better way and more efficient way.

So, that’s — those are the kind of things I wanted to make sure that Congress and other countries understand, is just what we’re doing to help

mitigate the use of our money in some ways and make sure that we do more with less.

AMANPOUR: Afghanistan, there’s a real crisis there for the U.N. and other aid agencies who are threatening to perhaps have to pull out if the Afghans

don’t walk back their prohibition of women working, not just in the workforce, but specifically, for NGOs and for the United Nations. Do you

see that? And plus, there’s a looming famine there. Are you on the brink of having to make a decision in Afghanistan?

MCCAIN: Right now, no. We have no intention of stopping our support, and we’re delivering aid where it’s possible in Afghanistan. But again, it’s a

tough country, and as long as we can stay on the ground in a safe manner and be able to deliver assistance, we will.

AMANPOUR: And before this role, I mean, you’ve been actually working in the food space for a long time because you served as U.S. ambassador to the

U.N. food and agriculture program. President Biden nominated you for that position back — a couple of years ago. And so, I guess, you know, my last

question, like your husband, who was very bipartisan, you actually crossed an aisle and you voted for President Biden. Do you support his reelection?

MCCAIN: You know, I worked for the U.N. now. And so, I don’t get involved in politics anymore. I know that sounds strange coming from me. I work for

the U.N. and the World Food Programme in trying to bring people together and, hopefully, initiate peace through use of food.

MARTIN: Cindy McCain, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Now, for at least a few days, Britain will be glued to the pomp and pageantry going on here, and an expected 350 million people will tune in

from around the world as the country prepares for King Charles III’s coronation. A spectacle that critics think is tone-deaf, given the poverty

and hunger that many are facing, as we’ve just discussed.

But those criticisms come up almost every time there’s a large royal event and still, they watch. And many people believe that King Charles could

usher in a new more modern, more diverse era. Just ahead, we’ll discuss this moment in time, as well as British world history with our experts.

But first, our royal correspondent, Max Foster, shows us what we can expect from Saturday’s coronation, the first for seven decades here in the U.K.

MAX FOSTER, ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): Not since 1953 that we had a glimpse of this sacred moment. The crowning of a monarch, Queen

Elizabeth, then just 27, thrust to the throne after her father’s untimely death.

Her coronation was designed to introduce the young queen to the world and give a morale boost to post-war Britain. 70 years on, and amidst the cost-

of- living crisis, King Charles’ coronation will have many of the same traditions incorporated, albeit slightly toned down.

Up to 2,800 guests in Westminster Abbey, CNN understands, versus the 8,000, who gathered for the late queens.

ELIZABETH NORTON, ROYAL HISTORIAN: The King has actually ruffled some feathers by not inviting many members of the ancient nobility, including

some of the dukes, in fact. But instead, actually the King has invited members of the community, so charitable workers, for example.

FOSTER (voiceover): A sign perhaps that Charles wants to make the monarchy more accessible, though much of the pomp and ceremony will of course

remain. He’ll say it on the coronation chair used by monarchs for more than 700 years. And he’ll be crowned with the St. Edward’s Crown, a gold velvet

and jewel encrusted piece weighing more than two kilograms.

The coronation is first and foremost a religious ceremony. It culminates in the king’s anointing with holy oil, which has been consecrated in

Jerusalem.

NORTON: It’s seen as symbolizing the king’s commitment to God, because, of course, he’s a very religious man himself. He’s not the head of the church.

It’s a sacred moment.

FOSTER (voiceover): His wife, Camilla, will also be anointed and crowned. Charles’s son, William and Harry will be there. Although, Harry ‘s wife,

Meghan, will remain at home in California with her two young children.

It remains to be seen what role with Harry will play in proceedings now that he’s stepped back from his senior will duties.

FOSTER (on camera): For many in Britain, the coronation is about more than just another public holiday. There will be street parties up and down the

U.K. and thousands will come here to Buckingham Palace to witness the famous balcony moment, to see for the first time the newly crowned king and

queen.

FOSTER (voiceover): Many more will line the streets for the coronation procession, just as they did for Queen Elizabeth seven decades ago. The

king and queen will travel in this gilded carriage accompanied by a huge military procession.

Nighttime rehearsals spotted in the streets of London as the capital gears up for a moment in history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, 70 years after Queen Elizabeth’s coronation was broadcast to the world, and just over seven months since her death, how does the nation

feel about a new king and the future of the monarchy itself?

Joining me now here in the studio are historian and author of the upcoming book, “Foreign Bodies,” Simon Schama and “The New York Times” London bureau

chief Mark Landler. Welcome to the program.

OK. Simon Schama, one of the historic things about Queen Elizabeth was that it was broadcast around the world.

SIMON SCHAMA, HISTORIAN: Right.

AMANPOUR: That wasn’t just a technical thing, although it was a giant achievement. What did it do to endear people or to attract people to the

monarchy? Was the broadcast important, in other words?

SCHAMA: Yes. I mean, I think it was all to do or a lot to do with what the world had gone through just a few years before. The experience of the war

was very, very raw. I remember as a kid watching it. I was also the small boy who walked with my dad through the still blitzed out ruins of much of

the city in the east end (ph).

So, there was a sense actually in the coronation, even though people — first of all, the youth of the queen meant looking forward, you know, maybe

tricky in this particular iteration of it, but I think that means something else. But there was also the sense of actually the nation had survived, the

community of memory and democracy had survived the worst that fascism and Nazism could throw at it.

So, even though you won’t find many people talking about the war, the implication was that we are still part of a recognizable million extended

family that have gotten through this ordeal. And we all thought of ourselves as new Elizabethans.

AMANPOUR: And, Mark Lander, this was also dramatic for the United States and for the — I mean, it was Don Hewitt, one of the great modern American,

you know, television pioneers who helped produce that for America. And I remember hearing his stories. How big a deal was out for the United States?

MARK LANDLER, NEW YORK TIMES LONDON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, it was the moment that the royal family became a pop cultural phenomenon in the United

States, one that has only grown over the ensuing years.

I mean, another great milestone in the family’s history, of course, was the making of the BBC documentary about life inside the palace. And, you know,

that took the personal stories and, in some sense, the soap operatic quality of the family and made it not just a British phenomenon, but very

much an American and a global phenomenon.

AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you because — and I want to ask you about the interest level, both of you, because I know you’ve written about it and

there’s, you know, many polls to suggest that, you know, there’s a certain amount of apathy about this. And yet, they watch “The Crown.” I mean,

people are engaged, aren’t they? In America they will be engaged.

LANDLER: I think the ratings for this will probably be higher than maybe we all assume when the day dawns. Now, the question is, will the day dawn

with sunshine or pouring rain? That will have an impact on the crowds in the street, which in turn will have an impact on the atmospherics of the

event.

But I think it’s true to say that for years pollsters have been asking people about the royal family and finding declining interest and growing

apathy, particularly among younger people. And some of the latest poll numbers are fairly daunting if you’re a royalist. But I think that none of

that suggests that the fundamental consensus that the royal family and the monarchy is worthwhile has gone away in this country and the interest in it

certainly hasn’t overseeds (ph).

AMANPOUR: And that’s the point, right? Because a good — you know, much more than half the country still believes in the monarchy. Do you sense any

— you know, it was so amazing during 1953, as you’ve just said, do you sense a different sense of anticipation this time?

SCHAMA: Yes. I think, you know, when the country is struggling with everything that we’ve gone through, really, with the pandemic and with

inflation and so on, and people feel matters are out of control, you can take two views. One view is that everything is political, really, and that

there’s something about the monarchy that is in offensively egalitarian. That’s sort of left-wing quasi-republican view.

You can take the oppositive view, which I think is strong, not just in Britain but in other monarchies, Japan’s empire, Netherlands, Scandinavian

countries and so on. But even in — or especially in our digital age people are crying out for space to relate to each other which is not political,

which is not partisan, where they can kind of enjoy a memory and history.

And also, you know, Charles has one enormous thing going for him, everybody says. He spent all of his adult life, virtually, prophesying trouble with

the environment that turns out one to be one of our existential crises.

So, you know, they assume monarchy then will turn now on providing the space where people can say, we are — this is one time and place we are

happy to be British, and also, where they can see him as being a truly public service monarch, having a kind of civic conscience. Nobody, I think,

is going to mind that, especially when they consider the alternatives, which are —

AMANPOUR: OK. I was going to get into the pomp and pageantry and the history, but you’ve led me into this because — and it’s very important.

So, Charles, obviously, the oldest prince of Wales, I believe. The oldest inheritor.

SCHAMA: Yes.

AMANPOUR: The one who’s waited the longest.

SCHAMA: Yes. Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: I mean, it’s a long time.

SCHAMA: 70 years.

AMANPOUR: That hasn’t happened before. It’s a ceremony that goes back at least 1,000 years. And you mentioned a lot of European monarchs, but a

British do it completely differently.

SCHAMA: Right.

AMANPOUR: Now, Prince Charles, as you say, has spent his lifetime, this entire apprenticeship, being on many of the right sides of many of the big

debates of our time, whether it’s diversity, religious, ethnic, or as you say, the climate.

So, let’s talk about that a little bit, because I think people may want to see their monarch actually do something rather than being a figurehead. So,

both of you, I want to ask you this. Apparently, Liz Truss, when she was, you know, prime minister, essentially marched into Buckingham Palace and

informed the king that he would not be going to COP in Egypt.

And yet, climate is above politics. Do you think that he will be able to weigh in in some way that’s not party political on such huge issues as

climate or is it over?

LANDLER: Well, this is the riddle that he faces. And in fact, you sort of suggested the right answer, which is the climate should, by all accounts,

rise above party politics and be something that a figure of authority can weigh in on like Charles.

I do think what happened in that case was, you had a new prime minister with very strong ideological views, we saw the results of many of those

views in other areas that played out badly for her, maybe pushing too hard in one direction. There’s a danger with the king, an A political king in a

constitutional monarchy.

Charles got into another slight bit of trouble more recently when he hosted the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at Windsor

Castle just after she and Rishi Sunak signed a trade deal on Northern Ireland. And some people thought that was an inappropriate use of the king,

it appeared to put the king’s imprimatur on what was a political agreement, and that’s not a role the king should play.

So, I think Charles, especially given his proclivities, his passions, how much he cares about these issues, will probably have to wrestle overtime

with what the right balance is. I think it would be a great shame if his voice was silenced forever. On the other hand, he can probably play in some

of these debates the way he did as heir to the throne.

SCHAMA: Well, he said, I’m not an idiot. I know it’s different now. But it’s up to — it’s ultimately up to the government. It’s a not up to him

actually to give him. I think whichever government wins the election next year, they would be extremely ill-advised not to give him a bit more public

space.

I mean, think about some of the greatest moments in the reign of Elizabeth II, it was her going to Ireland, you know. I mean, that was extraordinary.

AMANPOUR: And meeting Martin McGuinness.

SCHAMA: Going to — yes, exactly.

AMANPOUR: Former IRA.

SCHAMA: So, I mean, really, you know, just saying, oh, you know, figuring out protocol is not such a bad thing. It’s kind of tiny potatoes really

compared to (INAUDIBLE) Martin McGuinness and speaking in Gaelic at the banquet. The queen went to Amritsar, the site of the Amritsar massacre,

bowed her head.

So, if your — whether it’s a labor or conservative prime minister and you want a stable monarchy, a monarchy that’ll bring the country together

without it being bitterly polarized as so much of politics is, you’d be well-advised to give the king a little more space, a little more voice.

That being said, you know, you never quite know what’s going happen with him, but let him be Charles III, for God’s sake.

AMANPOUR: And I’m going to play a soundbite from his sister, the princess royal, Princess Anne, now 72 years old. She did an interview. And she was

asked about all sorts of things to do with the royal family and the coronation. This is what she said about Charles.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCESS ANNE: UNITED KINGDOM: You know what you’re getting, because he’s been practicing for a bit. And I don’t think he’ll change. You know, he is

committed to his own level of service and that’s — that will remain true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: That idea of service, we know what we’re getting, everybody knows what they’re getting. Does the idea of service still ring true? The

queen, duty first, that was her mantra, right? That’s what she did. She didn’t talk. She didn’t give interviews. Charles has talked. He has given

interviews. He’s given speeches that, you know, hover on daily issues. Service, though, is super important still for this country.

SCHAMA: Oh, incredibly. And I mean, you know, it goes back such a long way into Victorian traditions on charity and Prince Albert and so on. So, I

think that is deeply, deeply important. And it’s the kind of service which is seen to be not pocket lining self-interest.

Whatever the kind of world royal is and so on or tax-based providing for it, the essential deal for this modern monarchy is that you do something,

which is not to do with your own ego trip, or not to do with power. The power of the monarchy is its powerlessness and it’s replaced, really, by

the ethos of the service.

I mean, I know him just a little bit from the work he’s done with state teachers, with public school teachers. And for many, many years, he’s been

absolutely exemplary and committed and passionate and genuine, really. And if you want kind of an authentic king, then you’d let him do what he likes

doing. He likes doing it very much.

AMANPOUR: So, let’s talk a bit about that, because he also has this Prince’s Trust, which all those who were involved in it and who helped him

run it and manage it and et cetera say that’s it specifically helped. Young black men in this country who are historically underserved and just, you

know, their rights are not recognize, and that it has had a huge impact.

This also resonates in this moment of Black Lives Matter in the United States. And he’s also said that he is open, at least according to “The

Guardian,” to some sort of investigations that might probe the monarchy’s relationship to slavery.

LANDLER: Well, and that would be a very interesting to watch play out, because another one of the inevitable challenges he’s going to face is a

more restive commonwealth and the realm of former colonies that will maybe use this moment to move away. The Jamaicans are already on that track and

others may follow. And I think his willingness to confront that issue in a more forthright way may help in that regard.

I mean, one thing to say about his charities too is — and this notion of we know a lot about Charles, he is so passionately committed to these

things that it has occasionally let him somewhat astray with the charities. There’s obviously been these reports that he’s taken money from somewhat

unsavory characters in the service of things that are very honorable.

And you’re right about helping young black men. I think I remember a figure of something like 700,000 young people had been helped over the decades-

long history of The Prince’s Trust, which must make him one of the most prolific philanthropists, really, in the western world. And aside from his

other —

AMANPOUR: And he is one of the richest people in the western world, as we know and it was reported during the queen’s coronation — funeral, sorry,

when everybody was focused on all of this.

The empire. I mean, in the queen’s day, and you mentioned, you know, she’d gone to Amritsar, she bowed her head. The idea of empire is so clearly not

what it was, even the commonwealth back then, I mean, it’s almost like — well, it is more of a shame now than it was a sense of pride back then. And

he, the king, is dealing with a whole — is going to recognize a lot of diverse religions. There’d going to be different religions and ethnic

groups giving blessings in this coronation, it never happened before. And he’s talked about being a defendant of the faiths.

SCHAMA: Right, right. Well, I think, you know, there’s out of lost counts (ph) opportunity really. I mean, the queen was very good in trying to —

you know, succeeding largely, you know, to some extent, converting the loss of empire into the commonwealth.

What it has to be now — and one must remember that it’s quite true that — that’s why I think Charles is actually not deeply distressed by countries

like Jamaica being a republic. He still finds that they can be a kind of cultural bond. But what really — the commonwealth is actually increasing

in size. Countries that left the commonwealth have reapplied. And countries like Rwanda that have absolutely no historical bond actually are

(INAUDIBLE) commonwealth.

The opportunity is to turn it into — and it’s not to say that it will be realized, turn it into a sense that we’re all together on life — whether

we’re talking about infectious diseases or environmental catastrophe, all those kinds of profound existential things, it’s possible to make the

commonwealth be a place of discussion and constructive achievements if you really, you know, put your elbow into it, which I — if he’s well-advised,

the critical thing is he’s got to be well-advised.

Whoever it was said, oh, it would be a great thing to do to popularize the (INAUDIBLE) homage by asking people to — should already have been fired,

you know. Everybody — anyone who thought that a quiche was a great idea for a coronation, they should —

AMANPOUR: It’s called coronation quiche, right?

SCHAMA: I would have personally, personally fired them myself.

AMANPOUR: OK. Let’s just state to our viewers that there’s a dish —

SCHAMA: First of all, spinach and tarragon do not go together, and there is an issue with broad beans. A huge issue.

AMANPOUR: So, it was coronation chicken for the queen.

SCHAMA: I am available to fire people on the kings’ behalf.

AMANPOUR: I would need people to understand that on each coronation, that there hasn’t been one for 70 years, a dish is made, a signature dish. And

this year, it’s quiche. I agree with you, it doesn’t sound — but it’s vegetarian. Anyway, we’ll get SCHAMA: –

LANDLER: But also, on the other point that Simon raised that it’s worth explaining a bit —

AMANPOUR: On the homage thing?

LANDLER: The homage thing was —

AMANPOUR: It’s allegiance, by the way.

LANDLER: — is originally —

AMANPOUR: Which you guys do every day at school, pledging allegiance.

SCHAMA: Yes.

LANDLER: Yes, we do. On American public schools.

AMANPOUR: Right.

SCHAMA: Only since 1952.

LANDLER: But historically, only done by members of the hereditary aristocracy. And the idea, ill-founded as it was, was to democratize this

by having millions of people swear allegiance, which, you know, struck an absolutely awful tenure politically.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, is Charles this wise, well-trod, well-tested, you know, well-intentioned person or is Charles the snappy Charles who didn’t like

the idea that a pen was leaking on him during the — you know, he became king after his mother’s death? Remember that?

SCHAMA: Both. And, you know, as the last line of the best film I’ve made, “Some Like It Hot” goes, nobody is perfect.

AMANPOUR: OK. Talking about nobody’s perfect, some of the guests, obviously, will also be the crowned heads of Europe and elsewhere, but

there will also be others. The — I think most people believe the wonderful first lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska, will be here, but also so well,

apparently, the premiere of — or the vice president of China, who has a pretty dire record in terms of what’s happening in Hong Kong and elsewhere,

crushing democracy, et cetera.

What should we make of that? I mean, he’s meant to be having talks with the foreign secretary here. It’s an important time, China should be having

talks.

LANDLER: Well, sure. I mean, there is a school of thought here that, you know, Xi Jinping could have sent many people. He had a large list to choose

from and he happened to send the official who was seen as the mastermind of the crackdown on Hong Kong, a former British colony. So, there are people

in Britain who view that as a sort of appointed and somewhat a hostile gesture.

You know, there’s a similar argument about whether Joe Biden’s decision to skip the coronation should be interpreted as a snub.

AMANPOUR: But apparently King — presidents have —

SCHAMA: Have never to —

LANDLER: Never mind that no president has been and Dwight Eisenhower —

AMANPOUR: But you think he should be here? He sent the first lady.

LANDLER: I think that Dwight Eisenhower didn’t come. I think that Joe Biden was in Belfast a few weeks ago and is coming to England probably on a

state visit in the next few months. So —

AMANPOUR: Which apparently, the king has invited him.

LANDLER: Yes, he has. And I — so, I think that correctly the British government is not getting too exercised about this. This is, I think, more

an artifact of the Tory press that are reading into this. Now, we do have an enthusiastic Irish American as our president, which was on display a few

weeks ago in Ireland, and that probably feeds into a narrative that I don’t think really has much foundation.

AMANPOUR: Yes. I just — I want to — talking about Irish. So, Sinn Fein obviously is the biggest party, it won the northern elections in Northern

Ireland, and Michelle O’Neill, who’s the leader, is coming. In a tweet she said, I am an Irish Republican. I also recognize there are many people on

her island for whom the coronation is a hugely important occasion. That’s a pretty big departure from the past.

SCHAMA: Yes, it is. I mean, it’s very — you know, it’s a moving gesture, really, and, you know, it has to be celebrated. As I’ve said, I think,

actually any opportunity, really, for there to be some sort of connection, which takes the poison out of this, you know, mutually exterminating

rhetoric, which social media has made even more toxic is — you know, has got to be a good thing.

I mean, I saw the president of Israel last night or the — you know, who’s going to be there, and they’ve got someone who has absolutely no power, but

enormous moral authority and has had to use it —

AMANPOUR: And has done successfully.

SCHAMA: Has done, you know —

AMANPOUR: Defending Israeli democracy.

SCHAMA: — made a huge difference. And so, I think, actually, there are two mistakes. One is that the — when the monarchy has talked about —

monarchy has generally talked about, particularly this one. One, is that it’s all totally redundant and unnecessary and ridiculous eccentricity. I

mean, maybe some of those things.

But the other thing is, in our modern techno driven, manic, feverish world, we don’t need a little bit of ceremony and mystery and magic. I think

that’s a mistake about human psychology.

AMANPOUR: Yes, you’re right. Human psychology needs this stuff. I’m sure you two will have a prominent purge. I’ll be covering it tomorrow. Thank

you very much indeed.

SCHAMA: I’m going to be in a field in Ealing with the mayor of Ealing in the rain, watching it. How British is that?

AMANPOUR: How British is that, Simon Schama? I hope —

LANDLER: I wish that I can match that color. I’m probably going to be sitting in front of a bank of television screens.

AMANPOUR: Mark Landler, thank you so much, indeed.

Now, to the U.S. State of Oklahoma, where new legislation is being worked out to protect women who kill their abusers in self-defense. There are

currently hundreds of women in jail on murder charges because of their history of trauma and abuse, which wasn’t taken into account when they were

sentenced.

Republican State Representative, Toni Hasenbeck, tells Michel Martin how she hopes to change that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Representative Toni Hasenbeck, thank you so much for talking with us.

REP. TONI HASENBECK (R-OK): Thank you for having me.

MARTIN: In February, you introduce Oklahoma’s Domestic Abuse Survivorship Act, and that would help domestic violence survivors who have fought back

against the person abusing them. Why does Oklahoma need this, in your opinion?

HASENBECK: Well, Oklahoma is the second highest place for a woman to be killed by a man in the United States of America. And as — you have

probably covered some our gun laws, you’ve probably covered some of the things that we do in the legislature, there isn’t a dad alive who things it

would be OK for his daughter not to fight back in her own home against anyone.

MARTIN: As I understand it, from the State Department of Health, 40 percent of women and 38 percent of men said that they have experienced

intimate partner physical violence. First of all, let me just ask, why do you think that is?

HASENBECK: Well, I think it’s one of those realities of years of — a lack of knowledge and a lack of recognition of mental health problems.

MARTIN: I feel like, sadly, you know, mental health challenges exist all over the world, but every place doesn’t seem to have the same problem that

you’re experiencing in Oklahoma. When something stands out like that, it’s such an outlier, you have to ask yourself, what’s going on?

HASENBECK: Well, I think domestic violence is one of those realities that crosses every socioeconomic boundary that we have. And so, right now, we’re

second in the nation. I’m sure whoever is 14th of who is first or who is 50th, they feel like there’s too much domestic violence going on in their

state. And so, sometimes when you’re in the middle of America, we are slower to look at these issues and take them up then on different coasts.

MARTIN: How did you get started on this project to begin with?

HASENBECK: I started being interested in this topic when I found out that strangulation of your domestic partner was not a violent crime. So, that

just really blew my mind. And so, then, I started requesting that the legal staffs and me, different statute to look at and kind of understand more

about what’s going on.

And so, for five years, I’ve kind of been snipping around the edges, trying to understand what current statute says and what types of things are going

on. And so, it’s just one of those things that I’ve been thinking about for a long time.

MARTIN: So, what would your bill do? What specifically what it do? And what hole in the law that you see would it fill?

HASENBECK: Basically, in Oklahoma, and it’s like this in other states as well, domestic violence or the surviving domestic violence is not really

looked at before sentencing occurs. And so, a person who has to fight back against their domestic partner inside their home gets all the way through

the sentencing stage and at that point, they receive an exorbitant sentence. And then, typically women get a more exorbitant sentence than do

men. And we’re going to allow for that to be declared at the beginning.

MARTIN: When I first learned of your bill, I was so taken aback because, I think, it is known, it’s understood, you know, that some states have very

strong so-called stand-your-ground laws. OK.

HASENBECK: Right.

MARTIN: And, you know, those are controversial. You know, everybody doesn’t think that that’s the best —

HASENBECK: They are controversial.

MARTIN: — public policy, but that is policy in Oklahoma. So, why isn’t that stand-your-ground is a defense in other cases, but it doesn’t seem to

be a defense for people who are defending themselves in an intimate partner situation, especially when it comes to women, why is that?

HASENBECK: You are correct. My first term in Oklahoma legislature was five years ago, and we were on the house floor and it was late at night, and a

Democrat brought up the bill that made it so, in the State of Oklahoma, that if you strangled your domestic partner that would be considered a

violent crime. Up to then, strangling your domestic partner was not a violent crime.

And typically, when you don’t go back and codify some of these crimes, then law enforcement looks at them as just this is husband and wife stuff and

we’re not going to get involved in that. And so, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

When you strangle your wife within an inch of her life or your husband or any other domestic partner, and you don’t get in trouble for it, you’re

going to do it again to get your way. And so, we change strangulation. We’ve got a lot more work to do. This bill is just really designed to stop

some of these exorbitant sentences because a domestic violent survivor had a very good reason.

Typically, the women that are incarcerated for committing these crimes inside their home, this is the only crime they’ve ever been convicted of.

They have been law-abiding citizens who had to fight for themselves or their children inside their home. And women look different in a fight.

MARTIN: You know, actually, you commissioned a study on this last fall.

HASENBECK: We did.

MARTIN: And — in which you heard from survivors who would be protected by this legislation. And part of your study said that, you know, something

upwards of 65 percent of incarcerated women in Oklahoma were in abusive relationships at the time of their arrest, and you also said that, you

know, Oklahoma incarcerates women at rates, you know, far above the rest of the country.

So, again, I’m just sort of puzzled by this. Like when you surface this issue and you started talking about it, like what did some of your

colleagues say? Do they say, oh, wow, that’s too bad, or like how did they respond?

HASENBECK: No. No. My colleagues responded with, hey, I would like to be a co-sponsor on this bill and we need to get this managed. That is how my

colleagues have responded to it. And we get into look at the system a little bit. I mean, to be honest, before I published this language I had

district attorneys in my office, because they don’t want to have look backs. They don’t want to look back on these cases.

And I think the prevailing thought of the citizenry that I have spoken to about this issue, if you are surviving inside your home every day and you

finally got to a position where you could equalize yourself against your abuser and you did, that deserves a look back.

And so, we’ve got some work to do, changing the hearts and minds of our 47 district attorneys across the state that don’t really feel like we need to

look back on these issues.

MARTIN: You are saying that your colleagues on — in the political realm, and just like your constituents, they see the logic is there —

HASENBECK: Yes.

MARTIN: — but you are saying district attorneys have been opposing it. Is it because they don’t want the law to be retroactive? Is that the issue?

They don’t want to have to go back and revisit these cases?

HASENBECK: Right. The retroactivity portion of this bill is going to require some of these cases to be looked at with a fresh set of eyes. And

we’re going to have to say, well, domestic violence is a compelling reason to fight for your life.

MARTIN: And so, why do they think it’s not appropriate? Is it because — to take a look back if an injustice was done, is it because they just think

the workload would be too great or what arguments have they given you?

HASENBECK: Oh, Michel. I’ve had a lot of arguments. One is the workload. One is, you know, women lie. I’ve had that told to me. I’ve been approached

with, you know, women stay, women go back. I have had some people that say, yes, we don’t want to make the law so that one of these manipulative

abusers can use it for themselves.

This is a men versus women issue. It really is in a lot of cases. And my argument is that I think men have been manipulating the law in this country

for a long, long time. And so, if we can equalize it for anyone who is suffering from this situation, I think it’s something we need to do.

MARTIN: Tell me about one of the cases that you’ve described in the study that you commission that really stood out to you, a woman named April

Wilkins. And it’s — I’m just going to say on its face, it’s disturbing for people who are listening to our conversations. So, I just need to assert

that.

HASENBECK: It is disturbing. April is a beautiful, smart, well-educated woman who found herself in a position where she was being controlled and

raped and beaten. And she finally got to the point, she had enough, and she fought back. And she saved her own life.

And when I read — I listened to some podcasts and I read her story, and I just — I realized, wow, this can happen to anybody. Because she was

beautiful and by all measures, seemed intelligent and affluent. She just celebrated her 53rd birthday.

MARTIN: And this is — again, I’m going to let people know, this is going to be uncomfortable to hear. It’s my understanding that she was dragged to

the basement, handcuffed and physically assaulted. And that she was able to get her abuser’s firearm away from him and killed him. But even though she

was handcuffed at the time, she was still given a life sentence for this, which she continues to serve.

I understand that there’s another case, there was a woman who was pregnant, who was stabbed in her pregnant stomach by a man who had abused her

previously. She did everything she’d been advised to do. She moved away. She changed her phone number. She made sure she blocked him on social

media. But at some point, he tracked her down. He assaulted her while pregnant. She was able to get the knife away from him and defend herself,

and she also was given a life sentence.

Again, I’m just wondering why it is that — is the way that stand-your- ground is interpreted in Oklahoma is only interpreted when the individual is a stranger? Because as I understand it, there’s not even a duty to

retreat in Oklahoma. Am I right about that?

HASENBECK: That’s correct.

MARTIN: So, here’s where I have to just really ask you very bluntly, is this because the sort of — the forces that created these laws just don’t

believe women?

HASENBECK: I think that was the case for a long time in the State of Oklahoma. And I think about 20 years ago, we had a female legislature who

put in place some domestic violence laws. We do have some. We need to make them work for the people that are the most vulnerable in this situation.

And I think that’s one of the things that you ask me why is Oklahoma number two in these numbers, it’s because our statute is really not caught up to

what is going on.

And so, sometimes, that takes time. It took New York State five years to get this legislation passed. I grew up on a farm in Oklahoma, and our

citizenry, we still believe in capital punishment. The majority of our people believe if you harm a woman or you harm a child in any way, it

doesn’t matter who you are or what you look like, you probably need to be punished by death for that.

One of the reasons why I got super involved in this bill is there is a man in Texas whose five-year-old child had gotten raped by a man that lived

down the road. This father went down the road, jerk this man out of his house and beat him to death in the front yard. And in Oklahoma, there are a

lot of people that feel like that is 100 percent justified. And there is a case in Oklahoma of a woman who shot her rapist, and she is sitting in

jail.

And so, we — I — we try to pretend like this is for everybody. For me, I am trying to fight for 97-pound woman who is in her home at 3:00 in the

morning, trying to fight against a 220-pound man who she’s no chance of equalizing with. And I’m trying to make it better for that situation, and I

think if we do that, we’ll make it better for a lot of other people in a lot of other situations.

It is frustrating that we have all these other laws but we’re still not protected in our own homes, if you are a woman and you’re fighting with

your domestic partner.

MARTIN: Is the issue here the belief that women should not defend themselves, but somehow that women don’t have the right to defend

themselves?

HASENBECK: I have not talked to a single person who has said to me, Toni, women just don’t have the right to defend themselves. And I’ve had so many

people be so for this idea. But then, the ones who aren’t for it, their argument, it just — it goes right back to — they won’t ever say that the

woman doesn’t have the right, but these women, these husband-and-wife situations, those are just really sticky, and we just never know what’s

going on in those situations.

MARTIN: You know, there are those who argue that the real issue here is guns. It’s guns. Is it really? There are just so many guns in this country,

they’re so easy to get, they’re so easy to — for people to use when they are angry. And that while this bill is laudable in addressing a long-

standing problem of inequity, that it doesn’t do anything to keep people alive. What would you say to that?

HASENBECK: Well, unfortunately, guns aren’t the only way that domestic partners kill each other. And guns aren’t the only way that domestic

partners use coercion and manipulation. If guns were removed from every single one of these situations, I think a diligent person who is trying to

harm their domestic partner would find another way. They would use a knife or they would use more advanced tools for strangulation or — you know,

I’ve seen a lot of court files come across my desk, it’s not always guns.

So — and I am a really conservative Republican woman who grew up on a farm. And so, I’m — it’s not the guns, it’s the people. And we have still

got to find a way to protect women and men who find themselves in a situation where they have to kill their domestic partner to save their own

life.

MARTIN: So, where are things now? Where does this bill stand? What are the prospects for this actually coming into law?

HASENBECK: Well, we’re going to look at rejecting the Senate amendments, which will cause it to go to a conference committee. And then, conferees

will be assigned and then, we will have an opportunity to sit down and hammer out the details of this bill.

MARTIN: Do you feel confident that it’s going forward?

HASENBECK: Well, I do. I’ve had — I think I’ve had three bills signed by the governor already this session. And I will tell you, this session has

been the most contentious one I have seen in five years. And a lot of really good policy has not made it through because of the politics inside

our capital right now.

MARTIN: So, you are not sure?

HASENBECK: I’m not sure, but I feel good about it.

MARTIN: Representative Toni Hasenbeck, thank you for much for talking to us today.

HASENBECK: Hey, thank you. It was so nice to meet you. Thank you for having me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: That’s it for now. Don’t forget to tune in for CNN’s live coverage of Coronation Day tomorrow.

And remember, you can always catch this show online, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and of course, on our broadcast. Thank you for watching and

goodbye from London.