Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the program. Here’s what’s coming up.
Was Serena Williams a victim of sexism at the U.S. Open? Was Naomi Osaka’s first grand slam victory spoiled? How it is still playing out in the
United States and Japan? Tennis legend Billie Jean King joins me for her first television interview since the controversial match.
Then, Former Secretary of State John Kerry has seen one diplomatic accomplishment after another bulldozed by Donald Trump. I ask him how it
feels to see his legacy dismantled before his eyes.
Also, ahead, our Walter Isaacson talks to Ginni Rometty, as CEO of IBM, she’s one of just a handful of women running a Fortune 500 company.
Welcome to the program. I’m Christiane Amanpour in New York, where much of the city, indeed, much of the world is still talking about Serena Williams
and that controversial, chaotic women’s championship match at the U.S. Open this weekend. In fact, just a few miles from where I sit.
Williams’ emotional confrontation with umpire Carlos Ramos overshadowed her own comeback since becoming a mother and overshadowed the first grand slam
victory by the rising young star Naomi Osaka. This is what happened after Williams was warned by the umpire about being coached from the box.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERENA WILLIAMS, AMERICAN TENNIS PLAYER: You need to make an announcement that I didn’t get coaching. I don’t cheat. I didn’t get coaching. How
can you say that? You need to — you owe me an apology. You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand
for what’s right for her. You owe me an apology.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Williams was first verbally warned then docked a point by Ramos and then a whole game, and then she was fined $17,000 for her code
violations. Now, Williams accuses Ramos of sexism, saying that s’s fighting for women’s rights. Yet now, the debate rages on, is she a victim
of sexual double standards or does she have only herself to blame for losing her cool in this high-stakes match?
Through three decades, the tennis legend Billie Jean King has revolutionized women’s tennis. She has brought respect and pay equity to
the game. So, no one is more qualified to speak about this, about sexism and the sportsmanship itself. She wrote an op-ed in the Washington post
saying that Serena is treated differently than male athletes. And, Billie Jean King joins me live now here in the studio. Welcome.
BILLIE JEAN KING, AMERICAN TENNIS PLAYER: Thank you. It’s great to be here. Whoa, what turmoil.
AMANPOUR: Whoa, what $ turmoil and you weighed in right from the beginning. You were there at the match. Frankly, I was there at the
match.
KING: Yes, we were both there at the match. And I couldn’t tell what was going on. So, I went home and watched it again on tennis channel and then
I really got to hear the dialogue between the umpire and Serena. And I feltlike at the very beginning he blew it.
You have to understand who you’re talking to. First of all, as an umpire, you’re supposed to keep the flow of the match going, and he did just the
opposite. He needed to tell Serena, he can’t apologize, he did the right thing. He can’t apologize. He’s got to be the boss. But all he had to
say to Serena is, “I am not attacking your character.”
AMANPOUR: OK. So, just speak to that.
KING: Character is the essence of what was going on there. She was so upset about that. Those kids have been brought up, Venus and Serana,
together to play by the rules, to play, not get upset. Now, Serena does have a history at the U.S. Open of losing it on Ashe Stadium.
AMANPOUR: She does and we’ve seen it before.
KING: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But here’s the thing, in your op-ed, you said the final will be remembered for, “An archaic tennis rule that eventually led to an abuse of
power.” So, what was the archaic nature of this rule? What was the — what was your beef with what happened there?
KING: My beef is, I believe in coaching anyway. Just have it out there. You can coach from the box. I think Chris Everett feels the same way, some
do not. But I know she and I feel the same way because they do it the time. OK. All the box is yelling and signaling and all of that. So, just
make it honest, have integrity and let it go. Because I don’t like children watching it and thinking someone is cheating. I don’t like it.
So, that’s the first thing I would have done, and I believe in coaching. We do it in team tennis.
AMANPOUR: And actually, in every other sport, they do it from the sidelines, right?
KING: And another thing that is so bad in tennis is that the umpire does not communicate to the fans what is going on. In the NFL they stop, they
turn on the mic, the referee says, FY, you know, so and so made a penalty. They made a mistake. We’re going to have a penalty.
So, these are the things we need to do in tennis. We need to get to 21st century.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you about that because, again, we were there. I heard this almighty roar from the crowd, and clearly it was having a
dramatic effect on this young girl, Naomi Osaka, barely 20 years old. Serena is her idol. There, she is facing off in her first grand slam
final. She wins. She keeps her cool. Her poise is unbelievable. But this is what she said afterwards about the booing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAOMI OSAKA, JAPANESE TENNIS PLAYER: I felt a little bit sad because I wasn’t really sure if they were booing at me or if it wasn’t the outcome
that they wanted. And then, I also could sympathize because I’ve been a fan of Serena my whole life and I knew that how badly the crowd wanted her
to win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, you know, I knew how badly the crowd wanted Serena to win.
KING: Naomi Osaka is very, very mature at 20 years old, and she has a champion’s mentality. Just listen to what she says, “When I walk on the
court, I’m a player.” That is like — this like which goes on, she gets it. And she’s going to be a superstar and she already is. But now, it’s
just the beginning whereas Serena is on the other side.
But Osaka held her cool. It was very important for her to win. I don’t think we should underestimate how gracious she was and how she kept her
focus. I thought it was extraordinary from Osaka. I can’t wait to| see more of her.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, do you think, because you’ve been there many, many times, both — and some outbursts, let’s face it, on court.
KING: No, I was — I had a bad temper.
AMANPOUR: You did.
KING: Definitely. I’ve had to work on it.
AMANPOUR: You did. I grew up watching you. So, you’ve been there and you know this particular issue. I’m going to get to more of that in a second.
But do you think that Osaka’s crowning moment to-date was ruined and spoiled by this outburst?
KING: I think it depends on how Osaka interprets it. I hope not. There should be no aspect. She won fair and square. She was definitely playing
better than Serena right from the get-go. So, this is hers and hers 100 percent no matter what was happening with the chaos and the human element
that was there and the emotions that were — the roller coaster of emotions is amazing.
And Serena, you know, it’s — listen, she’s trying to tie a record, just had a baby a year ago, trying to get her fitness back, pressure on her.
She wants to win. She’s 36. Time is running out. She’s got all these different things happening to her. And then you have Osaka coming up,
excited, 100 percent heathy. I mean, it’s just different.
AMANPOUR: Let’s get to the heart of the matter then. Was it sexist? Let’s get to that. Because I heard Serena, and everybody did, saying,
“This isn’t fair. If it was a guy you wouldn’t be doing this.” So many guys crash their rackets, swear at the umpires and —
KING: The guys when they crash their targets, you know, warning her a point. They do it. That’s just what they are.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, it wasn’t sexist?
KING: I didn’t like the way the umpire didn’t tell — she should have gotten a caution. She said — look, first of all, players have no control
of their coaches. That’s why I don’t like the rules. He should have said, “soft warning. Listen, your guys are coaching over there. I’m going to
give you a warning if that happens. And then what happens, I’m going to give you a point and then the game if it keeps going.”
So, usually it’s better for an umpire just quickly tells you the rules quickly because you’re emotional, you’re not thinking straight. So, that
helps you just centers you, get you back. He did not do that. He did not control the match. That’s your job.
So, I think what’s important that Serena was out of line. There’s no question. No one is saying she was a good sport, OK. If they are, they’re
crazy. She was totally out of line. She knows it. She’s not — show knows it. The point is, he aggravated the situation instead of, “I’m not
attacking your character,” was the most important thing he could have said. She was always trying to refocus. I don’t know if everbody noticed, that
first time she got warned, she sat down, she was trying to — thank you, she said, I’m going to — she was trying to refocus.
I don’t think she realized she got a warning on the first one because when she broke her racket she knew she was going to get a warning. “Oh, no, now
it’s a point.” And she said — because i heard her say, “It’s a warning, right?” “No, you’re to the point now, you’re the second — that’s the
second infraction.”
AMANPOUR: So, Ramos himself, obviously, has been an object of much interest since all of this. Ramos has a reputation as a stickler for the
rules, as a hard-liner, black and white. But people know —
KING: But we are humans.
AMANPOUR: But people he’s done this to men before, he’s done it to women.
KING: Absolutely. No, we know he’s black and white. He even called Venus on coaching in Fridge Open in 1916 and Venus had a very similar discussion
with him. She was sitting on the — on her chair but she was saying, “I don’t do that. I don’t — we don’t coach. I don’t cheat. I don’t care.
I don’t cheat.”
And I mean, that’s the biggest — OK. The character was the biggest issue here. This is a human being you’re talking to.
AMANPOUR: She was being accused of cheating and she didn’t like it and she didn’t think that was fair.
KING: See, that is the worst thing you can do to the family.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, we have so many, Andy Murray was penalized Ramos, Nick Kyrgios was penalized by him.
KING: Yes. But what about Kyrgios, the week before with that umpire, he came down and gave him a pep talk and he end up winning the match.
AMANPOUR: OK.
KING: That umpire should be out for life. They’ve got to get to a point where the umpires communicate with us, communicate better, that we know the
rules. I guarantee you that the — how many people do you any in that audience the other day and watching knew the rules?
AMANPOUR: Well, I don’t think very many people did. That’s why you said it should be told. But let me play you your friend and former teammate
Mary Carillo —
KING: Oh, she’s great.
AMANPOUR: — who announces for tennis and was —
KING: Tennis Channel. Yes.
AMANPOUR: — was commentating on this match. She kind of disagrees with what you had to say.
KING: She does.
AMANPOUR: And this is what she said about the match.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARY CARILLO, SPORTSCASTER: Carlos Ramos is not a sexist, he is not a racist, he is not a misogynist. I’ve called about 2 billion tennis matches
in my career, he’s been in the chair for a lot of them. He’s been in the chair for Serena’s before. He is a very strict taskmaster of a guy. I’ve
seen him call out Rafael Nadal for illegal coaching and for time violations. I’ve seen him call out Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray. This guy,
you don’t mess with this guy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, a little bit about what we were saying. He has the reputation.
KING: I don’t disagree with her. No. But Mary and I have been texting back and forth on this. But I do think there is some sexism in tennis.
Even the men’s brought it up.
AMANPOUR: Have you —
KING: McEnroe did, Murray, Djokovic said they do think the men get away with more. They just do. Because men are outspoken when they stand up for
themselves and women are looked at as hysterical. We are not. We are also speaking up.
I could never speak like that when I was playing. The way that — if I did — oh, my gosh. I very rarely could talk like that. You look at all the
interviews nowadays, we were much softer spoken, much more like Osaka is now. That’s what it reminded me of in the ’70s. We had to be so careful.
It’s different now. Women are standing up. They’re not — they don’t care anymore. They’re — if they’re going to be outspoken and have their
opinion, it’s good. People have a hard time, accepting it.
AMANPOUR: There was somewhat dueling op-eds after this, it was you, the champion of women’s tennis, Martina Navratilova, who is such a decades long
champion, so many grand slams to her name. She also somewhat disagreed. She said Serena got part it have right and part of it wrong, as we sort of
talked about.
KING: I agree with that.
AMANPOUR: But she said, “I don’t believe that it’s a good idea to apply a standard of, if men can get away with it, women should be able to too.
Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this, what is the right way to behave, to honor our sport and respect our opponent?” So —
KING: Yes. But that’s sitting when you’re calm. I mean, she knows better. She also had a temper on the court. When you’re out there, you
know how emotional you get and you really have to keep resetting as you go through a match, you have to refocus all the time.
But once you go past a certain emotional mark, you’re gone. You are gone. You can’t see straight. And then it’s just — I mean, I walked off the
court one time and it was the worst thing I should have done but I couldn’t help it. I had had it. I had had it. And that’s where you need great
umpiring.
I loved umpires that were strict, told me the rules. If they know the rules. If they don’t know the rules, I used to get upset. But I like the
way, “Billie, this is the way it is.” I go, “Okay.” But so, I felt he should have said, “|I’m not attacking your character,” I think everything
would have been different.
AMANPOUR: So, let’s say that was the case. But now, clearly this is a moment, something has to change in the rules or something.
KING: Oh, the game has to change.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you think should be the result of this conflict?
KING: The good thing is the game has to change, which a lot of us have been complaining for years. Communicate with the crowd, communicate with
the crowd. We never know what’s going on.
AMANPOUR: And allow coaching?
KING: And allow coaching. I’ve always thought we should allow coaching. Also, we would get more attention to our sport like other sports, team
sports in particular, to get about coaching, they get more (INAUDIBLE), they get more social media. It will help enhance our sport and have more
people. But one thing that’s lacking is we don’t have women coaches enough.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, do you think this will be the moment? Do you see it actually changing?
KING: Yes. I think out of crisis, this is a little in our sport of crisis, I think. I think out of crisis creates opportunity and get things
right. This is an opportunity for us to get it right.
AMANPOUR: All right. Billie Jean King.
KING: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you so much today for joining us.
KING: Great to be here.
AMANPOUR: Great to see you.
KING: Thanks.
AMANPOUR: Really an important moment. It brought a lot of attention to the women’s tennis, right?
KING: Well, I guess it did that and to our sport as well.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
KING: But, I hope that we’ll get it right next year.
AMANPOUR: Thank you, Billie Jean.
KING: Thanks a lot.
AMANPOUR: Thanks for being with us.
Now, I’m sure we all have our opinions on Saturday’s match. As I’ve said, it really is water cooler talk. But Billie Jean King speaks with the
experience and authority of one who has lived her life in the arena. And so does my next guest, Kohn Kerry, though in a very different arena.
Kerry played a central role in the most critical events in American history, from serving in Vietnam to negotiating the Iran nuclear deal.
Kerry’s war service earned him three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star as a swift boat commander in Vietnam. Then he became the face
of the anti-war movement for his emotional testimony on behalf of Vietnam veterans against the war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Let’s look at what he said all those years ago.
JOHN KERRY, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of
Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we
cannot say that we’ve made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, the first president to lose a war.
And we are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the
last man to die for a mistake?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Very powerful stuff that came back, in a way, to haunt him later on, and we’ll get into that. As senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry
became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. And after losing the 2004 presidential election by whisker to George W. Bush, he went on to
serve as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. But after almost 50 years of service, much of Kerry’s diplomatic legacy is busy being unraveled in
real-time as the Trump administration undoes so much of what the Obama administration did.
John Kerry’s new memoir is called “Every Day is Extra” and he’s joining me here in New York.
Welcome to the program.
KERRY: Very happy to be with you. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So much to dig down into. You know, I almost want to go back to that testimony there in front of the Senate floor. You were a young man.
You had just come back from the war. You were, I think, dressed in your military outfit there, right?
KERRY: I was wearing fatigues.
AMANPOUR: Yes. OK. And you took on a whole different side of the war. And that got you a lot of bad will, if you like, from fellow veterans,
particularly in the 2004 election. I mean, your book is about a lot of things but you reserve fury for what they did. They swift voted you.
KERRY: Well, I don’t know whether — I mean, fury is your word. I think – – I just state the facts. I lay out what happened very clearly in the book because it was really the first major encounter in the political process
with alternative facts.
And it’s really interesting, and I write the details of sort of what happened, because ABC News — I was accused of killing a guy who was 16
years old and basically — I mean, people were alleging it was a war crime or something. We were in a war. This guy had fired a B-40 rocket at our
boat and almost taken us out, blew out all the windows and then he stood up with another one ready to fire it as we beached in the middle of it, and he
turned and ran.
And so, ABC News sent a crew over there to talk to the people and actually met his wife. And his wife said, “No, no, no. He was 26 years old. He
was a professional, part of the team that was there to kill the swift boats.” But still, the same story kept coming at us.
So, we learned, I learned a very important lesson that even though you think you’ve won the battle in the mainstream media and you had newspapers
cover it, if there are television ads up, if people are still lying, you’ve got to counter those wherever they are. And I think others have applied
that in politics today.
AMANPOUR: I mean, one of the veterans said, “The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating.
It hurt me more than any physical wounds I had.” That is a quote from a person on a different swift boat.
How did that feel to you during the election and do you regret not taking time off to defend your record and to push back —
KERRY: Well, we did defend it. First of all, we defended the record. Let’s be very clear about this. The guys who were with me on my boat who
actually were in the specific action for which they were also awarded medals, those guys all countered what was being said. And the people who
were saying it were not there, most of them, not actually on the boat, in the action, in a couple of instances they were nearby but they weren’t part
of it.
And you know, we countered it. We were — every major newspaper in America covered the real facts. The problem is when a group of people get together
and they come together in a television advertisement and they’re saying bad things about you, you need to counter that. Barack Obama did that very
effectively when the Reverend Wright issue came up, and he stopped the campaign and he gave a speech and talked about it.
And I write in the book very honestly, I mean, I’m self-critical here, in the end it’s my decisions, it’s my campaign. I was responsible for saying,
“Stop, everybody, here is what I’m going to do.” And I should have done that. And if it ever were to happen or I ever see anything like that
again, I take it on.
AMANPOUR: It was a precursor, some of this, to a lot of the “accusations” of fake news that are flying around right now, all turned to facts.
KERRY: Well, it was the first major example of it, where lying becomes the central component of a political campaign. And I might add, you know,
tough things were stated when I came back, but they were true. I mean, what happened in Vietnam at one period of time in certain places, not by
everybody, not at all by everybody. I mean, you know, William Kelly didn’t represent everybody. It was a terrible incident.
AMANPOUR: Remind us what he did.
KERRY: And what we talked about was some of the — well, Kelly was a — I think he was a captain at the time who led a team, a platoon, into My Lai.
AMANPOUR: The My Lai massacre.
KERRY: A community in Vietnam and children and women were massacred, and was very ugly. There were instances like that, it was not the norm, but
million civilians died in this war. This was not an easy time. And a lot of vets that I knew who came back to America carried very, very difficult
burdens with them.
We have probably lost, I think it is certain but I’m going to say probably, that we have lost more veterans after they came home to overdose, to
suicide, to self-medication, to so forth, than there we — than there are names on the wall.
And the V.A. Hospital documents — tell the story and, in fact, the military, after Vietnam, did its own self-analysis. There are studies that
were done at the Pentagon to figure out what happened, what happened to discipline, what happened to unit cohesion. Many different things were
decided, including the fact veterans went over all alone. We went over at a different time from a lot of the people you were with. You didn’t go
over, in most cases, as an entire unit.
And so, cohesion and continuity and relationships were very important, missing ingredients.
AMANPOUR: You know, I just picked up on something you said about the reporting of it. And as a journalist, particularly in these times, I’m
struck but you quoting the great journalist, David Halberstam, in your book who had phenomenal reporting from Vietnam.
KERRY: Right.
AMANPOUR: And he says to the press corps there, “Would have loved to report good news, but it is impossible for us to believe those things
without denying the evidence of our own senses. And, of course, the press there didn’t just report the truth but they exposed what we now know are
the lies of the Nixon and Johnson administrations.” And the incredible —
KERRY: And Ken Burns’ film —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
KERRY: Ken Burns’ film has been an extraordinary documentation, very balanced, I think. He has everybody’s voice in it. But you see — I mean,
I didn’t realize this until I read Neal Sheehan’s book, “Bright Shining Lie,” which is a brilliant book on the war. And he documented the early
deceptions and the early lies and the reporting from the field that was incorrect or grossly exaggerated. And I had no — I mean, I knew of the
war more from 1966, ’67, ’68, in that period, but it goes back to ’62, ’63, ’64. This misleading was taking place, building process that —
AMANPOUR: And it’s so important for us to remember the context, as you speak, given what’s happening today and given that we’re really caught in
this sort of cauldron of alternative facts and all the rest of it.
KERRY: Sure.
AMANPOUR: So, you call your book “Every Day is Extra,” why?
KERRY: Because it’s a philosophy that many of the people who came back — many of my friends and the guys on my votes have often used the term,
remembering those who didn’t come back, that because we were lucky, because any of us could have been killed on any given day but weren’t. We’re very
lucky. I was lightly wounded, and I was lucky.
I actually was mocked by the Republican party because my wounds were light and I didn’t control what happened. But it was an amazing period of time.
But the fact is that we were lucky, all of us, everybody who came home.
And I write about how, for all of us, it was a motivation to lead a life of purpose, to remember the legacy of those who didn’t come home, to serve and
honor them by virtue of trying to make our country better and stronger, which is what they fought for. They were all patriots, all patriots.
And as John McCain and I talked many times when we became friends and worked together to try to resolve the issue of Vietnam, we talked about how
we — you know, we came from different places but we both understand the ways in which the war had torn the country apart. And we both went for
pretty much similar reasons of service to country, sense of duty, we were the children of the greatest generation, of parents who left us with a very
strong sense of responsibility and service.
AMANPOUR: You wrote very movingly about John McCain when he died earlier, a few weeks ago, and you spoke about how you both stood in his — in the
cell where he was kept as —
KERRY: In his prison cell, yes.
AMANPOUR: — POW in Hanoi.
KERRY: Remarkable moment.
AMANPOUR: Yes. It must have been. Just tell me a little bit about that. But also, it’s almost quaint to think that there was, at that time, a
relationship between two major senators of opposing political parties to actually work together and start the restoration of American ties with
Vietnam.
KERRY: Well, Christiane, as you know, in fact, there were lots of relationships like that by people in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch.
I mean, I could run, you know, a lot —
AMANPOUR: But it’s a generation.
KERRY: It’s a generation, and it changed. And it began to change in the 1990s, partly with the sort of Gingrich Revolution and we saw people come
over from the House who are more willing to be, you know, less forgiving, adamant. There was an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy was pushed on everybody.
And the Senate lost something in that, the Congress lost something.
And I regret it, because our country desperately needs to come back to a place where the Senate does what it was designed to do. It is the place
where you should slow things down, it’s the place where you should work collegiately, it’s the place where day-to-day politics are not supposed to
prevent the doing of the business, and it has.
It’s so polarized now. Nothing is happening there, to be honest with you. And it’s not that the Senate rules have changed, the people have changed.
And what they’re bringing to the Senate and the baggage they bring to the Senate.
John and I literally decided on a flight to Kuwait where we were going over to review the immediate post-war period after the liberation of Kuwait from
Saddam Hussein.
AMANPOUR: This was in ’91?
KERRY: Yes, ’91. And we started into the night. We were facing each in seats. And rather than have an awkward silence and stares, we struck up a
conversation, and I asked him a lot about Annapolis, which is an extraordinary place and —
AMANPOUR: The naval academy?
KERRY: — his service — the naval academy and his service there and the weight of his father and grandfather and how that affected his attitude and
stuff. And we had a really good conversation. But most importantly, we decided, then and there together, that we were going to work together, to
overcome this division that still existed in Vietnam, to try to make peace among ourselves and also, to make peace with Vietnam.
AMANPOUR: And, of course, it’s a paradigm as well. If you can make peace and come together over something so divisive you can presumably gather your
thoughts to do that —
KERRY: Well, that’s how you work on the other issues. That’s how you learn to do it.
AMANPOUR: Precisely. So, obviously, Vietnam shaped you profoundly, obviously. But so also did your childhood. And potentially, led to you
becoming a diplomat. You open your book with the tragic suicide of your grandfather. Why did you pick that moment and how did that shape you?
KERRY: Well, I really opened the book with my father dying in the hospital and that was the intro to the suicide of my grandfather, and it affected me
well because my father lost his father to an act of self-imposed violence when my father was six years old. And have to wonder about the impact on
my father and what that did to shape him and the choices he made in life. And it was really an intro to my parents, into the life they led and to the
family.
And so, my father had an impact on me. My mother probably had a much greater impact. I think that comes out in the book. I mean, she was the
original white-haired New England, you know, super engaged mom who was running around in her tennis sneakers, pushing for recycling, pushing for
the health committee of the community to be engaged, pushing for the environment, dealing with the auto bond and loved her birds and, you know,
she was great.
I think that she had the greater impact on activism, on engagement. You have to go out and make a difference. And when I decided to run for
president, I write about this, I told her, she was in the hospital and we chatted and it was after my father passed away and I said to her, “This is
what I’m going to do,” and she said, “Well, John, remember one thing, integrity. Remember integrity.” And it always guided me that you need to
be willing to stand up and take the flak, you got to stand up for what you believe in, you’ve to fight and be who you are.
AMANPOUR: So, that leads me, obviously, into news of the day and news of the big issues that you dealt with — in the Obama administration and that
are now being systematically unraveled by the Trump administration.
So, I first want to ask you —
KERRY: Well, they’re attempting to systematically —
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, good. Well, let’s talk about it then.
KERRY: I think there’s a distinction.
AMANPOUR: Well, then, let’s talk about it. They are potentially unraveling. You say attempting —
KERRY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — but the Iran nuclear deal, which you labeled so hard over a period years —
KERRY: Well, it may or may not be, Christiane. I mean, certainly the administration is doing everything in their power to kill it, yes. But
what I am proud of is that that was not just the United States that made an agreement. It was ratified in the United Nations by a unanimous 15 to
nothing vote in the Security Council and still today China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, and Iran are trying to keep the deal together.
AMANPOUR: Let’s talk about the real world then because that’s all well and good to say that. Those are facts. It is an international deal, but if
the United States pulls out and pulls its support and, worse, re-imposes sanctions that our secondary sanctions on all of these people you’re
talking about who support the deal, where is the deal?
KERRY: Well, they are still – they haven’t broken – they are still living by the deal. Now, is the deal as …
AMANPOUR: The companies are pulling out, Secretary.
KERRY: No, I understand that.
AMANPOUR: The European companies are pulling out. That was the deal.
KERRY: And here is the theory – and here is the reason the administration is trying to do this. They are pursuing a policy of regime change. In the
United States of America historically, it does not do regime change very well. You can look at place after place where we’ve been in many case;
moreover, if President Trump, I mean, they put out a series of demands to Iran and let me make this clear, President Obama and I and the
administration, we are very clear, we object to their involvement in Yemen, and we did things about it.
We object to what they’re doing with Hezbollah, we object to the attacks on Israel. We object to their engagement in Iraq. We don’t like what
they’re doing to unsettle the region. All of those are legitimate issues, but we decided that it was critical, that if you’re going to try to
pressure them, and you want them to change what they’re doing, it’s better that you’re not dealing with a country that has a nuclear weapon.
So we wanted to take the nuclear weapon and put it over here and then build on the support we have from China, Russia and these other countries to put
it to Iran to change what they’re doing in these other places and try to work with them to come up with a new modality for the security of the
region. They indicated they were prepared to discuss those issues and to do that.
What Donald Trump has done, by just pulling out …
AMANPOUR: But with the firm backing of the Prime Minister of Israel …
KERRY: Oh, of course.
AMANPOUR: And the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia …
KERRY: Well, we understand that because he opposed the deal in the first place, but their security, the top – some of the top security people in
Israel believe the deal was working and that you shouldn’t pull out of it because it is better to try to deal with these other issues with the
support of these other countries.
If we now had a major crisis in the region that we recall to quickly respond to which might be coming out of the fact that Donald Trump has
pulled out of this deal, do you think China and Russia and France and Germany and Britain are going to rush to the United Nations and vote with
the United States to say, “Oh, yes, we now have to go in there and do something.” Not on your life.
For the things that Donald Trump wants to now renegotiate. Do you believe it is possible for the leaders of Iran to come to the table and negotiate
with a guy who has made their politics at home?
AMANPOUR: Have you spoken to them? Have you spoken to any of these …
KERRY: Before – I did. I talked to them before the deal, before they …
AMANPOUR: Would they negotiate again as President Trump has offered?
KERRY: Well, have I talked to them?
AMANPOUR: Yes.
KERRY: They’re not going to renegotiate the agreement, no, and they’re not going to renegotiate as President Trump has not offered. As President
Trump is trying to rupture the benefits that they were supposed to get from the agreement they reached which they have kept and he has now made it
politically impossible for the leader of Iran, just “Oh, great.” Under the pressure of the great state of United States, which is what they call
us, they’re now going to capitulate and just walk up and say, “Oh, okay. I’ll do whatever you want.”
That leader doesn’t have a prayer of affecting that or being able to survive if he did that.
AMANPOUR: And we’ll put that …
KERRY: So this is not a thoughtful way to be able to proceed.
AMANPOUR: And also, there’s obviously a lot of internal hard line posturing in Iran right now. But I want to just quickly move to North
Korea, obviously. I presume that you approve of President Obama – rather President Trump meeting with Kim Jong-un to at least see if there is a
possibility …
KERRY: I’ve supported engagement. I believe in engagement. I believe in reaching out and talking, but I also believe, Christiane in having a
strategy. I believe in doing the homework you need to do before you sit down for the meeting and I don’t believe the homework was done, and now
you’re seeing a sort of potential makeup meeting to try to make up for the fact that they didn’t have anything worked out on a comminique. They
didn’t details about how they were going to denuclearize or what it even meant.
What is denuclearization? Kim Jong-un we all knew has a very different sense of denuclearizing which involves the United States, Japan and South
Korea doing things they may not do. And you’ll notice, South Korea has constantly been hedging, trying to work its own diplomacy with the north
because they can’t rely on this President, so the Christmas negotiations …
[13:35:16]
KERRY: … those are what really brought about the meeting. And now …
AMANPOUR: That’s between South and North.
KERRY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you this because you’ve framed it, I was there at some of the summits that President Trump had with the South Korean
President, with the North Korea leader, but you yourself, the Obama administration, basically didn’t do much about North Korea to the point
that you’ve mentioned North Korea once on one page in your very, very long book.
KERRY: Well, it’s not that we didn’t …
AMANPOUR: Well, you didn’t and this is what the South Korean national security expert advisor told me about this. Let’s just listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG-IN MOON, SOUTH KOREAN NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT ADVISOR: I personally believe that if the United States had spent even one-fifth of time and
effort under North Korean issue, with regard to the – compared with the Iranian case, I think North Korean denuclearization could have been
resolved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KERRY: Let me just say very bluntly …
AMANPOUR: You must buy that a little bit.
KERRY: No, I don’t buy it.
AMANPOUR: Really?
KERRY: No, because we reached out. We had all kinds of back channel initiatives. We had the same Ambassador Kim involved with us in sort of
doing some of the outreach. I went to China multiple times in order to get China to put greater pressure on North Korea. We got China to ratchet up
its sanctions at least twice in order to put greater pressure, but I publicly said at the time, I was critical of what was happening because I
said that we had greater sanctions in place against Iran, which did not have nuclear weapons, than we did against North Korea which did, and it
didn’t make sense.
But the problem was getting China and Russia to move. When we left, President Obama was very clear to President Trump saying your biggest
problem is going to be North Korea. We’ve been working on this. Here is what we’ve done. You need to go to the next step to be able to raise the
sanctions and President Trump to his credit came in and his team did raise the sanctions on two different occasions. Then they began to bite and
that’s when you began to see a change.
I personally went to the APEC meeting. I addressed the North Korean minister directly in the context of that meeting and I said to him, we are
prepared to make peace. We’re prepared to have economic assistance. We are prepared to discuss the security arrangements for the region. We’re
prepared to have a nonaggression agreement with you. All the things that are now on the table, we said to them we are prepared to do.
AMANPOUR: Okay.
KERRY: But they refused to agree, and they were having their own, frankly, their own struggle with China at the time, Christiane. China had had zero
visits from Kim Jong-un because there was a great separation between China and the north at that period of time.
AMANPOUR: A very quick question because this is about adversaries. What about allies? President Macron recently said, “We can no longer rely on
the United States for our security.” These are allies in Europe.
KERRY: Well, that’s a whole different can of worms and that is one that is completely created by President Trump’s approach to Europe, to NATO, and
the messages he has sent, his meetings, his words for Putin, his Helsinki performance which never defended the United States or Europe against what
Putin was doing. Then when you add it all up, they have serious, serious concerns.
And they are very worried about what he might or might not choose to do. Can I just say something about today, today is 9/11 memorial. I was
thinking about what I went through when we were in Washington witnessing that unfold and we watched the black plume of smoke rise up from the
Pentagon, and I had a daughter here in New York and was worried about what had happened because she was near there, and I lost friends. Those planes,
two of them came from Boston. We had friends on those planes.
And today is the day we remember it and what do we wake up to today from the President of the United States? Not anything about 9/11 or what the
day means to us, but an attack on Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department in tweets this morning. I just find, I think Americans are hopefully
increasingly waking up that the disorder, the lack of connection to a reality of the norms of the presidency and the needs of the presidency is
costing us, and it’s costing us in Europe. It’s costing us with leaders around the world.
AMANPOUR: Every day is extra, John Kerry, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
KERRY: Thank you. Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: So even as critics question President Trump’s global leadership, the American economy seems to be going gangbusters and as CEO of IBM, Ginni
Rometty is setting a new standard for the kind of innovation and leadership that drives that success. She is inspiring her company to take major leaps
in the fields of supercomputing and artificial intelligence. And in the era of #MeToo, America desperately needs more women at the top in the room
at the table.
[13:40:13]
AMANPOUR: Fun fact – there are more CEOs named David here than there are women CEOs combined. Our Walter Isaacson sat down with Ginni Rometty to
talk science, Trump’s immigration policy, and the world’s first computer programmer. Yes, she was a woman. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON: When you took over in 2012, it was mainly thought of as a big iron company, making big old
computers; and since you’ve taken over, that’s down about 10% of what IBM does. Tell me what you moved the company into and why.
GINNI ROMETTY, CEO, IBM: I always say, people, you don’t always see us, but you do rely on us because we operate almost 100% of the banks in the
world, the airlines, 70% of all the business data comes right through us. We have had to reinvent ourselves era to era and arguably, this has been
the most extensive, but this era, it’s been about how do you refashion a company all around data.
ISAACSON: Are you worried about government regulation of data ownership?
ROMETTY: I think one of the most important words that jumps into my mind is responsibility, it’s funny, not regulation first. So why do I not – do
I not worry? Do I worry? The tech industry is quite capable of self- regulating itself if it puts its mind to it.
ISAACSON: Do you feel your competitors in Silicon Valley are doing as good of a job?
ROMETTY: I think every company has got to step up to this or there will be regulation we don’t want, right, and so – and that’s why I say the word
responsibility comes to my mind.
ISAACSON: Do you think that some of the tech companies in Silicon Valley – – Facebook and Twitter and all — are causing a backlash on trust?
ROMETTY: Hey look, we’re the builders of this stuff. We believe the purpose of it is to help man do a better job, augment mankind. I don’t
mean that as men or women. It’s to augment what man does. First is purpose because if you believe that, you will build certain things or you
won’t build other things.
Ownership of data, so whether people have trust, is wait a second, do I have to give you my data? Do you want my data? And, even more important
than a data is, when you train an artificial intelligence, it’s about training engines. Okay, wait, that engine got trained. Who did that
engine belong to now? Did you take it to my retail competitor?
We say, we can guarantee you the way we built it, your personal data is used to train this, it will not go to the next guy, right? We also said,
for trust, AI can’t be a black box. It has to be explainable and we learned that in our early days when we would work with doctors and it would
say, “Well, here is our recommendation.” Any professional. If I give you a recommendation, what’s your first question to me?
ISAACSON: How did you figure that out?
ROMETTY: How did you figure that out? What data went into it? Why? And so, we had to build it that it can answer those kinds of questions and
therefore it’s just helping me. So this explainability is a really big deal. So that when you said about trust, I think, you’ve got to believe
and live those kinds of principles for people to trust.
ISAACSON; You just mentioned the difficulty sometimes of doing big data especially when it comes to medicine, cancer, doctors doing
recommendations. I mean, “The Wall Street Journal” pushed back a bit on Watson, the division you have based on the computer that won “Jeopardy”
saying it wasn’t doing quite as well in – what’s the difficulty there and how will you overcome that?
ROMETTY: I don’t agree with that article one bit for lots of reasons. I think we could have an impact on healthcare. We will not solve cancer and
that’s what that article is about. We’re not going to solve cancer. We can do our little pieces here to really advance this. First off, medical
data doubles every 70 days. How can anyone deal with that?
If you’ve ever dealt with anyone very sick, my mom had cancer,, your first questions are – well, are you sure that’s it? Are you sure that’s the only
treatment? Are you sure it’s the right treatment? There’s nothing else? Are you sure of this?
Everyone goes through these things, right? Then you look how much is spent in almost every country in the world, particularly in the US and then
what’s the – look at the percentage of our own GDP spent on healthcare and what the real effectiveness is of it. So there is a problem. I don’t
think anybody would disagree with the problem part. But you could help with the diagnosis and the treatment.
And so working with Memorial Sloan Kettering, the Cancer Center here in New York City, we’ve now trained the AI with their doctors and specialists on
13 different cancers which make up 70% of the cancer types out there, and it is to help a doctor with diagnosis and possible treatment, degree of
confidence, what other tests should I use, et cetera? That’s one area.
But drug discovery with Pfizer, different immune – I mean, you’ll see this AI play out with what are the different kinds of combinations of drugs that
can be formulated and molecules, oncology is another. Mayo Clinic is now using it for clinical trial matching, so what took 30 minutes is eight
minutes, so maybe now you can do all breast cancer through clinical trial matching and we’re shortly and soon going to be able to come out with
predicting in advance hypoglycemia.
So these are all pieces that really do in the end make a very big difference, but healthcare does not change overnight.
[13:45:16]
ISAACSON: You talk about public/private partnership, but what is the role of government, both the Federal government and state government?
ROMETTY: I think two things. The role of government – so we have invested a lot of time in getting some of the right policy frame works out there for
education and public/private partnerships. So I think the role of government is around where there is funding, set the right kind of policies
that are going to incent skills to be built in the right areas.
But then I say when it comes back to the education itself, this is where I think the problem is so large, Walter, it won’t be solved with just the
government doing this by itself. Even in our industry, in IT, there’s half a million jobs open in the US and we’re only producing 10% of that as
coming out of universities.
So either you’ve got to get people prepared without a university degree or accelerate that, which is why it’s going to take both.
ISAACSON: But are you worried about sort of a public disinvestment in education and in career education by government?
ROMETTY: It’s important and imperative for the country that government continue to foster these kinds of programs, whether they be higher Ed, and
then as well, elementary, secondary, et cetera. So, I’m not as worried as long as we all keep focused and put pressure on this. I know business
roundtable is one of our big agenda items is on this, so worry is not my word. Constant focus and diligence on it is what I think is required.
ISAACSON: One of the other things at the business roundtable has been talking about, too, is a lack of Federal investment in research and
development, that really flourished in the late 1940s and brought us the internet, the microchip, semiconductors and computers.
ROMETTY: Yes, look, it’s a critical part that there be and remain – if you think of what has led this country in this technology and innovation and
part of that has come because the government has been sort of the pioneer and the different model in the US is, while the government invests in
research, it does it with private sector. And so then the private sector can more readily commercialize it.
Other countries, India – they envy this system that we have like this. And so we’ve got to be careful not to pull that back in the wrong areas because
this is still a race around skills in these technologies. And this to me is something the US does not want to fall behind on by any stretch.
ISAACSON: And do you think China may be going faster?
ROMETTY: Listen, it isn’t just China. Whether it’s China, whether it is the European Union, whether it is France and Germany, everyone sees this
opportunity now that says, “Hey look, you’ve got to have technology innovation to lead,” and skills is a currency in every country.
ISAACSON: And one of the things that sort of helps innovation, too, is immigration.
ROMETTY: Yes.
ISAACSON: And that helps with the skills as well. You were one of the CEOs who met with President Donald Trump and some of the others met with
you to say, “We’ve got to change some of these immigration policies. How successful were you at that and are you still pushing that?
ROMETTY: You know, I always say ideas have no passport and so skills, you have got to get people to move around and you’ve got to be able to bring
the best skills to what the problems are, whether it’s dreamers, whether it is immigration, and if you go back in time to what has made this country
successful, it is having the skills here, it’s the investment. And so, have we made some progress? I think we’ve made some progress. I think
we’ve got to make more progress.
Things like the dreamers, we’ve got 30 in IBM and …
ISAACSON; You’ve got 30 dreamers working …
ROMETTY: Thirty dreamers and have been a strong proponent about why we have to allow for these kinds of things and have taken all of our kids out
– I say kids, our young IBM-ers out to Washington to meet people. So there’s a name and a face and these are really productive citizens of this
country about what they are doing for companies. And so, I think immigration is a really strong piece.
ISAACSON: Do you feel you had any impact on the White House on that?
ROMETTY: Well, clearly more is left to be done so our job is not done here, right. I feel we’ve had good impact on education and we are going to
keep working on things like immigration here because they are really important.
ISAACSON: And what about trade? Aren’t you worried that we’re putting up too many trade barriers? I mean, that would really hurt IBM.
ROMETTY: Look, I’m a strong believer in free trade and a strong believer that when you have – yes, you should have fair trade. I don’t think
anybody would disagree that there has to be fair trade. I strongly believe those should be negotiated. Strong negotiations at a table with allies,
with parties to get that to happen. We have got global supply chains and are capable of doing that. I think there are other smaller companies that
don’t have that flexibility.
ISAACSON: So you would have to (inaudible) with the US.
ROMETTY: Yes, it’s not a huge issue for us. Again ,back to remember, we are 10% physical hard goods and 90% software and services. Many done in
their countries of where they are today. But in a broader picture for our economy, you want to have free trade across and you want to have that be
fair trade, as I said. If you look at what our trade agreements look like before, Walter, they were not ready for this 21st Century.
[13:50:06]
ROMETTY: They were not digital. So they needed modernization. There is no doubt trade agreements needed modernization for this day and age to be
able to thrive in an IT data innovation driven world.
ISAACSON: Yes, you’re one of only 24 women CEOs in the Fortune 500, and even more amazingly that number has en going down. Why do you think so and
what should we do about it?
ROMETTY: What do the numbers tell you? It doesn’t matter. The point – should it be higher? Of course, it should be higher. And so, what we
spend all of our time doing is not only getting women into the work force, Walter. The issue is keeping them in the work force, and that to me is one
of the biggest things we’ve worked and I give you one – I think a great program.
It had to do with once women leave for various reasons, it could be a man, too, by the way, but to take care of children, elder parents et cetera, et
cetera. What we found was, it’s difficult to get them back in. They are like, no, no, no, I am sure time has passed me by. Three years, four years
of technology, I can’t be – so we had this idea, we said, let’s put together kind of a returnship. You can stay for one day, you can stay for
three months, four months, and a refresher on all of this.
And honestly, we’ve had people go, “Okay, one day. This is right. This was crazy. I’m fine.” Back to work. Others, more months, catch up and so
that is actually the biggest reason why you don’t see more women moving up and up and up. It’s this ability to stay in the workforce through these
life event that, to me, is one of the important things you can do that creates a pipeline for the future CEOs.
ISACCSON: Why wouldn’t we have more policies like that if we had more women CEOs? I think those are chicken and an egg game.
ROMETTY: I don’t think it is – no, I know many of my male colleagues as committed to this topic as I am. People look for a big bang answer to this
topic. It is the accumulation of a thousand decisions you make.
And so, when jobs are made available, do you insist that the slate has women and men on it? Or diversity, not just men and women, right? So this
is race. This is many different things. It is a thousand of these decisions that you have to stay with day in and day out that then make the
difference.
ISAACSON; Well, as a historian, I’ll give you some credit at IBM because when it was the mark one – the computer one, the first computers being
built at Harvard, it was Grace Harper, the legendary programmer, who was putting it together. And nowadays, some of the world’s fastest
supercomputer it seems that is being run by two engineers both of whom are women.
ROMETTY: Yes, so you get a better work product on the other end with a diverse workforce. There’s a reason to do this. The reason is you get
better, better ideas, better productivity, better work. You mirror the population and in fact, it’s especially true when you’re building all of
these tools — AI and the like — that they mirror the workforce doing that, mirrors the population it’s going to serve.
ISAACSON: Tell me about your mother.
ROMETTY: Well, my mother – a single mother, raised all four of us. I was 16 at the time when my father left and left her – kind of left all of us –
and she hadn’t had a college degree, didn’t have the skills to go back to work, no money, at times no food. And really, it was by watching my mom
that I learned probably one of the most valuable lessons I take to work today, which is “Never let someone else define who you are, never.”
And what my mom showed all of us by her actions after this had happened, she was no way going to be defined as single mom, someone on welfare,
whatever it was. She went back to school. I had to help. I was the oldest. But she went back to school. She got a degree. She got a great
job. All four of us, I mean, I would say I am the underachiever of the group, all four went to college, have advanced degrees. Did fantastic, and
it was just by watching my mom.
She never complained. She never cried. She just said this isn’t how this story is going to end, and don’t let someone else ever do this to you, and
I think it’s true for companies, it’s true for people, it’s true for countries. And the rest is history.
ISAACSON: How did that affect your view of diversity in the work place, encouraging a workforce that was more diverse?
ROMETTY: Yes, it actually had a really big impact on my view about skills and education, but it also have a lot to do about women and engineering.
And I ended up going into engineering and what it taught me about skills was, look, you just have to be able to problem solve and one of the best,
in my view, degrees out there to learn how to do that is engineering.
ISAACSON: Your patron saint, I hope is Ada Lovelace and the 1830s comes up with the concept of the algorithm …
ROMETTY: Yes, and then Grace Harper, yes.
ISAACSON: The all-purpose computer. Ada Lovelace had at the end of her paper when she said machines will be able to do everything except think.
It was a hundred years later that Turing took on – Alan Turing took on Lady Lovelace’s objections and said, no, machines will be able to think.
Someday, they will replace us. Whose side are you on? Ada Lovelace or Alan Turing?
ROMETTY: I’m so on Ada Lovelace. As much as we invest in these technologies. That idea, the replacement that we are, if at all, decades
away, decades and decades. This idea, we’re at a stage where there are still so many things you and I are able to do with this marvelous thing in
our heads with only 25 watts of energy or whatever it is, right, that we are able to do. And so don’t lose sight of that. I mean, that’s why I
think today, the job is around making things – letting you and I do the kind of thinking and judgment that we should be doing, and then putting
these technologies to work on what are some really hard problems whether it’s systemic risk, logistics, whether it’s drug discovery, solving cancer,
so that’s why I believe this is an era, it’s not just a few years, right? It’s not just data because actually, that’s not what makes you win. What
makes you win is that whoever can learn the fastest and that’s what these technologies are going to help you do is learn.
ISAACSON: Ginni Rometty, thank you for joining us.
ROMETTY: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
AMANPOUR: And for the record, I’m on Ada Lovelace’s side, too, and I’m also struck by all those words of wisdom that Ginni Rometty’s mother gave
her. So, that is really words to live by and that is it for our program tonight. Thanks for watching “Amanpour and Company” on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.
END