Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Hello, everyone. And welcome to “Amanpour and Company”. Here’s what’s coming up. As tens of thousands of mourners
pay personal respect to their queen, western powers rally around Ukraine and its successful counteroffensive in the east. I speak with the NATO
Secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg about the military and diplomatic significance.
Then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: We consider the past, the present, and the future of the British monarchy with historian Simon Schama.
Also, after Pakistan’s devastating floods, millions of displaced people face disease and hunger. Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Pakistani Climate
Expert Aisha Khan about desperate conditions after the deluge.
And finally.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For us to stand for, like, 10 hours is —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: — is nothing compared to the 70 year she’s given us
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A uniquely British tradition. The marathon queue for QEII.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour, outside parliament in London. Where behind me, Queen Elizabeth II lies in state.
And hundreds of thousands of people are expected to line up for miles to say their farewell to their queen. And mourners described what she meant to
them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That lady gave 70 years of her life, you know, to us. And I’m sure I could give these people 24 hours of our life to show respect
for her. She’s everybody’s grandma.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: At this hour. The government says the queue is more than four miles long. Medical first responders are in position along the route.
Volunteers are providing tea and biscuits to those waiting multitudes, and trains are laying on extra services to get people to London.
Now, during her 70 years on the throne, Elizabeth reigned over an extraordinary reinvention, not just of the monarchy but of Rule Britannia
itself. Working to ensure that both remain relevant and vital in our changing world.
Among his many accomplishments, my first guest tonight, Sir Simon Schama is a scholar of monarchy in Britain and around the world. In a 2019, he was
awarded a knighthood for services to history. Simon Schama, welcome to our program.
SIMON SCHAMA, HISTORIAN: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, it is extraordinary how much you have studied, not just this country’s monarchy but in context with so many others around the world. So,
what is it about this one? And particularly about the reign of Queen Elizabeth that seems to have transcended how people around the world view
their monarchs?
SCHAMA: Yes, I think that — you know, I suppose what we thought with the advent of the internet. And all of the kind of hurtling speed of modernity
coming towards us that something as ceremonious and antiquated as the monarchy would be ridiculous anomaly. And there are plenty of people who
actually feel that.
What is really striking is that the more adrift we get in the digital world, the more people have this hunger to belong to something. You know,
to a religion, to a football team. But above all, to a sort of sense of their own past as well as the future.
And politics, particularly lately, whether you look at Narendra Modi’s demonization of the Muslim population of India, or Donald Trump’s sense
that invasion is coming through helpless refugees across the Rio Grande. You can actually manipulate that sense of belonging. Into a kind of war of
exclusiveness.
What the monarchies do, really, is provide, if you like, a safe space in which you can feel kinship with people whom you might, if you sat down and
have a political argument, have a bitter dispute. But the queen, in particular, had this sort of genius, really, I think. As one commentator
who was hostile to her actually.
Initially, John Grigg said of behaving decently because she was fundamentally decent. She had this capacity horses, gardens, dogs. Her just
manner which was supremely on shows during the pandemic, we’ll meet again.
AMANPOUR: Yes, talking back to the world war.
SCHAMA: She had enormous emotional intelligence to gather the nation around, you know — I realize I’m sounding sappy as I say this as of which
I probably am in this particular moment. She had the sort of genius of doing that. I think that —
AMANPOUR: But we can see it in the outpouring, right?
SCHAMA: We have.
AMANPOUR: That’s what —
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — that’s what we’re seeing on the screens.
SCHAMA: There’s a push to make queueing on Olympic event, actually. Because I guaranteed that the British will win. But it is very touching.
AMANPOUR: And they’re expecting, you know, perhaps up to a million people they. They’re saying 750,000 might come.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: They know that that many people won’t get through. But it is still quite extraordinary. So, you talk about emotional intelligence. Where
others have said, but yes, she didn’t show emotion in public. And you’ve also written, and I find this fascinating. You’ve called it, you know, the
monarchy a strange friction.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And I find that interesting. What do you mean?
SCHAMA: Well, I think — well, to give you an example. It’s constantly kind of reinventing itself. Everything you’re seeing in this very beautiful set
of ceremonies was invented in the 20th century. It was invented — the coronation was invented by Edward VII. Most of this enormous funerary
ritual was an invention to cope with the alienation of maternity. Sort of, give people, you know, a direct wiring to the splendor of the past.
I mean, I was born in 1945. I grew up amidst city ruins. I’m older than (INAUDIBLE). And, you know, what first attracted me to history was if you
like its romance, you know.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCHAMA: And the kind of cleverness of monarchy is actually managed well and richly. Using, you know, the word culturally is to kind of deliver that, I
think.
AMANPOUR: And you also say, you know, you are born in ’45. The queen was born, I guess, about 10 years or so earlier or maybe more. I can’t
remember. I can’t calculate right now.
SCHAMA: She was born in 1926.
AMANPOUR: ’26. 20 years earlier. Yes, yes.
SCHAMA: This is why they pay me the big bucks to be your historian, yes.
AMANPOUR: But here’s the thing — and you say — and I think this is really fundamental, that she grew up and developed her sense of service —
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — under the most terrifying conditions.
SCHAMA: Yes, exactly. Exactly. Well, she had both, not just her uncle who abdicated, but her father who didn’t want to be king. So, she had the two
big, you know, royal males in the family didn’t want to do the job. Her father, cruelly, you know, never thought he would have to.
There’s a wonderful moment which I think I may or may not mention, is that they had a very happy life in this big house in Piccadilly when her father
was just the Duke of York. And, you know, the two girls and they — they’re sort of idol (ph), really, of the happy family was actually true about
that.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCHAMA: Accosted (ph) and all the rest of it. So, when they had to go to Buckingham Palace. And the — her father about to become George — you
know, who had become George VI, traumatize really by having to be a public figure. The film, “The King’s Speech” got that exactly right. The terrible
stammer — I mean, he carries — he chain smoked even more, and that’s why he died at 52.
But they said, well, we’re going to live in Buckingham Palace. And the queen is said to have remembered saying, what? Forever? And then it gets —
AMANPOUR: And it turned out to be forever.
SCHAMA: — it really was forever. But you know, you look at those pictures of the coronation which I remember well from my little black and white TV
in 1953 to which the neighbors came. And it was the weight of everything was both crushingly physical. That crown was a monster. She had to rehearse
it on the head. And, you know, all the paraphernalia of all the reception (ph) and all the rest of it.
But of course, psychologically, it was incredibly crushing because she had to do what her poor dad, really, hadn’t quite been able to do and her uncle
refused to do. So, there was this kind of abnegation in the sense, well, you know, there’s going to be a royal family but my real family is going to
be the whole country.
AMANPOUR: And look, the fact of the matter is and we sort of alluded to it in introducing you. You know, there was — there is a different notion of
Britain under her reign. Rule Brittania is no longer rule the seas, right?
SCHAMA: Right.
AMANPOUR: Is a completely shrinking and contracting.
SCHAMA: Right.
AMANPOUR: Now, many would say, good because empire was not good —
SCHAMA: Right.
AMANPOUR: — in lots of parts of it, obviously. The slavery, the atrocities, the torture, and that lot. However, how do you think the — I
guess the nation has dealt with that and also going forward? It’s kind of a weakened nation under her, contracting nation.
SCHAMA: Yes. I mean, a lot depends on how you read the Commonwealth actually. And — you know, I remember when I thought the Commonwealth —
you know, it was just kind of pathetic, euphemistic window dressing for the loss of empire. But that was not really true. What was extraordinary about
the queen, she didn’t have to go. In fact, the government did not want to go to Ghana in 1961.
AMANPOUR: That’s amazing.
SCHAMA: You know, to dance with the horrible dictator, Kwame Nkrumah, but she wasn’t known either horrible or dictatorial he was then. But she made
Africa a particular field of passion really. She loved it anyway.
And, you know, extraordinarily — she and Mandela were incredibly close friends, sort of, loving friends almost for a reason. She was in favor of
sanctions when Margaret Thatcher was not. Enoch Powell, the anti-immigrant, very right-wing British politician accused her of caring more about people
far away in the world than she did about her own people.
So, very quickly, we have the — Charles has — King Charles has an opportunity, you know, for once to make all his post-Brexit rhetoric about
Britain being in a global country actual. The cause which he’s been obsessed with the — you know this.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCHAMA: Three decades at least happens to be the most elemental crisis we’re faced with.
AMANPOUR: The climate.
SCHAMA: The burning of the Earth.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
SCHAMA: Absolutely. And that has to be a global issue. Otherwise, the poor countries who are poor will get even poorer. And the rich would be
relatively, you know, safeguarded from it. So, there is an opportunity to exercise a kind of moral authority in the crown without being partisan.
AMANPOUR: Right. OK. So, that’s really important. A moral authority.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: We’re going to, obviously, examine more of that in the — later in the program with the Pakistan floods. You know, people who have a
minuscule carbon footprint are paying the price —
SCHAMA: Right.
AMANPOUR: — for ours.
SCHAMA: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: But to your point, from your article, you quote her Christmas broadcast in December which was in 1983. Where she says, in spite of all
the progress that has been made, the greatest problem in the world today remains the gap between rich and poor countries. And we shall not begin to
close this gap until we hear less about nationalism and more about interdependence. One of the main aims of the Commonwealth is to make an
effective contribution toward redressing the economic balance between nations. So, that’s pretty amazing —
SCHAMA: It’s amazing, isn’t it? It is amazing.
AMANPOUR: — in 1983.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And it hasn’t — has it — I mean, has it?
SCHAMA: Has it at what?
AMANPOUR: To had done that. Redress some of the balance?
SCHAMA: The Commonwealth? No, to — you know, but the world hasn’t. Has it made it worse? Absolutely not. You know, it was a responsibility of having
the Commonwealth be much more proactive. The Commonwealth is growing rather startlingly.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCHAMA: Countries like, you know, Gabon, I think, and Mozambique.
AMANPOUR: They were never part of the empire.
SCHAMA: No cultural attachments are actually members of the Commonwealth now.
AMANPOUR: Yes, it is interesting.
SCHAMA: So, it is really all for Charles III to do, I think.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to talk to you a bit about how much she knew and how she evolved and change over 70 years. So, you know, the queen apparently
never into school. She had tutors.
SCHAMA: She’s absolutely, right.
AMANPOUR: Either you or somebody else wrote this. She was never taught to be an intellect. In fact, nobody wanted her to be one.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: She was taught to be what women were taught to be then you know.
SCHAMA: That’s right.
AMANPOUR: Especially middle to upper class women.
SCHAMA: They always thought it was important to protect her from an intellect actually.
AMANPOUR: So —
SCHAMA: Not exactly second wave feminism.
AMANPOUR: Not exactly. Her — one of her longest serving prime ministers is Tony Blair. He said to — he told me this about his weekly meetings and
what he liked about meeting her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: She was, by the way, fascinating to talk to about historical figures. I mean, I had many conversations with
her, for example about Winston Churchill. And — I mean, she was, obviously, a very young queen at that time and she was very much learning
from him. But, you know, when I became prime minister, one of the first things you said to me is, my first prime minister was Winston and that was
before you were born.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It’s pretty amazing.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What do you think she learned from him and then from all the others. And in particular she was always surrounded by these men. I mean,
she was the woman in the — at the heart of just about every forum.
SCHAMA: Yes, I think — you know — yes, to your second point, what was really interesting, of course, actually women have done this royals job
historically a whole lot better than men.
AMANPOUR: I’m glad to hear you say that.
SCHAMA: Well, it’s true. Queen Victoria, even you know, Queen Anne gets, sort of, underestimated —
AMANPOUR: Yes, and Elizabeth I, let’s not forget.
SCHAMA: And certainly Elizabeth I. Certainly Elizabeth I. So, in the — and I think actually it’s not really an accident that there is some
extraordinary you know — there was a theorist, a lawyer early in the 1600 who made the point about the king or queen. The monarch having two bodies.
One is the natural body, you know, mother and a wife and so on. And then there’s the political body. And actually, you have to be both in some way.
And when you take on the armory, really, the armor of the political body, then you become in some extraordinary way powerful and heroic almost.
And when it is you as a woman, Elizabeth I was a genius. You know, she did walk about, she did progresses, she (INAUDIBLE) invented that. It becomes
not only extremely impressive in a company of men but actually quite daunting as well. So, the queen knew she had a kind of genius for the
economy of authority, you know. She could do that.
And she also — all the politicians have to believe them, you know. I’ve heard it from others, too, that say she was amazing on detail. She was
interested in almost, you know, both the soap opera and the substance of politics really. And very often she’d startle them with her grasp with
detail. So, this young girl had no formal education. Nonetheless was kind of a voracious taker-in of the detail that mattered.
AMANPOUR: So, what happens next? King Charles III, everybody knows him. He’s been waiting for this for a long time. Prince Charles, Prince of
Wales. Everybody knows him. Plus, as you said, the incredible issues that he has taken which is so vital, right? Climate, urban planning, struggling
families, poverty, et cetera.
Do you think there will be — because he’s alluded to it. A slim down post- Elizabethan monarchy. Now, put it into context with — I mean, so many European countries have monarchy still.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But they’re not the same —
SCHAMA: No, they’re not.
AMANPOUR: — as this one at all.
SCHAMA: No, no. They don’t have so much swagger to them. But — it’s a tricky thing —
AMANPOUR: And the brand of the nation affiliated with them.
SCHAMA: No. That’s right. I mean, I — you know, I’ve been saying for a long time that this is bound to happen. That there are certain, kind of,
peripheral royals really who may not be on the so-called sovereign ground which is called a civil list (ph).
But I wonder, you know, you see the crowds down there. And when, in fact, the cortege went through — you know, across the Horse Guards Parade.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCHAMA: You know, the place for the trooping and the color. There was such a kind of response to that. So, it’s a tricky point. If you believe the
monarchy anyway lives off the richness of its texture and its color, you don’t want to go the kind of Dutch — very successful though that is in
Holland. The bicycling Scandinavian route altogether. But I suspect there will be, you know, there’s a lot of — there is a lot — the tricky — a
lots of trim.
The trickier thing for Charles, in particular, is that, you know, he’s used to speaking his mind.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCHAMA: And he said that he understands, you know, he won’t be able to do that. Well, you know, I don’t think either of us will be shocked if he
fails to button his lip really. And I don’t think he should. I think he has to be himself actually. I really do.
AMANPOUR: And, you know, just talking about how she was — she became so well informed. I also spoke to the former prime minister Theresa May, her
second female prime minister.
SCHAMA: Right.
AMANPOUR: Who said that she was also a really great diplomat for this country. Although not an informal way but she was.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Here’s what she told me just a few days ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THERESA MAY, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I think many people didn’t, like government minister, she had a red box every day with government
papers and other papers in that. And she would read through that so she knew and understood what was going on. And had immense experience. I was
her 13th prime minister.
So, you know, by the time I was there, she’d seen prime ministers come and go. She’d seen issues come and go. She knew a lot of the world leaders I
was dealing with. In some cases, she knew their fathers. You know, so she had this immense experience and wisdom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: She did. We’ve talked a little bit about that. Do you think her heir, the new king, has that same ability to be such a, you know, such a
diplomat? Somebody hailed in such awe above the fray?
SCHAMA: You know, I think — I’m — knowing him a little, I — his tolerance, you know — sort of, sit there and eat, you know, baked soul
with some squalid dictator. I think is really actually which the queen could do. There was nobody she wouldn’t have a cup of tea with, you know
really. Because it was the job. I — that’s going to be quite a test that he has to. It has — you know, it’s a test.
AMANPOUR: And then inside this country. You know, we know that right now this country is in deep crisis, like so many.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Energy, inflation, you know, the poverty, the food poverty. We understand that some food banks may be closed down on the bank holiday.
SCHAMA: Yes, that is dreadful. Dreadful. Yes, grotesque.
AMANPOUR: I mean, you know, how does the royal family deal with that even now? And then is there the same kind of glue going forward that will sort
of keep a country feeling that at least somebody’s got their back during the crises like she did.
SCHAMA: Well, I — you know, that is the $64,000 question. I mean, each — kind of — you know, they — there are mood shifts — tactical, political
shifts with each new government and each new prime minister even with continuity of the queen. But when you have a new monarch coming, then you
really have a new as it were regime, you know. So, have a very small R.
And — you know, take the food bank issue, really. That’s a government issue.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCHAMA: You know, that’s actually not for the monarch to decide. So, the question is actually, you know, the leaning in a bit about how you use that
moral authority is yet to be tested or calibrated.
And it will be very important because we’re heading for a bloody horrible winter.
AMANPOUR: And one final question. You were knighted, we showed the picture.
SCHAMA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: It was Prince William, who’s now the Prince of Wales.
SCHAMA: Right.
AMANPOUR: What did that moment mean to you? What did you take away from that?
SCHAMA: It was very, very moving for me. Once I managed to manipulate my knee into the right position. You understand it. Did you have to do that? I
was knighted —
AMANPOUR: I don’t know. You know —
SCHAMA: — I’ve been in this history trade for more than half a century. And therefore, you know, I got the dust of ancient castles really under my
skin, I think, really. So, of course, I would love my father and mother to have been around, really, because —
AMANPOUR: How proud, yes.
SCHAMA: — they were the ones that took me around the Tower of London in 1950 when I was five years old, you know. So, for me, it was a kind of
extra peace of homecoming in a way and a very moving.
AMANPOUR: Sir Simon Schama, thank you so much indeed.
SCHAMA: Pleasure.
AMANPOUR: Now, the queen, of course, was also widely known for her drole sense of humor. From the now iconic Paddington Bear sketch, to some of her
lighter moments with world leaders. Like this one at a G7 summit here in Cornwall in June of last year. As the group posed for that famous family
photo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS JOHNSON, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: How’s that?
QUEEN ELIZABETH II, QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Are you supposed to be looking as if you’re enjoying yourself?
JOHNSON: Yes, it would — definitely. If you can — we have been enjoying ourselves in spite of appearances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The queen lightening the mood there.
Now, next to the war in Europe where Ukrainian forces are consolidating their military gains as their counteroffensive continues. And there are
important developments on the diplomatic as well. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the
Ukrainian President in Kyiv today.
She says that she is, “Impressed with Ukraine’s progress towards becoming a member of the E.U”. Meanwhile, the Russian President, Vladimir Putin,
traveled to Uzbekistan for talks with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. NATO Secretary general Jens Stoltenberg plays a key role in galvanizing western
support for Ukraine. And we spoke all about these developments and the long cold winter ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Secretary general, welcome to the program.
JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Thank you so much for having me, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, this has been an incredible week of a lightning counteroffensive of Ukraine seeming to shift the nature of the battlefield.
Do you see it as a turning point, and to what do you ascribe this?
STOLTENBERG: What we have seen is very encouraging. We have seen the Ukrainian armed forces being able to retake territory at the speed hardly
anyone expected. And this is due to their bravery, their courage, the skill of Ukrainian armed forces. But also of course of the unprecedented support
by NATO allies and partners to Ukraine.
This is encouraging. But at the same time, we have to realize that Russia still controls — occupies roughly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory.
Russia has big military capabilities that they can use. And the winter is coming and the winter is going to be hard. So, we need to continue to
provide support to Ukraine and we need to be prepared for long hold.
AMANPOUR: You know. You talk about the continued support and the bravery of the Ukrainians but that’s been going on, you know, since February. Why do
you think it happened now? What extra push or extra help did the Ukrainians get or advice or whatever it is? Why are we seeing this right now?
STOLTENBERG: This war has moved in phases. The first immediate task was to stop the Russian attempt to take Kyiv within days, and the Ukrainian army
was able to do that. Then it was — then when Russia shifted its focus to Donbas, and the main task for Ukraine was to stop — stall the offensive in
Donbas, they were able to do so. And then gradually, they have been able to build up the reserves, the munitions, the stocks, and the capabilities to
be able to then — to launch counteroffensives.
And that is what we have seen in Kharkiv. That’s also what we have seen in Kherson in the south. And of course, this is a result of their courage,
their determination. But also, a result of, actually, NATO allies working with Ukrainian army, not only since the innovation in February but training
tens of thousands of Ukrainian forces since 2014.
So, the Ukrainian army is much better trained, much better equipped, much stronger, much bigger now than when Russia invaded for the first time back
in 2014.
AMANPOUR: Given everything that you’ve given the Ukrainians, they are obviously grateful but still calling for more. And saying that they could
do even more with more effective weapons in long-range. Now, CNN is reporting that the White House has decided not to be sending extra long-
range artillery missiles and the like for the moment. Why do you think that is? Why not give them and back them up with what they need right now?
STOLTENBERG: NATO allies are constantly addressing, assessing what type of support we should provide to Ukraine. And what we have seen is that United
States, but also NATO allies, are now supplying Ukraine with modern precision weapons, artillery, air defense, rockets, and a lot of advanced
weapons. And this is now making a difference on the battlefield every day.
We met last week in Ramstein. And the U.S. led support group for Ukraine. And of course, one of the main item — the main issue there was how to both
sustain but also step up support for Ukraine. So, I will not go into the specific capabilities but I will just point to the fact that we have seen a
gradual increase in both in the scale and the scope and the quality of systems NATO allies are providing to Ukraine.
At the same time, NATO and NATO allies are not part of the conflict. We are not on the ground. But we are supporting Ukraine in its right to uphold the
right for self-defense, and that’s what we are doing.
AMANPOUR: So, that’s interesting you put it that way because today from the foreign ministry came, you know, perhaps what you might expect. And that
is, they will start considering you part of the battle group that you are actually involved if, and they said, anymore longer-range artillery is sent
to the Ukrainians. How do you take that kind of whatever — bluster, (INAUDIBLE), threat, whatever you want to call it from Moscow?
STOLTENBERG: So, we have seen threats and attempts of coercion throughout the whole war. It actually started before the war where President Putin
demanded no further NATO enlargement and that NATO should remove all its troops from the eastern part of the alliance. We have done the opposite. We
have increased the military presence in the eastern part of the NATO alliance. And we have seen Finland and Sweden applying for NATO membership.
So, he wanted us to reduce NATO — Russia’s borders. He’s getting more NATO at Russia’s border. The same when it comes to Ukraine, support Ukraine.
Russia is — of course, since the beginning tried to prevent NATO allies from providing support to Ukraine. NATO allies have done the opposite.
Because the right for self-defense is a right enshrined in the U.N. Charter. There is no doubt this is a war of aggression by Russia against
the independent sovereign state in Europe, Ukraine. And therefore, of course, we also have the full right to support them in upholding that right
to defend their own country.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you think is going on? How do you read what’s happening inside Moscow right now? That it appears President Putin is under
mounting criticism, not just from his right flank which says he should be doing more. But from others who say he should resign. That he’s
miscalculated. That he’s been misinformed or misled. How do you read that happening right now?
STOLTENBERG: So, what’s going on in Moscow now reflects the fact that President Putin has made not only one but several big strategic mistakes.
He thought he was able to take control of Ukraine and oust the Ukrainian government and control Kyiv within days. He failed, totally.
Then he totally underestimated the strength and the resilience of the Ukrainian armed forces. And then he had underestimated the unity and the
willingness of NATO and NATO allies and partners and the European Union to both impose economic sanctions on Russia but also to provide support for
Ukraine. And of course, the discussions we now see in Moscow reflects those fundamental strategic mistakes made by President Putin.
AMANPOUR: So, we’ve heard that Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who’s recently in the last day spoken to President Putin and even the Secretary-General of
the U.N. Guterres, they basically told the world that President Putin doesn’t seem to get the reality right now. Still feels that he’s on the
right track and will continue. How do you expect him to respond to these battlefield losses?
STOLTENBERG: We have seen no signs that Russia has changed its overall strategic goal in Ukraine. So, everything indicates that they still have
the ambition of controlling Ukraine and they don’t recognize — President Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as an independent sovereign nation.
Then, of course, wars are unpredictable. It’s always hard to predict what will be the consequences of what we have seen on the battlefield over the
last weeks, the progress that Ukrainians have made. But we cannot now be complacent. We cannot, in a way, think that we have seen, in a way, the end
of the war.
We just need to mobilize more support to uphold the sanctions and to prepare for the winter. The winter is going to be hard. And we need to
provide both weapons and ammunition. But not least, we need to provide Ukraine with winter equipment, winter uniforms, tents, generators so they
can all — to be able to operate throughout the winter which is most likely going to be very hard and difficult winter for Ukraine, but also for the
rest of Europe.
AMANPOUR: Right, because you wrote a piece in the “Financial Times” not so long ago saying precisely that. And that the E.U., the world, supporting
Ukraine needs to stay united now more than ever. And you said that it’s going to be difficult because of the energy squeeze that Russia has put on
us. And you know, we don’t know where that’s going — where that’s going to go and how bad it’s going to be. Do you think that the world will stay
united?
STOLTENBERG: Yes, absolutely. Because we have seen an unprecedented unity in the support to Ukraine among NATO allies and partners all over the
world. What we now have to address is that the support we have provided to Ukraine is something we have taken from our existing stocks. So, they are
now running low. Meaning that we need to replenish those stocks.
And therefore the — one of the main focus is now, in NATO, is to work with the defense industry to ramp up production, to produce more ammunition,
more weapons. Both, of course, enables to further support or continue our support to Ukraine. But also, to replenish our stocks for our own
deterrence and defense purposes.
So, we are now addressing this, working with — on this issue at NATO with the defense industry. And how to ramp up production would also be one of
the main issues at the NATO defense ministry meeting next month here in Brussels.
AMANPOUR: Are you going to talk about China as well because as you know — you know, President Xi and Putin have just had a meeting. And they were
pretty united over this issue of Ukraine. And you, at NATO, have declared China to be, “A challenge to the alliance”. Where do you see that
relationship is going? Do you think Xi is going to keep backing Putin? Do you think that could, you know, he could step in if he’s facing these kinds
of — if Putin’s facing these kinds of battlefield losses, he could start getting more assistance from China?
STOLTENBERG: As what we have seen over the last few years, is a closer and closer relationship between China and Russia. They’re both in the economic
field and the political field, but also in the military domain where they exercise more together, operate more together, patrol more together in the
air and at sea. And China has failed to condemn the Russian brutal invasion of an independent sovereign nation, Ukraine.
And when Xi and President Putin met in February, just before the invasion, they had a joint declaration stating that their partnership is without
limits. And that was also the first time China clearly made calls on NATO to close its doors and to not admit the new members just before Finland and
Sweden applied.
So, of course, we are following this very closely. And it adds to our concerns that we see Chinese military build-up with the advanced nuclear
weapons with modern capabilities. And all of this matters for our security, for the whole of NATO. And also, the fact that China and Russia are working
more and more closely together.
AMANPOUR: And finally, I just want to switch tax for a moment. I’m outside Westminster, behind me the queen of England lies in state. Queen Elizabeth
II, the state funeral will be on Monday. Are you coming to that? Of course, she acceded to the throne a couple of years after NATO was formed. And I
just wondered, what are your reflections on her reign, her legacy at this moment?
STOLTENBERG: I will attend the state funeral on Monday to pay my respects to Queen Elizabeth II. And she was a strong supporter of our armed forces.
She was a strong personal supporter of the bond between North America and Europe in NATO. She listed the NATO headquarters. She hosted the NATO
Summit. All the leaders, head of state, and government at the NATO summit in London. And I met her on several occasions and I was always impressed by
her knowledge. Her understanding of international matters, issues, security, and defense.
And therefore, I was always very impressed. And we have to realize that Queen Elizabeth, she actually worked with and knew all secretary generals,
all 13 secretary generals in NATO since the founding of our line. So, she had a lot of experience and knowledge which was very much appreciated by
NATO.
AMANPOUR: That’s an incredible thing to remember. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, thank you for joining me.
STOLTENBERG: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, the queen’s experience and knowledge of international relations will of course be missed by many.
Just days before her death, she had expressed solidarity and sadness with the people of Pakistan as record floods swept through the country. As
people there attempt to rebuild their lives, officials warn that it may take months for the waters to recede. While the death toll nears 1,500,
concern is rising as diseases spread among the displaced who’ve seen their whole lives just washed away.
Aisha Khan is chief executive of the Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change. And recently, she spoke to Hari Sreenivasan about the devastation
and the impact of these floods.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks.
Aisha Khan, thanks so much for joining us. We have heard some of the statistics. I mean, put it in perspective for us, you’re on the ground
there. You’ve been watching what’s happening. When we talk about a third of the population of a country the size of Pakistan, or 30 million people, how
do we even conceptualize that?
AISHA KHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CIVIL SOCIETY COLLATION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: Very difficult. You know, this country has seen disasters before. We’ve had
the 2005 earthquake. We’ve had the 2010 floods. But this is like a monster disaster. When you look at the images, it’s mindboggling.
So, one-third of the country, and you see that, you know, it’s happening in areas where people who are already unserved and underserved. It has struck
the poorer areas the most. So, it has actually amplified their difficulties and put them in a very rough spot.
SREENIVASAN: So, for people who might not be familiar with just the geography of Pakistan, what stretch of the country are we talking about
here, and how are the floods, soft of, progressing or working their way down?
KHAN: They’re actually not working their way down. This time, they’re working their way up. This started deep south in the province of
Balochistan then they worked themselves up towards the province of Sindh, and then they went up north.
So, what’s happened this time is that the monsoons and the global warming that has accelerated the melting of the glaciers has combined together. So,
normally when the monsoons set in, there’s one system that becomes active, like, from the Bay of Bengal or from the Arabian Sea. This time, both
systems were active simultaneously. And at the same time, the mountains and the snow started — the snows on the mountains, rather, started melting.
So, when the two converge, we have an area that is deep south that is flooded first. And now we have, you know, up north that is also being
flooded. So, it’s a mega, mega disaster that we’re facing.
SREENIVASAN: So, who is most affected by this? Is this more rural versus more urban? More poor versus more rich? More female versus more male?
KHAN: I think with the gender issue, it is equal numbers because in a household, usually they’re evenly divided. So, the areas where it has
happened is the southern parts of the country. The remote and underdeveloped parts of the country. So, most of the poor people live
there. Most of these people rely on agriculture. They rely on livestock. And both these sources of livelihood have been taken away from them. So,
they’re getting the most affected.
In the mountain areas, it becomes even more difficult because the terrain is very difficult and very different. So, they’re getting affected in a
different way. And their difficulties, I think, we’ll see more problems because of the approaching winter. As the temperatures drop in the mountain
areas, these people will be in need of shelter.
And as you must have heard, you know, we are very short on temporary shelters, like tents. There’s something like 173,000 people in the province
of Sindh who have been provided with temporary shelters. Whereas we need something like 5.2 million tents right now.
SREENIVASAN: Where is the government in terms of food aid? Where is the International Community?
KHAN: The International Community is helping and the government is providing them with the relief and rescue operations. But I don’t think
that the needs of all the people can be met. So, there is malnutrition, there is disease, there are deaths as a result of, I think, starvation and
exposure to the, well, elements.
SREENIVASAN: And when you talk about exposure, standing water, that is a perfect ingredient for the spread of malaria and dengue, and other
waterborne illnesses, especially in areas where they don’t have sewage infrastructure. So, I mean, what are the health concerns?
KHAN: The health concerns are going to increase, they’re already there. Malaria is spreading very fast. Dengue is spreading very fast. And there
are skin diseases also that are being reported, rashes on the skin, especially with children. Because there’s no hygiene, there’s no
sanitation. And there’s another health crisis. A significant number of the women are pregnant, they’re expecting. And there is no way that they can be
provided with any facility for deliveries.
SREENIVASAN: The United Nations Population Fund estimated 128,000 pregnant women that are caught up in this disaster. How do women face these
disasters, perhaps differently in a country like Pakistan?
KHAN: Women always have a rough time. You know, even without disasters, I think in a country which is very low in the gender gap ranking and in the
human development index as well. The women don’t have equal access to resources and opportunities.
So, in a disaster situation when they’re in camps, they have health problems. You’ve indicated to that. But there are other problems as well.
There’s problem of gender-based violence, there’s problem of sexual abuse, there’s problems of mental health. So, all these problems, you know, affect
women. And because they are weaker and they have no economic independence, and socially, I think, they are not encouraged to take matters into their
own hands. They don’t have social spaces or social safety nets. So, they actually bear the brunt whether it’s conflict or climate induced disasters.
SREENIVASAN: So, how are people making it out of these flood regions? Is there any transportation infrastructure that’s still working? Are there
communities that are cut off, so to speak?
KHAN: Yes, they’re cut off. They’re cut off. We have, you know, so many bridges that were destroyed. We have almost, like, 5,000 kilometers of road
infrastructure that was destroyed. So, these people are essentially trapped where they are and they are totally reliant on relief rescue by the state
agencies and the support the state is getting from countries outside.
SREENIVASAN: And speaking of countries outside, is there any movements towards basically just higher ground, but also to countries in the
neighborhood for India or Afghanistan?
KHAN: To reach out for help?
SREENIVASAN: No, no. I mean, are people trying to leave the country or their areas, or are they just trying to stay inside Pakistan but just
someplace more dry?
KHAN: They’re staying inside Pakistan. They’re trapped where they are. They can’t move out right now. And if they move out, they will actually move to
higher ground and they will move to, maybe, the urban areas because their standing crops have been destroyed. Their land on which they do crop
cultivation has been destroyed.
So, as it is, you know, in Pakistan, South Asia as a whole, but more so in Pakistan, the rate of rural to urban migration has been high in the last
few years. In fact, they say by 2040 perhaps 50 percent of Pakistan will be living in urban areas. So, there are going to be urban sprawls, and another
kind of problems that we will face in the next decade because the urban cities really don’t have the infrastructure right now to meet the needs of
the existing population.
SREENIVASAN: The other thing I want to start looking at a little bit is, what is the state of Pakistan even before these floods. Economically, it
was challenging. We’ve read stories about how high inflation is right now. What does this disaster do to a country that’s economically not in a great
position to be able to deal with it?
KHAN: Good question. You know, I think even without climate change, we were facing a lot of difficulties. And I think this is probably the weakest that
I have seen Pakistan. Because politically, there is instability. Socially, we are highly polarized. And economically, we are very weak.
So, in this condition, when you have a disaster of this magnitude hit you, it just compounds the difficulties. And it makes it very difficult for the
stakeholders to work together because of the polarization and because of the political fragmentation.
SREENIVASAN: And at this point, is the frustration from perhaps the lack of response or what is the reality in the lives of so many people, is that
boiling over into the politics?
KHAN: I think it was there in the politics even before. And this is just going to exacerbate the differences between the different political parties
if they decide to put political interests before humanitarian interests. Because if everyone tries to get political mileage out of it, it’s going to
be at the expense of the people who are suffering right now.
So, I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope some better sense prevails. And everyone comes together because this is a time for national unity, not for
discord.
SREENIVASAN: You know, you’re have the chief executive for Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change and you are part of international
conversations frequently. What does this tell you in terms of the responsibility or what the International Community needs to do. Not just
specifically for this disaster, but are trying to decrease the climate change that Pakistan is witnessing.
KHAN: I think this is a time for reckoning. I think climate change conversations that started as way back as 1972 with the Stockholm
Convention. And then it progressed to the Earth Summit in Rio. But they have been, perhaps, the longest in the history of negotiations.
We’ve had 26 conference of parties and the outcomes have mostly been diluted, they’re delayed, they’re disappointing. At these climate
conferences, there are lofty declarations about just transition about developments that leaves no one behind or one humanity and shared
responsibility.
So, now is the time, I think, for the International Community to come out and actually translate that into action. And the first thing that needs to
be done right now is to identify the cause of this vulnerability. Because it is climate change. It is global warming.
So, I think that the high emitting countries need to fast-track emission reduction. They need to spend more on mitigation at home. And they need to
provide developing countries or low emitting countries that are highly vulnerable. And you’ve seen what’s happened to Pakistan. Today it’s us,
tomorrow it might be somebody else. But more money has to be given for adaptation.
SREENIVASAN: The climate doesn’t necessarily care about borders, it doesn’t care about regions, right? It’s happening where — whether we like it or
not. So, how does Pakistan, for example, make a case to the International Community. I mean, you’re generating less than one percent of greenhouse
gases and here you are, along with other parts of South Asia, feeling the brunt of climate change in a much more personal and profound intangible
way.
KHAN: I think Pakistan has been saying this, you know, for a number of years at the international negotiations that we are a low emitter but the
country has to pay a disproportionately high price. Even before this event happened, the calculations were that about 3.79 billion annually will be
the cost that Pakistan will have to pay for climate change.
So, I think the call for climate justice will be taken up at this conference that is coming up at Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss these issues.
And, I think, make a plea for it that this cannot go on because Pakistan is just one example of what climate change can do. The uncertainties that are
packed into climate change. Because this is not an event that anybody expected to happen.
A scientist had said that this kind of events will happen 30 years from now. But everything is fast-tracked. You saw how the northern hemisphere
also went through a heat wave. There have been wildfires. There have been episodes of drought. So, there’s simultaneously too many things that are
happening that are taking us to the edge of oppressiveness.
And I think that, you know, everyone in the global community calls it and recognizes climate change as an existential threat. But I don’t think
they’ve been able to frame this into a deeper understanding of the vulnerability. Everybody uses these words, but not quite, you, know,
respond to take the urgent action that is needed.
SREENIVASAN: What are you expecting from this conference that could be different?
Because you also see a lot of westerns or wealthier countries who are trying to figure out how to make themselves more resilient, how to spend on
their own adaptation. At the same time, you have countries in the global south who are suffering from the effects in a much more acute way.
KHAN: I think we need to kind of revisit the concept of development. If we say, leave no one behind, then we can’t have some countries that are
developing in the way in which they are developing at the cost of other countries.
So, it makes one wonder, you know, how many more devastations, how many more lives lost before it will become unconscionable for people who are
following a development trajectory that is putting the lives of millions at risk in other parts of the world. And Pakistan is just, you know, one
country. I keep repeating that, that they are lots of other countries, especially the small island development states. They will submerge
completely. Where will they go?
So, it is, you know, taking the future of humanity into account. We should pivot, you know, our discussions at the upcoming CAP around human security.
That is the number one priority. I think survival of everyone, with certain access to certain basic needs should be the fundamental thing that needs to
be addressed.
But again, you know, I think that, you know, the conversations will be about loss and damage. They will be about the green climate fund. And I do
agree with you that, you know, since climate change is affecting the global north, they may have less to give and more to spend on themselves. Because,
you know, it’s human nature to want to protect yourself first before you can be of any aid or assistance to someone else.
SREENIVASAN: When you look at the interdependence and interconnectedness of the South Asian region especially when it comes to things like food. Right
now, with these fields flooded, next year’s wheat crop is gone. Not to mention all the crops that are underwater today. Are there enough grain
supplies and stores for the people of Pakistan to have food in a few months?
KHAN: I’m afraid not. You know, we’re already facing food scarcity issues, and these will get amplified. Also, in the future because our population is
increasing at an unsustainable rate of two percent. So, South Asia, as a whole, will be facing problems because we will, in the next two decades,
probably have scarcity of water. Because if the glaciers we have of the snow on the mountains that provides the water in a river system — because
the HKH, you know, provides water to about 10 river basins.
So, when this water shrinks at source, everybody’s share will decline. And that will become a flash point for conflict. So, it’s much better before we
reach that point to learn how to do more with less. And there’s another thing, you know, happening in South Asia is the mass movement of people.
About 800 million are living in climate hotspots. So, that’s next disaster waiting to happen.
SREENIVASAN: Aisha khan, chief executive of a Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change. Thanks so much for joining us.
KHAN: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIMMONS: And s we mentioned, the late queen did express her concern for Pakistan, a member of the Commonwealth.
And finally tonight, the art of queueing. The British are rising to this occasion. The occasion of lining up for miles as they pay their final
respects to their queen. They’re coming to Westminster Hall, where her majesty lies in state. And the river up people snakes past iconic landmarks
along the banks of the River Thames. Dubbed the, Elizabeth Line, it currently stretches back almost five miles, but they all say that it’s
worth the wait.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She gave so much. She would stand and she — you know, in her duties, she would give so much and I just think maybe give a little
bit back and say thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hadn’t even seen the coffin. And I was just overcome with extreme emotion. Just unbelievable energy and atmosphere that I will
never forget, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a once in a lifetime experience, you know, for a lot of people. And to be part of that, is just — I’ll never forget this
for the rest of my life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As soon as you enter the hall, it’s just — it hits you. And I was crying all the way through. And I thanked her. I just
thanked her for all the amazing work that she’s done for us and the ways that she has paved our country, and many other countries around the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And as our first guest tonight, Sir Simon Schama quipped, queuing may very well one day become an Olympic sport for the Brits.
Now, with public viewing open 24 hours a day until the funeral on Monday morning, the queue may well become the longest this country has ever seen.
That is it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.