February 27, 2024

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: We’re close. We’re close. It’s not done yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Benjamin Netanyahu pours cold water all over President Biden’s hopes for a deal as Gaza faces famine and complete chaos. The head of

Norway’s main humanitarian agency, Jan Egeland, joins me from inside the war-ravaged enclave.

Then —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TETIANA USTYMENKO, RESIDENT OF BUCHA (through translator): How could this happen?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: — two years on we remember the atrocities of Bucha, my report from there about the face of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Plus —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We’ve got five bodies frozen into a giant block of flesh.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: — a murder mystery set in darkness and ice. My conversation with “True Detective” stars Jodie Foster and Kali Reis.

Also, ahead —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEXANDER WARD, AUTHOR: Nothing gets Joe Biden more animated than being seen as the protector of democracy worldwide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: — can Biden restore America’s foreign policy? Politico’s national security reporter tells Walter Isaacson about his new book, “The

Internationalists.”

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

Now, there appear to be major disagreements about the possibility of an agreement for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. After weeks of

negotiations, President Biden says a deal to release Israeli hostages could be made by next Monday, which would also mean a humanitarian pause for

Gaza. And speaking to talk show host Seth Meyers, he was optimistic for future diplomacy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: There’s a process underway that I think if we get that temporary ceasefire, we’re going to be able to move in a direction

where we can change the dynamic and not have a two-state solution immediately, but a process to get to a two-state solution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: But the Israeli prime minister’s office dashed any hopes for an early ceasefire. And key mediator Qatar says disagreements continue over

“numbers, ratios and troop movements,” presumably referring to the number of hostages released for Palestinian prisoners, and the withdrawal of

Israeli soldiers from Gaza.

The death toll there is fast approaching 30,000. And today, France and several Middle East nations air-drop aid into the territory, but the U.N.

warns of a looming famine. The World Food Programme says it’s suspended its aid deliveries amid “a collapse of civil order.”

Jan Egeland, who’s head of the Norwegian Refugee Council, a major humanitarian organization, is in Gaza now for the first time since the

October 7th Hamas slaughter of Israelis that has led to this fierce counter-offensive. And he joined me from Rafah.

Jan Egeland, welcome to the program from Rafah.

JAN EGELAND, SECRETARY GENERAL, NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL: Thank you very much.

AMANPOUR: What is it like to be there and see it for the first time? We’ve heard a lot, we’ve seen pictures, we hear reports from inside. What are you

seeing with your own eyes?

EGELAND: Well, Christiane, you have to come to Gaza to understand the devastation, the destitution, and the desperation of the people here. I

have never, in my many, many years as an aid worker, seen a place that has been so bombarded for such a long time with such a trapped population

without any escape.

So, people are traumatized beyond belief. They live under the most horrific conditions. I was in a school today with 50 people sleeping in a small

classroom, you know, 250, 200 people sharing one latrine. And no real water, food, too few mattresses even. We’re trying to do all we can as the

Norwegian Rescue Council, but we’re really, really overstretched in this ocean of needs.

AMANPOUR: Jan Egeland, you know, finally the International Community has started to airdrop some aid. But what we saw was that some of it dropped

into the sea. And the pictures are really ones of, you know, I mean, total, just panic. People are scavenging. People are fighting each other. People

are trying to get the, you know, plastic — I guess their military rations. Can there be no better way of delivering aid even in the midst of a war?

EGELAND: There can be a much better way, really. And it’s up to Israel, with the United States and Egypt, to fix it. Of course, airdrops is

something of a very last resort. You do that to beseeched areas as we did in Syria, when the Islamic State was beseeching and so on. Jordan is doing

some airdrops. It’s very costly. It’s very limited and very hard to do.

The solution is to get the Rafah Crossing and Kerem Shalom to work according to its purpose and according to its capacity. I could see many

hundreds of trucks lined up at the Rafah Crossing when I came today in Kerem Shalom. It has been days with only a handful of trucks, even though

they have a much bigger capacity from the Israeli side, but there, they let extremists, extremists block the aid to the children and women, the

innocent on this side.

AMANPOUR: You know, as people who are saying, how can we send aid into the people who killed our women and children and kidnapped our people? So, the

politics is even playing out and the trauma on the border there.

But I want to ask you how you react to, let’s just say, Palestinians who talked to “Reuters” said about the airdrops, we came throwing ourselves

toward death to get some flour. We can’t find anything. Have mercy on us. Another said, our life has become hell. And we know, because a CNN

investigation found that Israel actually fired on a U.N. convoy carrying food supplies earlier this month, February 5th.

EGELAND: Yes, yes. And also say — I mean, it’s beyond belief that people who are mourning, of course, the worst massacre in the history of Israel on

the 7th of October, would believe that taking away food from children and women, completely innocent, had nothing to do with the 7th of October,

could can in any way help the poor hostages here.

The Hamas militants have food and they are in tunnels. They have nothing to do with the people that we aid. The chaos, yes, around the aid line is

becoming worse and worse because there’s so little aid coming in.

Today, I’m pretty shaken actually from what I saw. The minute we crossed the border from, you know, orderly and sparsely populated Sinai, you see

the aid trucks going full speed down the road, being chased by gangs of youth who jumped the trucks and before our eyes, loot mattresses, blankets,

food, et cetera, to the desperate people outside who want to get some aid.

AMANPOUR: So, Jan, let me ask you this.

EGELAND: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Jan, is this anarchy? Is this stealing or is this an attempt to distribute this, you know, in as crazy a way as you describe, to distribute

this aid?

EGELAND: I think it is actually self-service by those strongest who have received no aid and who have grandmothers, children, nephews who are

starving. It’s — people are not looting each other, they loot what they see as an International Community coming with far too little to them, so

then they take what they can get.

We have a special way of going in with NRC. We have had none of our trucks looted yet and we do orderly distributions with local organizations who

have to use their open trucks in a situation of desperation.

And by the way, the police, which was supposed to have some order in this, was bombed repeatedly by Israel, the blue uniform police. So, they are done

now. They are in civilian clothing trying to shoot in the air. No, it’s really also anarchy in some places.

AMANPOUR: Wow. Let me ask you then, because you’re in Rafah specifically, you’ve probably had some access towards Khan Younis. But what a lot of

people are very concerned about right now, including the residents who we can manage to hear from are in the north.

There’s a picture that we’re going to play. It’s a mother who says there’s no more milk in the enclave or at least up there. So, she’s wrapping a date

in a gauze and letting her baby boy suck on it as if to suck all the juice out of this date.

EGELAND: Yes.

AMANPOUR: We have heard that there are stories of young children saying that they would rather die. We’ve heard adults say they are going to —

they’re preparing to die. They think they will all die. Can you get to the north, where we understand there is a famine rising there? What do you know

about the north? Will you go to the north?

EGELAND: I’m not able myself now to go to the north. NRC has eight aid workers in the north and they are themselves starving. We got a little bit

of food to our aid workers the other day, but the convoys have really been thoroughly looted from the desperation and lawlessness in this bombarded

north.

So, there’s very little aid. There is very little supplies there to start with. So, famine is breaking out there. There’s no other way to describe

it, which again shows that the Karni crossing, which is also from Israel, Israel could fix this. They are the occupying power. They have the

overwhelming military superiority. They could have convoys going over Karni crossing, which is in the middle area from where you can easily reach the

north. It’s very hard from here south in Rafah and Kerem Shalom area.

AMANPOUR: Why do you think they are not? Why do you think a basic food and water and medicine supplies are not happening?

EGELAND: Well, because of what is a misconception of military expediency, let’s just smash the place and thereby reach very fast a military

objective. They’re not reaching — having reached that military objective after all of these months.

So, I hope to see some sanity and humanity on the Israeli side. This is not the Israel I know from 40 years of cooperation, including through the Oslo

Agreement, then there was always possibilities to reason and to get aid to Palestinians in need. I hope to see days where this comes back.

AMANPOUR: So, Jan Egeland, you obviously have to have Israeli coordination permission, whatever the word is, to get in, even from Rafah, even to talk

and see what they need there. So, what are you now saying to your Israeli interlocutors? I mean, do they understand the extent of the humanitarian

catastrophe?

EGELAND: Well, I wonder — of course, there is this dehumanization on both sides. So, of course, on this side, people are naturally concerned with

famine among children. On the Israeli side, it is the hostages. That is the number one and only issue.

So, I’m looking to the United States to broken now a deal whereby there is an extended ceasefire for this war-exhausted population, a release of the

hostages, release from prisoners also that are sitting in arbitrary detention on the other side. And then let’s reboot and start to discuss a

future with some hope for both Palestinians and Israelis, security for Israel, hope and justice for the Palestinians.

AMANPOUR: It’s really such a disaster. Listening to you is very, very disconcerting. Jan Egeland, thank you very much indeed.

EGELAND: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

AMANPOUR: Ukraine is also testing western resolve now in the third year of Russia’s invasion. Their defense minister says that half the western arms

deliveries failed to arrive on time. And now, after the retreat from Avdiivka last week, Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from the nearby

village, but say they are building up defenses along a new front line.

Who can forget the massacre that showed the world the war’s true face? It was in Bucha, the Kyiv suburb that revealed atrocities and alleged Russian

war crimes that took place early on in the war. And I visited that town on the second anniversary of the invasion. And just a reminder, of course,

what happened there is still incredibly disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Father Andriy Halavin, of St. Andrew’s church, walks me through Bucha’s grisly place in history. Hundreds were brutally killed

here during Russia’s month-long occupation, including women, children, the elderly.

ANDRIY HALAVIN, PRIEST, CHURCH OF ST. ANDREWS IN BUCHA: 99 years old.

AMANPOUR: Oh, my god, 1923 to 2022

HALAVIN: Yes. Yes.

AMANPOUR: 99 years old and a child of two years old.

AMANPOUR (voice over): These people died not during the fighting, but during the occupation says Father Andriy, when the Russian world came here,

and this is its face, these are corpses. These are rape people. This is every apartment and house looted. This is the face of the Russian world.

Father Andriy became known after the Russians were pushed back for revealing the side of a mass grave just here on his church grounds, filled

with 160 people. He shows me the original posting about it on Facebook, March 12, 2022, when Russian forces were still occupying Bucha. And from

this memorial, you can see that red house, most of the family was killed as they tried to flee, when the Russians turned a heavy machine gun on their

car.

It still haunts and horrifies the grandmother, Valentyna Chekmarova.

It’s very hard for me to remember this, two years have passed, and it seems like it happened today, she says. I saw them off to get out of this hell,

but they didn’t. They were shot.

This is the fate they were trying to escape. The main street, Yablunska, in this residential Kyiv suburb, strewn with bodies, all clearly civilians.

The discovery of basement torture and execution centers. People forced to kneel and lie with hands tied behind their backs, women and girls raped.

TETIANA USTYMENKO, RESIDENT OF BUCHA (through translator): How could this happen? How could this happen?

AMANPOUR: Standing in Yablunska Street today, feels a little like standing in a graveyard. It’s where the horrors of the Russian invasion were first

exposed. And it remains a field of evidence, a memorial and a pilgrimage site.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We believe that these are war crimes, and this all would be recognized as a genocide

by the world.

AMANPOUR: President Zelenskyy came here, April 4, 2022, right after his forces drove the Russians out. And he brings all his international visitors

and world leaders to Bucha to remind the world just what they’re fighting against.

Moscow has claimed without evidence that this was all staged and was a planned media campaign. Ruslan Kravchenko was the war crimes prosecutor. He

is now governor of the Kyiv region.

Do you remember when the Russians said it was fake and the bodies were fake? And that the Ukrainians had killed people themselves? He asked me.

When we seize the phones, we proved to the whole world that it was the Russians who killed people, Ukrainians.

Ruslan says the war crimes investigations continue, using a trove of evidence from multiple cameras, phones, and other recordings. But when they

inform the Russian soldiers, they identify, they don’t cooperate. And Father Andriy tells us the awful truth is, that bodies are still being

discovered today, two years on.

From time to time, we find someone by accident, he says. The Russians had hidden their bodies somewhere and we find them. So, unfortunately, the

number of people who died is increasing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR (on camera): My report from Bucha just as the two-year anniversary was passing this weekend.

We turn now to the spooky hit TV show “True Detective: Night Country” set in Alaska and starring Hollywood legend Jodie Foster and boxing champ

turned actor Kali Reis. This fourth season is the highest rated of the whole anthology. Here’s a clip from the trailer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JODIE FOSTER, ACTRESS: I’m working on this new case. A missing scientist. Found on the edge of the villages. Frozen solid.

KALI REIS, ACTRESS: What do you want?

FOSTER: It’s been six years. Why are you here?

REIS: Because we both know what really happened. And you need my help.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Both stars joined me here in London recently, just ahead of the show’s recent grand finale. And here is our conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Jodie Foster, Kali Reis, welcome to the program.

REIS: Thank you.

FOSTER: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: You have not been on television for a long, long time, right?

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: On TV. I mean, have you ever done a major in your adult life, TV? What attracted you about “True Detective” in this particular series?

FOSTER: Yes, I don’t think I’ve done a series since the mid-70s or something. But I have been doing a little bit of directing on television,

so it’s something I was familiar with. And I was just looking for the opportunity. The right opportunity, the right script, something that moved

me, really, you know.

AMANPOUR: And what about this does? Because when you say moving, I mean, it is — it’s horror genre, it’s thrilling, it’s in the dead of night. I mean,

it’s really heavy duty.

FOSTER: Yes, it’s a full experience. We’re so proud of this. I mean, Issa Lopez, the director, just did such a magnificent job writing all the

episodes and creating this world with the two “True Detective’s” that are female now, you know, we remember season one, and Matthew McConaughey and

Woody Harrelson, but there’s something really extraordinary about the anthology and being able to say, we’re going to do something completely

different.

AMANPOUR: So, since Jodie brought up season one, you know, it was the dudes, it was the bros, it was — you know, I mean, it’s good old male

testosterone and getting it done. And it was really — I mean, it’s also a little scary and spooky. Was it the female-led character of this one that

attracted you to it? And it’s your first major on-screen, right?

REIS: Yes, it’s my first major on-screen. It’s only my third acting job as well. So, I mean, it was the story, as Jodie said, that Issa created. And

just from the first page, I was captivated on these very complex characters, the place itself she created in Ennis, Alaska. And then she

incorporated the people of Alaska into the creation stories, into the crimes, into every part of the story is around the people. And that’s what

really attracted me to this very, very intense story and to the character.

AMANPOUR: And not just around the people. This is very much an indigenous Native American culture that we’re all entering. You are part Cape Verdean,

part Native American. Was that also an attractive, you know, calling point for you?

REIS: Absolutely, because the representation or lack thereof that we have as indigenous people is just — you know, it’s getting a lot better. And

we’re just in such a great time. So, when I had the — when it was presented to me, this character, Navarro, was — in Yupik and Dominican,

she was part of two different worlds, part of the community that she was going to be policing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: It was your case all those months, you didn’t close it. You.

REIS: Exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REIS: It was something that was so familiar to me because it’s kind of that balance that you have to have. You don’t feel enough for either. So, it

just attracted me to this very layered character.

AMANPOUR: Jodie Foster, Kali was a boxing champ.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And she said though that —

FOSTER: Still is.

AMANPOUR: Yes, it is. And maybe go back to boxing?

FOSTER: I’m not retired yet.

AMANPOUR: OK. And said that working with you was like training with Mike Tyson.

FOSTER: Oh, without the biting.

AMANPOUR: You still got your ear.

REIS: Yes. Well, she didn’t bite any ears off. No, it was like training with Mike Tyson in like ’86 in his prime. Like what better way to —

AMANPOUR: I mean, it must be intimidating. This is one of the world’s great, great actors since the age of six years old, multi-Oscar winning,

multi-award-winning director, all of that, in our consciousness for all sorts of reasons for so many years. Was it intimidating?

REIS: Absolutely, I was terrified. I was so terrified. But I was excited because I knew something terrified me like this. That means it was going to

be — I was going to learn so much, and what better hands to be in to learn from than somebody like this. So, I was like, yes.

AMANPOUR: And, Jodie, you know, you are obviously a mentor of sorts, I guess, for all the newcomers and younger actresses. But I’m really

interested in reading, and I want you to explain to me, that when Issa brought you this, you decided that you wanted your character, Liz Danvers,

to be aged up.

FOSTER: Well, my age, yes.

AMANPOUR: Your age.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: But putting Navarro’s story as the center.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Is that right?

FOSTER: Yes, and I think Issa probably wanted that too, but it was something that I really wanted to remind us, that we were doing something

that really isn’t done very much, just to have the central voice of the film be an indigenous voice, to be — look through those eyes in a way, not

just because we’re doing representation, but because we really want to be in that body and really understand it from that perspective.

And so, for — to do that, I’m just here to support. So, I kind of reverse engineered my character of Liz Danvers to support Kali’s character’s

journey.

AMANPOUR: That doesn’t happen often.

FOSTER: Well, you know, there’s a funny thing that happens when you turn 60, I think, is, at least for me, I feel like there’s like some weird

chemical that starts going off in your body and you just don’t care. And part of that not caring is that you suddenly realize that it’s so much more

fun and more satisfying to recognize that it’s not your time. It’s someone else’s time.

And it’s up to you to help support them and bring whatever experience and wisdom you have to that process. And you get to be part of a team, which is

amazing. It’s so much better than doing everything on your own and being all nervous and anxious about yourself.

AMANPOUR: And Kali, that is really generous in my opinion. What did you — you brought a lot of your own experience, I think, from what I read to the

character. You had an experience that was very negative with the police officer in Rhode Island, where you come from. And, you know, you play a

very vulnerable character in this. Jodie’s character is much more hard-ass, right? Much more hard-bitten, right?

FOSTER: Yes, she does some ass-kicking now.

REIS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Yes. You know —

FOSTER: She has a bad temper in the character.

AMANPOUR: Yes, yes, yes. I know, and you’re pretty, you know, physically intimidating as you’re portrayed in that film. But you have a very soft

spot for the central character, who’s the murdered woman, Annie, and also your own sister, as she’s played in, and mental health issues. I mean,

there’s so much that comes into this horror detective flick.

REIS: Yes, there is. And, you know, the horror is — the real horror of this is that it’s realistic. You know, we used to put a lot of — or Issa

put a lot of realistic issues, especially that circle around the indigenous community, one being missing and murdered indigenous women, and our people

get targeted, and they don’t — we don’t get mainstream attention on this and there isn’t any answers.

In isolated communities, especially indigenous communities, suicide rates are 10 times worse. Women are 10 times more likely to face violent crimes

in their lifetime. So, these are the realistic issues that were really near and dear to my heart personally, and that I brought right into Navarro’s

character. She just has this craving for truth and justice for these women, and she does have a short fuse rightly so.

So, there was a lot of realism that from my personal experience and the other experiences that I’ve heard from different families and different

communities doing my research.

AMANPOUR: And this police officer in Rhode Island who — what did he do? Did he beat you up? Did he get you in a — I can’t remember exactly, but

has he seen this? As he —

REIS: I hope so. I really do. I hope so. You know, it’s crazy. The things too, it’s — that really messed me up because I didn’t do anything wrong. I

was at work, I was a security officer at a club, and he came in and just asserted his authority the wrong way as they do, and he just started

whaling on me for no reason. And I — this is my first night back. I had a really bad motorcycle accident months before. I was on light duty and he

just went calling me all the derogatory names and then threw me in the paddy wagon. And then told me I had to apologize in order to get myself

out.

But what he didn’t know is that there was a camera underneath where everything happened. But I was confused. It was really — it was a dark

time in my life and it really messed me up, especially when you think like police officers that are supposed to be there to help and protect and

serve, and, you know, I’m part of not a police officer, but I was security.

So, to flip it on its head and kind of really have to face this actual thing, put the uniform on, it was cathartic, I will say that. But I’m proud

that I was able to do that. Like I couldn’t even hear sirens for a while. It was really bad.

AMANPOUR: Wow.

REIS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And just talking about the scenery, I mean, you say obviously it’s set in Alaska, the night country, but you didn’t film in Alaska,

right? You filmed in Iceland.

FOSTER: Yes, we filmed in Iceland because we wouldn’t be able to film in Alaska. It was too remote and you can’t — there are no roads in a lot of

the places that we’d have to be. So, we filmed in Iceland and we brought everybody from Alaska there. So, that was fun.

REIS: It was awesome.

FOSTER: We had all these wonderful Alaskan actors and also Greenlandic actors who share a heritage. So, some of them, they sort of meet in the

Arctic and all the native Inuit people sort of connected with each other, so that was satisfying.

AMANPOUR: And is — I mean, was it dark all the time? Obviously, every scene we see is dark and it’s — you know, if you’ve got sads or something,

it’s a bit difficult.

REIS: It’s dark most of the day and when the sun is up and like the really heat, oh, the darkness of the dark, it’s only like dawn for like maybe

three or four hours a day.

FOSTER: Yes.

REIS: And it’s just a very like a twilight, but it’s dark. But I wasn’t personally affected, but I could see how in being isolated area like that,

for that long, dark, all the time —

AMANPOUR: How long was the shoot?

REIS: We were there for seven months.

FOSTER: Seven months.

REIS: Yes.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: In all dark days?

FOSTER: Well, not all of them.

AMANPOUR: — survived.

FOSTER: When we got there, we got there in October,

REIS: Yes.

FOSTER: So, it was more like fall, and it wasn’t — you know.

REIS: So, we got to experience the transition of it being like kind of normal to all dark, and then when we left, it was going back. Backwards

actually.

AMANPOUR: So, the last major thriller detective that you played, obviously, was in “Hannibal Lecter,” —

FOSTER: Yes. “Silence of the Lambs.”

AMANPOUR: “Silence of the Lambs.” Sorry.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Got an Oscar. How different was this? And do you like being that kind of —

FOSTER: Well, I hadn’t — I never played another police officer sort of FBI investigator ever again, because I felt like “Silence of the Lambs” was

such a unicorn, you know, it was such an extraordinary movie, and all things came and were aligned. It had this special thing. And I really

haven’t felt that feeling until this one.

I was saying that last night, you know, it’s — this film was very easy to make because there’s so much love, and it’s so genuine, and we were all

crazy about each other, and somehow everything just kind of fell into place, and I felt that about “Silence of the Lambs” too.

AMANPOUR: Congratulations, because you’re nominated again —

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — in this case, best supporting actress, right?

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: For “Nyad.”

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Tell me the story. Everybody should know it.

FOSTER: Well, it’s the story of Diana Nyad, who is a swimmer, had been a marathon swimmer for all her whole life, and then came back at the age of

60, finally accomplishing her mission at 64 to swim from Cuba to Florida, probably.

AMANPOUR: And that’s more than 100 miles.

FOSTER: More than 100 miles, and no person else has ever done it without a shark tank. Yes.

AMANPOUR: It really is extraordinary. But, you know, going back to — one of the things that I thought was incredibly moving about it is not only her

determination and her success at that age, plus at any age, but Annette Bening and yourself, again, kind of aged up.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: I mean, you were not shy about the sun damage and the mask damage that she had.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: You know, the —

FOSTER: Coronet.

AMANPOUR: Oh, my gosh.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: I mean, that takes some courage also to —

FOSTER: Yes. As I say, I was best supporting abs because I just — I never had to get in the water. I basically just stood on the boat and sucked in

my stomach and my jogger bra, and that was pretty much all I had to do.

AMANPOUR: And shout at her.

FOSTER: And shouted at her.

AMANPOUR: But you know them, right? You know the actual real Bonnie —

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — the friend —

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — and Diana, the swimmer.

FOSTER: Yes. Diana and Bonnie are good friends. I love them. That really was the reason why I did it, that and working with Annette, and I see them

all the time, Bonnie and Diana, we play cards together and, you know, we watch tennis matches together, and I really love them.

AMANPOUR: Is it still really exciting to get an award nomination to do these films?

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Again, you’ve been doing it since you were, what, three?

FOSTER: Three. Yes.

AMANPOUR: Three.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: I mean, it boggles the mind, right?

REIS: I know. It’s so cute.

FOSTER: Yes, it’s exciting.

AMANPOUR: It’s so cute.

FOSTER: I mean, you know, I think “True Detective” is probably one of the best experiences I’ve ever had. So, you know, you think like, oh, well,

it’s never going to get any better. But then you get to — you know, you get to 61 years old “True Detective”, and I do feel like we’re this family

and that we did something that I’m just so proud of. And so, it’s surprising that it gets better and better.

AMANPOUR: And just talking about a family, there’s the whole taxi driver kind of cast group that’s all meeting at the Oscars, right? You’ve got —

FOSTER: Oh, yes. That’s right.

AMANPOUR: Well, I mean, I think Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese and “Killers of the Flower Moon.”

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Is it — will it be nice to see them all again or do you see them regularly?

FOSTER: It is — no, I don’t see them regularly. But, you know, every time I see them I’m like, wow, damn we’re old. It’s pretty funny.

AMANPOUR: And I read, by the time you did that film I think you would —

FOSTER: I was 12 years old.

AMANPOUR: You were 12 and you had more experience in film —

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — than either Martin Scorsese or Robert De Niro.

FOSTER: Yes, I had made more movies than either one of them at that point. But it is funny to see, I mean, of course, I have so much respect for

Scorsese and De Niro and all of the movies that they’ve made. But yes, my reference for them is very different. You know, Martin Scorsese had a

little funny mustache and he was really young and his mother was on set the whole time and she was always like —

AMANPOUR: On “Taxi Driver”?

FOSTER: Yes. And she was tucking in his shirt all the time and she was like patting his butt.

AMANPOUR: And not making sure you were OK.

FOSTER: Yes. So, I do have a different memory of that.

REIS: I think his butt. That’s what —

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And just because “Killers of the Flower Moon” is another amazingly timely film in terms of diversity and representation of

indigenous people. Did you like the film?

REIS: You know there’s mixed feelings about the film. They’re not anything negative. It’s one of those things where you kind of have to take things

and steps. I believe that — I am so proud that they worked with the Osage Nation to tell the story from an authentic, from that experience, from that

perspective instead of going in saying what they were going to do and then doing what they wanted to do.

It was so — I am so proud of Lily Gladstone and the entire indigenous cast and the entire Osage Nation. She did a wonderful job, so did the whole

cast. So, I think having an ally like Martin Scorsese who took his platform and told this story and worked with them, it’s an amazing opportunity just

to continue to go forward.

I did enjoy the performances in it. I think that it can go and keep going – –

AMANPOUR: Keep being developed.

REIS: Keep being developed in a better direction — I know good direction that they’re —

AMANPOUR: So —

FOSTER: Oh, I was just going to say, one of the things that we have going for us is that we have this thing called streaming. And you’re able to have

limited series and it gives you an opportunity to explore something in a really deep way, sometimes a deeper way than you could ever do on film.

And even though Scorsese was able to do a movie that lasted three and a half hours, quite long, right, to explore that whole story, there’s so much

more story there that wasn’t looked into that I would like to offer to him. Please do a limited series for six hours so that we can explore the whole

story —

AMANPOUR: You can collaborate.

FOSTER: — instead of —

AMANPOUR: Are you making us some news here? Some Hollywood news?

FOSTER: Should I send him a note?

AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. Or just —

FOSTER: Like, please do a limited series.

AMANPOUR: — tell us, you know, that you’ll direct it and he can produce it.

FOSTER: Oh, no, no, no. He should direct. Or he can act in it.

AMANPOUR: Or he can act in it.

FOSTER: You know.

AMANPOUR: Yes. That — I mean, that’s really interesting. You are going to keep acting?

REIS: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: And keep boxing?

REIS: I’m not retired from boxing yet, but I have —

AMANPOUR: I like that diplomatic answer.

FOSTER: Yes.

REIS: Yes, it’s very diplomatic.

AMANPOUR: Second time.

REIS: Yes. I mean, I’ve been boxing professionally for almost 16 years now and I have six world titles, two different weight classes, and I’ve seen it

evolve and it’s beautiful. And for — you know, if it wasn’t for boxing, I probably wouldn’t have been found, you know what I mean? So, I love boxing.

I’ll always be involved in it. Fighters never know when to quit, but I don’t want to fight long at all.

AMANPOUR: But maybe you know when to quit when you’ve got something, you know —

REIS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — as amazing as this to step into.

REIS: Absolutely. Yes, it’s really nice to have it, you know, both right now. And like I said, I haven’t fought since my last fight in 2021 and I’m

not banging down the gym door. But if the opportunity is there, but I’m going to continue acting. I love the storytelling and it’s — I guess I’m

OK at it.

FOSTER: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Yes. It’s remarkable.

REIS: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: I mean, both your performances are remarkable.

REIS: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And what next on the acting front for you?

FOSTER: No idea.

AMANPOUR: No. And a directing front?

FOSTER: No idea. No, I don’t know yet. It’s something I’m working on. So, hopefully, I’ll be able to get that off the ground.

AMANPOUR: I can offer you a platform together (ph).

FOSTER: There you go. But I did do two films back-to-back as an actor.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

FOSTER: So, I think I’d like to get a step behind the camera again.

AMANPOUR: OK. Yes. Jodie Foster, Kali Reis, thank you so much indeed.

REIS: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Two women packing a very powerful punch.

President Joe Biden met with top congressional leaders today, pressing them to pass his aid package for Ukraine and Israel. The failure so far to do so

is hurting Ukraine and undermining America on the global stage.

Politico national security reporter Alexander Ward takes a look at how Biden’s foreign policy team copes with all of these challenges in his new

book, “The Internationalists: The Fight to Preserve American Foreign Policy After Trump.” And he joins Walter Isaacson to talk about the effort to

repair America’s global reputation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. and Alex Ward, welcome to the show.

WARD: Thanks for having me.

ISAACSON: Your new book, “The Internationalist,” is sort of a group biography of all the people doing Biden’s foreign policy. But one of the

focal points is Jake Sullivan, one of the smartest people in the democratic foreign policy establishment in the past 15 years, and you start with him

the night that Hillary Clinton, his patron, loses to Donald Trump and he figures out what the problem may have been. Tell me about that.

WARD: Yes. I mean he — you know, as you said, he was a — he grew up sort of in the traditional democratic foreign policy establishment and he is

next to Hillary Clinton as she’s conceding to Trump. And what he’s starting to figure out is, you know, Trump may not necessarily have won because of

his foreign policy views, but he didn’t lose because of them either.

So, what was it about what Trump was saying that was appealing to so many millions of Americans? So, out of power, Jake and friends spend about four

years, and I call it the wilderness, trying to figure out what it is that was really appealing to so many people and what could be brought in to a

democratic foreign policy thinking framework to update it for the 21st administration, and they come up with a phrase you’ve a lot during the

Biden administration, which is a foreign policy for the middle-class.

Their basic point is any foreign policy decision that is taken by the United States needs to be easily explained to the everyday American as to

why it benefits them. And if that cannot be done, then that might not be a foreign policy direction worth pursuing.

ISAACSON: Well, you say it’s a foreign policy geared to the middle-class, and you use some examples like a little bit more trade restriction here or

there or help for an industrial policy. But what does that really mean? That doesn’t seem like that adds up to that much more when it comes to

changing foreign policy.

WARD: Not necessarily, but let’s talk about the way they frame it. So, let’s take Ukraine. They make two general arguments. One is the reason the

U.S. needs to defend Ukraine is because if Russia is not stopped there, it will go into a NATO country eventually, and that will require the U.S. to

come to that NATO nation’s defense, meaning American sons and daughters will go to war, meaning a lot more money will be spent on that fight,

meaning it will be an even costlier in terms of blood and treasure endeavor than it is now.

And then there’s the second aspect of it, which is we are sending our old military equipment to Ukraine at this point, for them to use against

Russia, which means we need to develop newer, more advanced weaponry to make our military stronger. And what that means is manufacturing jobs in

Ohio, in Mississippi, in Michigan, in Texas, in Kansas.

And so, there is a real middle-class jobs benefit to this defense. That’s why they don’t necessarily want to send troops. They don’t think that’s

worth it. They think that Ukraine is doing a well enough job with the older weaponry we have, but we can actually defend Ukraine and improve the

middle-class economic position with the policy they’re pursuing.

ISAACSON: But it seems that the Ukraine war has been — or our support for Ukraine has been justified more by a support for democracy, and that seems

a core to what Biden represents. Defending democracy wherever it seeks to flourish, as John Quincy Adams would say.

How does that fit in? It doesn’t — I mean, maybe you cast it as, OK, we make a few more weapons here in factories, but it doesn’t seem like it’s

the core of the new Biden-ism you talk about.

WARD: I think it is to an extent, but the way they frame it is as you talked about, in democracy, nothing gets Joe Biden more animated than being

seen as the protector of democracy worldwide. That is what he likes more than the general public at this point, unless we forget, in the 2020

election, one of the things he was arguing was Donald Trump is not a small D democrat. That democracy was on the line. It’s the same argument he’s

going to make in 2024.

And he’s tried to connect the fight for democracy worldwide with the fight for democracy at home. That you can’t necessarily say you can be a strong

democracy if you’re not helping it flourish elsewhere in the world. So, that is a big part of it.

But sort of the second order arguments are Trump-type arguments, these foreign policy-to-the-middle-class-type arguments, that would not have been

made if it were not for the rethinking that they did and Trump’s victory in 2016.

ISAACSON: The big news this week in terms of great geopolitics is that Hungary has agreed now to let Sweden into NATO. We got Finland into NATO,

now Sweden. That’s a huge shift that, over the past 50 years of foreign policy establishment, nobody would have dreamed of that expansion of NATO.

How big of a deal is that? And is that just serendipitous or is that something that the Biden administration was pushing for?

WARD: They were certainly pushing for it. Although, we have to say that this is, you know, Finland and Sweden’s own doing. They saw what Russia was

up to in Ukraine and they had been aggressive in the Arctic region and North European region for a long time. And so, they saw a moment to join

NATO and it worked. You know, the public — their publics were on their side. And of course, Joe Biden, a big NATO fan, liked, you know, the fact

that NATO would expand under his watch.

And so, this is why he says the line consistently, you know, that Putin was hoping for the Finlandization of NATO and he said he got the NATOization of

Finland. So, this is a big win for him and his strategy of trying to bring allies on board with everything the U.S. is doing. In their mind, you go a

bit more slowly, but you go further with allies and they would argue that, you know, say Russia had done this under Trump’s watch, one, you would not

have the staunch U.S. defensive Ukraine, most likely, but you want to have allies come along as part of this western wall to keep Russia at bay.

ISAACSON: Your book has a lot of great reporting nuggets. And one that struck me was General Mark Milley trying to convince Biden not to do the

abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan. Tell me about that discussion and about the fallout from the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the way it was handled.

WARD: Yes, Milley, along with a lot of other generals at the time, were adamant that the U.S. should keep some presence in Afghanistan. They were

arguing roughly between 2,500 and 3,500 troops because they were worried that the Taliban would eventually storm to power.

And Milley, who had, you know, commanded in Afghanistan, has lost, you know, troops in Afghanistan, was telling Biden, look, if we leave, you

know, women will be sent back to the Stone Age. The education for women will falter. The democratic progress that had been made in that country

will go away.

But Biden was looking for a strategy from the Pentagon and others as if, if I am to commit more troops to Afghanistan, if I am to continue this 20-year

war, what does victory look like and how do we get there? And what resources do this require? In over four months of discussion, no one could

convince President Biden that staying in the war was a good idea, that a victory could be achieved. And so, he made the decision to withdraw. And of

course, we saw the chaos that ensued.

I should note that in that decision to withdraw, baked in, was an intelligence assessment that said it would take 18 to 24 months for the

Taliban to take over the country. Of course, that was a rosy timeline, seeing as the Taliban would be fully in power in August. So, that’s only a

few months from the decision in April.

And of course, we saw 13 service members killed during the evacuation. We saw a humanitarian strike outside the airport in Kabul. We saw the horrific

scenes of people falling out of planes. And we saw Afghan allies of Americans left behind. But we also saw a pretty miraculous logistical feat

to get 120,000 or so people out as Kabul and Afghanistan was crumbling.

So, on one hand, you have to hold that, yes, Afghanistan is worse off because of the decision to withdraw. And you also have to hold on the other

side the logistical feat that it took to take — get as many people out during a tumultuous time and consider the strategic ramification. Would it

make sense for the U.S. to be in a war that no one — for which no one could articulate a vision of victory? Biden didn’t see it, that’s why we

were out.

ISAACSON: Well, you said it was a great logistical feat to get everybody out. And yet, if you see the disorganization, and even you write about it,

as if it’s a bit of a hubris to think it would have been easier, shouldn’t people with this much knowledge and this much intelligence have prepared

more for the withdrawal?

WARD: Well, this was one of my questions, is didn’t no one in these meetings think that 18 to 24 months was a bit too rosy, a bit too positive

an assessment? And what they said, was not really. And of course, over time, as the Taliban was sweeping through the country, you know, that

timeline shifted or, you know, declined and shrunk, but the decision was made.

And the military was thinking, look, speed is safety. We got to get out as quickly as possible. So, they were on a faster timeline than even the White

House suggested. And the people of the State Department that were thinking, hey, we need to reform this program to bring the Afghan allies of Americans

home. They didn’t have the time or worry with all to do it because they were worried about the diplomats in Kabul and calling allies to get people

out.

So, it was a miss. We cannot deny that. It was a miss that they really didn’t prepare for the Taliban. And there was already public reporting, as

I note in the book. There was already public reporting about what the Taliban was preparing to do and how quickly they could do it. Not that

there were questions about the Afghan military’s ability to withstand that onslaught.

So, there are genuine questions to ask of the Biden administration of whether or not they miscalculated in thinking that it would not take so

long, or two, that it would take a lot longer for the Taliban to do what they did. And I should know, you know, Biden, to this day, believes it was

still the right decision to leave. He asked no one to resign, no one offered to resign. And if you’ll ask them today, they still hold by those

views.

ISAACSON: You write about how strong Biden was in coming to the support of Ukraine. And yet, you also talk about an awkward relationship he had with

President Zelenskyy. Explain how they had to balance that.

WARD: We sort of already know that Biden and Zelenskyy did not get along and see eye to eye in the run up to the invasion. But the book reveals that

that relationship was really, really bad, screaming match bad. At certain points, Biden was basically telling Zelensky, why don’t you believe the

intelligence we’re showing you, that we’re showing our allies, the Russians are coming, you need to prepare.

And recall that there were military assessments, one of many, but the stark one was that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours. And throughout all these

months of Biden and Zelenskyy chatting, Zelenskyy never believed that this was going to happen. He believed that they would be — that Putin would be

too stupid to do that, that it made no sense, that the Ukrainians didn’t have intelligence to show that.

And you did have Biden saying, look, you’ve got to start protecting your capital, you’ve got to start protecting your country. In the end, Zelenskyy

was able — and his military and his team were able to defend Kyiv and were able to defend many parts of Ukraine, and nothing sharpens the mind like

seeing Russian tanks roll into your nation.

But for many months, the Biden administration today would still probably tell you behind closed doors that, sure, a lot of time was missed for

preparation for Ukraine. Although critics would note this of the Biden administration, there are those who would say the U.S. should have sent

weapons a lot sooner to Ukraine to prepare their military for a greater defense and perhaps sanction the Russians even before an attack.

And this is actually one of the reasons why Zelenskyy wasn’t so confident in the American assessment. Because he would tell Biden, if you really

believe this is happening, why aren’t you, the U.S. and European allies, flooding my military with weapons? If you really believe an invasion is to

come, I don’t see you guys panicking as much as you should be.

ISAACSON: And what’s the answer to that? Why weren’t we?

WARD: Because they — the feeling was they didn’t want to give Putin necessarily a reason to escalate. Recall that during that period, the U.S.

and the West were negotiating with the Russians, in genuinely good faith. You know, Putin was putting out these arguments that it was because of NATO

expansion and, you know, Ukraine tilting westward as the reasons for why he was considering doing this.

Now, there are some ahistorical issues there that are a lot to get into. But the U.S. said, fine, if that’s true, let’s talk it through. Let’s solve

this at the table and not the battlefield. And so, that was part of it, is that to then pump Ukraine full of weapons might have damaged that

diplomatic process. Obviously, it didn’t work. Putin still invaded and he did what he did.

But that was the general bet, is that if you help Ukraine too soon, if you arm them too soon, then Putin’s going to have no choice but to go in

sooner.

ISAACSON: As we speak, Israel, the United States, the Arab States are struggling in this notion of can we get a ceasefire in Gaza? And Israel

seems to be resisting what is generally with the consensus pushed by the Biden administration.

Has Biden’s history, his sort of history over the years in the Middle East helped him here or is he somewhat handicapped when it comes to dealing with

the situation in Gaza and trying to get a ceasefire?

WARD: I think it’s helped him, but he’s never really faced a situation like this. I mean, let’s consider Hamas’ brutal attack on October 7th led the —

affected the entire nation of Israel to back a military campaign to root them out of Gaza. And Netanyahu, who is not a popular figure, is being

supported in that campaign. And his far-right government wants to root Hamas out. And again, you’ve got the public behind him.

So as much as Biden, you know, knows Netanyahu, deals with him, the domestic context in Israel makes it a lot easier for Israel to rebuff

American swazure (ph). What the Biden administration would say here is, look, you know, we’re doing our best to support Israel’s right to self-

defense and push the Israelis to allow as much support for the Palestinians as possible in this case. They’re trying to have it both ways, but it’s

leading to a lot of messaging muddle.

And at this point, it’s very clear that they are struggling to get Israel to do exactly what they would like Israel to do. And so, they’re trying to

find new ways to get Netanyahu to follow an American playbook.

ISAACSON: The U.S. pretty much tried to focus on China and other things and to take a focus off of the Middle East at the beginning of the Biden

administration. Jake Sullivan gave a speech right before the Hamas terrorist attack, saying that things have been quiet there and we could put

it aside.

In retrospect, do you believe and do you think they believe it may have been a mistake not to focus more on the Israel-Palestinian situation?

WARD: I bet now they would say that. But even in a few months before they wouldn’t have. We should note that one of the big criticisms of the Biden

administration is that they significantly ignored the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and let that to fester during their time in office.

Now, I should note that in the months before the October 7th attack, as the U.S. was working with Israel and Saudi Arabia to have a normalization of

relations, a key component of that was to improve the Palestinian situation, give them a pathway to a state, allow more humanitarian aid in,

give them a sense of belonging. And that was pushed pretty strongly by the U.S. and they would not accept — they would not endorse a deal, a

normalization deal without it.

But for many, that was far little too late. That they should have been focusing on this issue from the beginning instead of letting that wound

fester for many years. And one of the criticisms of both, I should say, the Trump administration and the Biden administration, is that they did this as

a bank shot, right? The Trump administration didn’t think about the Palestinian issue when they were doing the Abraham Accords. That was wholly

ignored.

And while the Biden administration continued the Abraham Accord push, they left the Palestinian issue for far too late and it was a side bit. And so,

they were — their criticism is their goal of, if we do normalization with Arab states, it would make it easier to help Palestinians. Well, that may

have been true over time. It’s certainly not true after October 7th. And so, that bank shot strategy did not work.

ISAACSON: You’re just back from the Munich Security Conference a week ago. Tell me what the mood was like there, both on Ukraine and in U.S. foreign

policy in general.

WARD: Amazingly gloomy. I mean, I expected — I didn’t expect happiness, right? It’s a tough period. And of course, the news of Alexei Navalny’s

death occurred in the early days — in the first few hours of that conference. But I was expecting, and many were expecting, there’d be some

sort of plan to come out of there. And everyone, from U.S. officials, you know, congressional leaders, European officials, other officials, they all

left with kind of hands in the air going, no one knows what to do.

But there was a sense that basically the plan — only plan A and the only plan is to get something through the House. And so, the amount of European

officials who asked me what a discharge petition is, would astound you. That’s how close they’re paying attention.

One thing I even heard, and this is from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and also Senator Brian Schatz, both Democrats, they talked about a story

Zelenskyy told them, which is of a Ukrainian soldier in the trenches on the front lines taking artillery fire, but scrolling on his phone for any signs

that the package would pass the House. That’s where we are. That’s how gloomy the picture really is.

And no one could necessarily articulate a way forward. And so, if you’re a team Biden, you’re seeing one of your signature foreign policy

achievements, let’s say, the defense of Ukraine, crumble before your eyes.

AMANPOUR: Alex Ward, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.

WARD: Thanks so much for having me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And we heard much of the same in Ukraine.

And finally, tonight, a young woman from Staten Island, New York flies past barriers and makes a place for herself in aviation history. Kamora Freeland

is a 17-year-old pilot. And now, she’s one of the youngest black aviators in the United States. She just nailed her private license.

Passing what she calls the biggest test of her life. Here’s what Kamora told our affiliate, WABC, in New York.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMORA FREELAND, LICENSED PILOT: Definitely amazing, like I’m a part of the change that’s definitely needed. And yes, like I want other little black

girls to do the same.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And Kamora flies off to Spelman College next in the fall.

That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch

us online, on our website, and all-over social media.

Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.