Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. And welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. Here is what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice for Tyre.
CROWD: Justice for Tyre.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Justice for Tyre.
CROWD: Justice for Tyre.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Tyre Nichols is laid to rest against a backdrop of national unrest. I speak with Jelani Cobb, dean of Columbia University’s Journalism
School and one of America’s foremost writers on race and politics. Then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You’ll be the prosecutor in the most important trial in Argentine history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Justice and accountability abroad confronting a legacy of political violence in the Oscar nominated film, “Argentina, 1985” with
director Santiago Mitre and human rights lawyer Luis Moreno Ocampo. Also.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): For the last 30 years or three decades, there hasn’t been significant progress on this issue of family leave. And
so, it’s time, I think, has come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A bipartisan fight for paid family leave with Oklahoma Republicans, Stephanie Bice and Pennsylvania Democrat, Chrissy Houlahan.
Welcome to the program everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
There are gray skies in Memphis today as family and mourners come together to remember Tyre Nichols, the 29-year-old whose death at the hands of
police sparked renewed protest against this brutality all across the United States. National figures, including Vice President Kamala Harris, are
gathering together with George Floyd’s brother, Philonise, and Tamika Palmer, mother of Breonna Taylor, victims of the police. Reverend Al
Sharpton, who’s delivering the eulogy for Tyree Nichols, is calling for justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REVEREND AL SHARPTON, FOUNDER, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: We are going to continue to fight this fight around police brutality and killing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
SHARPTON: Until we get federal laws changed. What happened to Tyre is a disgrace to this country.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
SHARPTON: There is no other way to describe what has happened in this situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: As for attempts to change that federal law, here’s how “The Washington Post” describes the political situation. Police reform talks are
back in Congress, but with the hope for a deal. Jelani Cobb is dean of Columbia University’s Journalism School and he is a veteran observer of
steps and missteps towards that goal.
Welcome back to the program Jelani Cobb. I want to ask you because it is just so tragically, you know, repetitive. What strikes you about this
particular incident and do you think it could finally be a catalyst for real change?
JELANI COBB, DEAN, COLUMBIA JOURNALISM SCHOOL: I mean, hope spring’s eternal. But the fact is that you have to be very silver minded about this.
That there have been you know pushes for reform before, most notably the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act which went further than any of the
prior attempts that happened. But still it was stalled by the efforts of police unions to really stop that legislation from being passed.
And so, it’s possible but there’s also a very difficult road ahead. Now, if you ask the question of what is different, you know one of the central
things here is that this is the first time that people have seen a video, again, to the kind of video that we saw with George Floyd’s death and the
aftermath of the defeat of that legislation. And so, it is very clear, that there is a relationship between the video that we saw in May 2020 and the
video that we are now seeing again in January 2023.
AMANPOUR: Which is nearly three years on. In fact, the essentials haven’t changed. And what I want to ask you to explain for our international
viewers and maybe many across the United States as well, you know, there is always so much discussion about the systemic racism that persists in the
United States. And yet, the perpetrators of this death were five black police officers. So, people say, oh, well then clearly it’s not about
racism.
COBB: Yes, that’s not necessarily true. Now, you know, it’s difficult to make definitive categorizations of what someone’s mind status. But you
know, there’s always been in the long tradition of people making critiques of racism, there’s always been a recognition that racism is not only
pervade by white people or white supremacy. It’s not only pervaded by white people. That there are black people who were exposed to these kinds of
ideas and adopt the same sort of mindset as a result of them.
There are many possible dynamics at play here. You know, the culture of the department, the psychology of the individual officers, the group dynamics
of the five people who were abusing him, and a whole array of other things. But the fact that they are all black people involved does not, in and of
itself, mean that there is no possible beam of racism accelerating what we saw happen.
AMANPOUR: Let’s just take that one step further and talk about the institutional education and experience. So, you know I have seen your
writing and I’ve heard others in the aftermath of this killing, this death. Talk about how these police officers or any police officers, even black
police officers are, as you say, brought up in that system that has been created mostly by the white establishment, right? And that it goes all the
way back to bounty hunters, you know, finding escape slaves and the like.
Tell me a little bit about the history so that people can understand why it is so pernicious and not just. as you say, for white, white supremacists.
COBB: Yes, I mean — you know, like the system of slavery was, in many instances, administered by black overseers. You know, that was not an
uncommon dynamic in the United States. You know, just as in many instances, colonialism was administered by the people of the same background of who
are being colonized.
It’s not impossible for a system to both have representation of people who are being exploited and used those people to further the exploitation, you
know, particular communities. And so, you know, if we were just doing a quick survey of this, you know, Martin Luther King talked about the
pernicious effects of internalized racism. W. E. B. Du Bois, the great scholar, talked about it in the Brown versus Board of Education case which
outlawed segregation.
The psychologists pointed to the kind of self-hating dynamic that racism and white supremacy tended to instill on the minds of people who were
subjected to it. So, it’s a very long history here. And it’s impossible to understand what happened to Tyre Nichols without taking all of that into
account.
AMANPOUR: So now, let’s go forward and see how this can, maybe, be shifted. Some have, in the aftermath of his death, his killing, praised the
Memphis City Police and officials for taking swift action in the case. First of all, I wonder if you agree, but first let me just play what a
Memphis pastor, Earle Fisher said on this program earlier this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EARLE J. FISHER, MEMPHIS PASTOR: I mean, too much in my estimation, benevolence given to the city and the police department for this “Rapid
response”. This is the byproduct of aggressive and fierce organizing on the ground for the last several years. And these two entities, the mayor’s
office and the police department are the ones who implemented the SCORPION Unit in the first place. It’s almost like starting a fire and then getting
credit for trying to put it out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, SCORPION was a police unit that was assigned to high crime hotspots. It’s been disbanded in the aftermath. But — so, given what the
pastor said about the community and about how these units are created, how do you think this can be broken down?
COBB: So — I mean, I think there are a few things. One, the rapid response is in some way a reaction to the pressure that has been placed on
these institutions by community activists, I think is absolutely true. I also think that this is a kind of bureaucratic self-defense mode that
people recognize that the difficulty — and particularly the difficulty around when you see explosive situations like George Floyd’s death. The
dragging your feet about firing someone, the dragging their feet about bringing charges. That lag time is where tensions tend to escalate.
And so, in some ways they’ve just mastered the protocols of how to handle a situation in the aftermath of outrageous behavior by police. But the real
mark of progress is showing the ability to curtail that outrageous behavior by police in the first place. And so, it’s paradoxical that there is this
rapid response and we still see the problem — the underlying problem continuing.
AMANPOUR: So, trying to get the right balance, obviously, is a never- ending endeavor it seems in terms of police, you know, coping with actual crime and way over doing it in these cases.
COBB: Sure.
AMANPOUR: So, we’ve spoken before about your expiration investigation on this. Your frontline documentary on police, particularly the department in
New Jersey. Here is what James Stewart, he was the head of New York’s largest police union told you about the idea of reform.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES STEWART, JR., PRESIDENT, NJ FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LODGE #12: The police aren’t going out there just looking for violent encounters or
looking to, you know, physically impose their will on people. What does a cop want? We want to come to work, do our job, and go home.
COBB: Uh-huh.
STEWART: We want a positive interaction with the community. But, you know, everybody is piling on. Everybody is against you. There is protest or
rallies all of the time, anti-police this, anti-police that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, you know, portraying himself and themselves as the victims, I guess, is what I hear from that. So, what did you learn most from that
documentary on whether there was any willingness to look for meaningful and lasting reform?
COBB: Well, I mean, there was. And quite frankly with that documentary, we had two documentaries. One was a documentary that we made from the footage
and then was a documentary that we could’ve made from the things that people said to us off camera.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh.
COBB: So, lots of police would say, off camera that is, that they knew that the behavior that they were exhibiting exacerbated the problems with
the community, or lots of police, certainly not all of them but lots of them would say, they had seen their fellow officers go over the line. Do
things that created lasting animosity and hostility in the communities. And most significantly, they thought that that kind of animosity made it more
difficult for them to actually do their job, which was to solve and prevent crime.
And when we — one of the most important things that we took away from that documentary, we actually did two films in Newark that were three years
apart, I believe. The second time we went, they would need really significant strides by doing things — it wasn’t the get tough, militarized
or police give them high powered weapons. The most affecting thing that they did in Newark, was that they actually began partnering with
communities.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh.
COBB: They began using community-based violence prevention programs. They began saying that maybe the answer to everything is not, you know, police
use of force. And shockingly, crime numbers actually went down. And so, I think that there are things that are possible. It’s a question about
whether or not we have the will to enact those kinds of solutions on a bigger scale.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about all of this goes on to education, right? I mean, kids and people have to be educated if you’re going to have those
community interactions and if you’re going to have change. You’ve written, as well this week — or rather the last month about Governor Ron DeSantis
blocking the inclusion of a new cause for high school students in his state on African American studies.
He said it imposes a political agenda in the schools. And he’s what he said about “WOKE culture” last November when he won re-election as governor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): We fight the WOKE in the legislature, we fight the WOKE in the schools, we fight the WOKE in the corporations. We will
never ever surrender to the WOKE mob. Florida is where WOKE goes to die.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Jelani, I want to ask you this in context with also journalism, because you’re also a journalist, head of the journalism department school
there at Columbia, and you’ve got the duPont awards coming up, the Pulitzers of broadcast journalism and film.
So, in the context of what we just heard, and what is going on, how do you think mainstream journalists should be, you know, reacting in these cases.
To politicians who throw red meat around and to the actual reporting of these race cases?
COBB: You know — I mean, I think that one of the things that is really, you know, important, if they’re such a thing as a silver lining here, is
that I do think the coverage of these stories has become more sophisticated. That people are generally more critical of the way in which,
you know, situations like this are covered.
You know, one of the things that we emphasize certainly in teaching the journalist at Columbia is that the fact that, you know, you have access to
official statements and official documents from police departments, doesn’t mean that that makes the statement true. But you have to go around and
actually, you know, report what is missing.
If you notice the great variants between what we heard or saw —
AMANPOUR:
COBB: — in the police report in Memphis and what we actually saw on that video. And so, that’s what reporting is supposed to do. That is what good
reporting a supposed to do.
And in that regard, we are thrilled, as always, the host the duPont Awards. You know, it is the premiere award for journalism that’s done in the
broadcast and digital realms. And that’s what we do each year. We hold up the banner of excellence and get to recognize, you know, through our
efforts and through the efforts of their pears work that truly sets the bar for real journalism and where it should be headed.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh. Jelani Cobb, thank you so much indeed. Thanks a lot.
Now, in South America death and accountability are also on the docket. Protests have been paralyzing Peru for weeks now. They began when the
Congress removed President Pedro Castillo in December, accusing him of attempting a coup. Castillo supporters among Peru’s rural poor and
indigenous people took to the streets. A government crackdown has left dozens dead. Correspondent Guillermo Galdos has traveled to the mountain
city of Puno for the latest on these demonstrations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD (through translator): Peru. I love you. And that is why I defend you.
GUILLERMO GALDOS, CHANNEL 4 NEWS LATIN AMERICA CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): Deep in the Peruvian Andes, local people have taken control of the mountain
roads.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Hurrah for the people’s fight.
GALDOS (voiceover): They are supporters of the deposed president, Pedro Castillo, who was arrested in December after trying to dissolve Congress
and rule by decree.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Our hospitals have been abandoned. Our education has been abandoned. Everything has been abandoned.
GALDOS (voiceover): Most here are poor, indigenous farmers and miners who work Southern Peru’s resource rich land but see little in return. Castillo,
a left-wing former union leader promised to change all of that. And these protesters believe he was overthrown by a corrupt political elite in the
capital Lima who have never done anything to help them.
Violent protests have spread across Peru since Castillo’s removal. Clashes with police have led to more than 50 deaths and 100s injured. Castillo’s
successor, President Boluarte, has done little to quell the anger, refusing to resign and calling the protest terrorism. The protesters call her a
traitor.
But while the flashpoints dominate the headlines, Peru is in the state of paralysis. Cusco is the closest mayor town to Machu Picchu and so relies
heavily on tourism. That has completely shut down because tourists have been told it’s too dangerous to travel here.
We travelled the winding highways through the Andes, heading to the town of Juliaca. We were stopped at barricade after barricade. This journey usually
takes five hours, this time it was two days. Juliaca is the scene of the worst violence during the weeks of chaos. On the 9th of January, 17 people
were killed as police used life ammunition and protesters at the airports.
Among those killed was a medical student called Marco Samillan. I met his family who told me he was in clear medical uniform and treating an injured
protester but the police shot him anyway.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Why did they kill my brother like that? Because he was provincial, was his life worth less? The protests
are not going to end. One thing which makes us different from the people in the capital, we do not give up. They will silence us, more people will die,
but we will not be silenced.
Every night I cry for him, life will never be the same for me. He used to hug me when I was down and now, he is not here. I feel empty, but obliged
to keep on living, if it was up to me, I would give up on life.
GALDOS (voiceover): Today, the area around the airport in Juliaca looks like a war zone.
GALDOS (on camera): This was the place where 17 people died in clashes with the police. Hundreds of people tried to take over the airport wing.
They destroyed the fence and they were trying to stop police and military reinforcements arriving to the airport. Today, we spoke with the police and
they’ve told us they’ve been authorized to open fire.
GALDOS (on camera): I met with a brigade of young volunteer medics who Marco was working with the day that he was killed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It was a total massacre. It was a massacre in my opinion because there were people injured with rubber
bullets. Then there were people shot with bullets in the head, they had very bad injuries.
GALDOS (voiceover): These remote regions have not seen violence like this since the days of Shining Path. A Maoist insurgent group which killed
thousands of Peruvians in the ’80s and ’90s. The military were sent in to crush the far-left group then, and that response killed thousands of
civilians too.
Marco’s medical colleagues accompanied his family to the cemetery for his funeral. This was a young man who died trying to save the lives of others.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Brothers and family, I promise you here in front of his tomb, we will not forget him. We will demand
justice and we will make sure that we get it. We will never forget this.
GALDOS (voiceover): The protests began as support for one politician and his failed coup. But they are beyond that now. This is a cry of anger from
people who don’t feel valued by the leaders of their country. They believe their lives are seen as worthless by a government they think just doesn’t
care whether they live or die.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That was correspondent Guillermo Galdos reporting. The fragile state of Peru’s democracy echoes the unrest in Argentina back in the 1970s
and ’80s when a military Junta seized control of the government and launched a brutal campaign of atrocities, including torture, executions,
and notoriously enforced disappearance.
It’s an important new movie now that’s come out called “Argentina, 1985” which explores the painful history of that coup and the brave pursuit of
justice and accountability in the court. Take a look at this clip from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We need o prove that it was a systematic plan. That it was across the country, during the governments of
all the commanders. They disappeared people, everywhere. They are responsible. This is about what the country needs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: “Argentina, 1985” is a Golden Globe winner and now, an Oscar nominee. Joining me here are the director Santiago Mitre and Luis Moreno
Ocampo. They are — he is part of the original legal team, went on to become the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.
Welcome both of you to the program.
SANTIAGO MITRE, CO-WRITER AND DIRECTOR, “ARGENTINA, 1985”: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: It is a really dramatic film. It’s not a documentary. It’s a film about a real-life crisis and accountability. You were just a small boy
when this all happened. What made you want to do this? Why now?
MITRE: I don’t know. It’s — it is something that I cannot find the answer yet and I’ve been thinking about it for a long time. But I think — I mean,
the trial means a lot for the new democracy after the horror of dictatorship in Argentina. And I thought — I always thought it was one of
the events that we, as Argentinians, could feel proud about. That we did this trial, and that justice was bring to the victims and that they still –
– the trial is still going on.
So, for me — I mean, it was, I think, a lifeway to project and I worked pretty hard, even many years to — in the research because I want it to be
precise and honest in the way we portrayed it. So, I’m very happy that we finally could make the film and the film is getting its own life and being
able to be seen in many places all over the world.
AMANPOUR: Yes, it’s getting great reviews. And it’s a great time, as you say, for it to come out. And we’ll talk a little bit about some of the
parallels around the world right now.
But Luis Moreno Ocampo, we spoke first way back when you became the head of the ICC. And watching you as a young man, of course on film, you know, be
one of the brave, young lawyers to take this trial on. I just wonder, what you think now as you look back to that time. Because you were in your 20s
when the coup happened.
And you also came from a fairly distinguished, a very distinguished military family. How difficult was it for you back then as a young lawyer
to hold them to account, the military?
LUIS MORENO OCAMPO, FORMER CHIEF PROSECUTOR, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: I was 32 and for me it was a privilege to represent my people and this huge
case. And this movie show very well and that’s why I was so grateful for Santiago Mitre. Santiago did a great, great job presenting the — our fight
in court. How we collect the evidence to prove the case.
But also, he showed our efforts to explain to the people of the country, to communicate, to win the case not just before the judges, to win the case to
normal people including people like my mother, who was against me. I never could convince my mother that — during the investigations. My mother
changed her mind and the movie showed that when a woman say that she had her baby handcuffed in a seat of a police patrol.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
OCAMPO: Then my mother called me and say, I feel love, General Videla, but you are right. He has to go to jail.
AMANPOUR: OK.
OCAMPO: So, in 1985, we won both battles. Now, Santiago Mitre movie is crossing time and border, making the movie on the story now for the new
generation of Argentina but also in Brazil, in U.S., everywhere. So, that’s why for me the movie is (INAUDIBLE) because it’s expanding the meaning of
respecting life.
AMANPOUR: You mentioned General Videla, he was out of the military, Junta, who your mother said, you know, she would see in church. I’m going to get
back to you —
OCAMPO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — for some more of those details. But first, you know, back to you because, you know, obviously Luis is praising you for bringing this out
and for making younger generations, you know, be familiar with the fight that he and his young lawyers, you know, waged all the way back.
But Argentina has kind of an interesting modern history of putting these things out in film, right? It — it’s had some really important films about
these historical issues.
MITRE: Uh-huh.
AMANPOUR: What is it about — I mean, do you see your film in your country any different to anywhere else on these issues?
MITRE: I’m not sure. Probably it’s the way that we deal with demographic – – with the demographic transition and because on the huge emblema of the civil — that the civil rights movement express because you know, Madres of
Plaza de Mayo —
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
MITRE: — the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo and the whole of (ph) Plaza de Mayo. I think the Argentina fight for a democracy. And then we did this
magnific trial. And there is no — not many countries in the region that did that.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh.
MITRE: So, I think maybe that is why cinema, like, Junta — an expression of a country, it’s like watching, again, these events.
AMANPOUR: And we said that, at least one of the other ones won the Oscar, yours is up for the Oscar. And I think, you know, it really does speak to,
A, of course how important these issues are right now.
I just wonder before I get back to the details of what happened in Argentina, Luis Moreno Ocampo, as a former, the first head of the ICC, what
you make of the relevance for today? We’ve got, you know, one of your successors, Prosecutor Khan, from the ICC collecting all of the evidence of
war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine right now. And you prosecuted the president of Sudan. What do you make of your older self
continuing, you know, these prosecutions?
OCAMPO: Well, obviously, I became the chief prosecutor of International Criminal Court because my job in the Junta trial, that’s all of it for me.
But the main idea in the movie is make the difference between treating violent people as criminals or as enemies. And that’s what — in Argentina,
the army treat the Argentinian citizens as enemies.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh.
OCAMPO: And the Junta trial through the generals as suspects with rights. That’s why for me, the best line in the movie, is when the judges say,
we’ll offer the generals what they did not offer to their victims, a fair trial. That was a big thing. And the International Criminal Court is
exporting the idea at the global level. Instead of treat President Putin as an enemy, we should treat him as a criminal and prosecute him.
AMANPOUR: Can you just remind because you lived in and saw it as a young 20 — you know, as you said, 22-year-old. You know, we know from what we —
OCAMPO: 32. 32. 32. It was 32.
AMANPOUR: 32, I’m sorry. Sorry. Sorry, I don’t know why I want to make it 20. But —
OCAMPO: Thank you. Thank you for that.
AMANPOUR: — but remind us of truly unspeakable horrors. I mean, the disappeared, the throwing victims out of aircrafts, the camps. I mean,
thousands of people were killed and never heard from again.
OCAMPO: Well, for me, what happened was the army or as a system to control the Gabrielas (ph). And they abduct people with no control, they torture
them, and they kill them with no trial. That’s what they did. And the problem is, imagine one of the families, the aunt went to the police to
denounce the case that her sister was abducted. And when she went to the police (INAUDIBLE), she recognized the police officer taking her claim as
the officer who was a — her — his face covered kidnapped his sister. So, when the police or the army is attacking you, who will protect you? That is
a drama.
AMANPOUR: And it is a drama all throughout the entire film. And the scene, to which I want to play, a little clip, is it involves you, Luis, talking
to your boss who is the main prosecutor in this case, Strassera, about hiring young recruits. Because apparently, you couldn’t get establish
lawyers to take this on. Here’s a little clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We need to look elsewhere.
RICARDO DARIN, ACTOR, “ARGENTINA, 1985” (through translator): Where? Law school?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Not exactly, but in that direction. At the attorney general’s office, there are kids willing to work
with us.
DARIN (through translator): Kids?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Yes, in every court. We need young people with less experience.
DARIN (through translator): Less than you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): If the seniors won’t do it —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Then, we bring the juniors in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Can you tell us why it was so difficult, Luis, to get established lawyers lace to take this on? Why a group of youngsters
essentially had to do it?
OCAMPO: Well, people in the judiciary were appointed — many of them were appointed by the media (ph) itself or they were afraid to face the problem.
That — Santiago made the film very clear using families to present the problem. Even stressing that family was afraid that this will go nowhere
and he will be exposed for nothing.
So, was a — in those days, was uncertainty. But for me, yes, I had no doubt. I had to do it. And I found the young people who really want to do
it. So, we opened the door for young people. And it’s funny, the guardians say, oh, the film is great but it’s a fiction that this group of young kids
could do the investigation. And in fact, it’s a fiction. It’s reality. We did the investigation with a group of people from 20 to 27, that’s it. And
the movie showed that, the movie showed how we did it.
AMANPOUR: So, it is Santiago very true. I mean, you didn’t take substantial, literary, you know —
MITRE: Yes, I — of course, I added a little fiction but I tried the fiction express to what the research brought me. So — and I think,
probably, the best moments in the scripts were — the script were — it came from — because of the huge research that we did. And actually, the
thing that you are mentioning about the — these young lawyers, I didn’t know it when I started to do the — to do this research about all the
trial.
And for me, it was like the turning point for — to realize that this was a relevant film for these days.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh.
MITRE: Because that was where we were wanting to — I don’t know, to put our attention to the younger generations who can watch the film and can
think about the importance of democracy. And you already gave us already there on the way that Luis and Julio work on this — worked on this trial
with all this young lawyers or in some cases not even lawyers.
AMANPOUR: Yes, it was very inspiring, actually.
MITRE: I think it was very inspiring, and it’s great, and it’s very moving for me to see how the reaction of teenagers or people around the twenties
who did not know anything about the trial, and to watch this film and to get involved, get emotional.
And I think, it’s elect — in this moment where politics is so the — like, under fire, like, being discussed, and so many speeches are growing —
anti-democratic speeches are growing everywhere. To bring this image about this film and about this trial and about how the trial was done, it’s —
maybe it’s an inspiration for someone.
And it’s something that I feel, I really wanted to do.
AMANPOUR: And also, you know, Luis told a story but you, obviously, portrayed it so clearly in the film. The role of the women, the role of the
mothers.
MITRE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: The story of — that Luis said about his mother, I think, who had heard the story of a woman who was — had to give birth under torture –
–
MITRE: Uh-huh.
AMANPOUR: — and that’s what made her realize that something, you know, something was wrong. Did you — do you feel like the woman and the
demonstrations they did in the square and all of the rest of it, is not a barometer of Argentinian society then and now?
MITRE: Yes, I mean, the Madres of Plaza de Mayo — the Mother of Plaza de Mayo, they are like an emblema —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MITRE: — the biggest emblema of resistance that we have for — in the awfulness of the dictatorship, they kept on fighting with and they keep on
fighting. Nowadays, not long ago, two or three weeks ago they still find a kidnapped boy that was born in — during the kidnap of their parents. So,
they keep on doing it. I mean, I think we as Argentinians — I mean, we respect them and we love what they do a lot. And the — and, of course, the
trial, it was done because of the decision of the president.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MITRE: The support of the small part of the society.
AMANPOUR: Uh-huh.
MITRE: And because of the fight of this organizations, the — like Madres of Plaza de Mayo during the dictatorships. So, it’s a —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MITRE: — I really wanted to put this small homage to them in the film.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MITRE: So — I mean, that small scene when the — when they — when Julio and Luis told them, explained them that they need to take out their scarf
and then in the end they can put it back.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MITRE: Again — I mean, I think it’s a small metaphor —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MITRE: — on what this trial meant.
AMANPOUR: It was really impactful.
MITRE: Uh-huh.
AMANPOUR: Congratulations, especially on the Oscar nomination. Santiago Mitre and and Luis Moreno Ocampo, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
And next, we’re going to turn to the ongoing struggle for paid family leave in the United States. Roughly three out of four American workers do not
have access to this benefit. Something a new bipartisan group in Congress is trying to change. Representative Stephanie Bice and Chrissy Houlahan
join Michel Martin to discuss their renewed effort to push this across the line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Christiane. Representative Stephanie Bice, Representative Chrissy Houlahan, thank you both so much for
talking with us.
REP. STEPHANIE BICE (R-OK): Thank you for having us.
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): Nice to be here.
MARTIN: You’ve gotten a lot of attention for the op-ed that you wrote and the work that you are about to embark on, trying to get a paid family leave
policy in place, something that the U.S. does not have in which we are an outlier for most countries that are as well — have — as well-developed
economies and are as wealthy as we.
So, the first thing I was interested in is are you surprised by how much attention your work is getting? Representative Houlahan, maybe you want to
start.
HOULAHAN: Sure, I suppose I’m somewhat surprised because this has been something that has been you know a need for decades. And a lot of people on
both sides of the aisle have taken a shot at making solutions, at proposing solutions for this. But I do think that the reason that it’s getting
traction and attention right now is perhaps it’s time has come.
There is an opportunity — Representative Bice and I represent both Democrats and Republicans from both sides of the aisle who are really
committed to trying to make this thing work this time. And we’re putting together what we’re calling a working group rather than a caucus to make
sure we are actually working on this solution.
It’s been 30 years since the FMLA or the Family Medical Leave Act was passed into law. And really, for the last 30 years or three decades, there
hasn’t been significant progress on this issue of family leave. And so, its time, I think, has come.
MARTIN: Representative Bice, I think one of the reasons, though, that the work, even though you are just starting, has gotten so much attention is
that the stories we tend to hear about Congress are really about how toxic it is and how polarized it is and how people are afraid. At least people
who want Congress to do something are really afraid that it just isn’t possible, really, to make much progress on many things.
And so, Representative Bice, I just want to ask, since you’re the newest of the duo to join Congress, I was wondering, are you at all worried about
that yourself?
BICE: You know, I think the general public is begging for bipartisanship. You know, a lot of things that we see on social media or with our local
media tends to be somewhat partisan. And so, this is an opportunity for Chrissy and I to really dive into a very important issue that affects
millions of families across the country and try to find a bipartisan solution to it.
You know, 23 percent of the families in this country have access to paid family leave. But there are 63 percent of families with children that are
both working. And so, this sort of disconnect really, I think, opens our eyes to the idea that we have got to move forward in some sort of
bipartisan fashion. You know, Republicans often talk about being pro- family, and this is just another way for us to show that we truly are trying to work for the family of the American people.
MARTIN: Why is the U.S. such an outlier in this regard? I mean, you know, Americans pride themselves on innovation in all spheres. You know,
obviously I want to talk about what you want to do next but I am interested —
HOULAHAN: Sure.
MARTIN: — in why you think we are where we are now?
HOULAHAN: I think the devil is in the details, you know, I think that we can agree that this is something that we should address and, frankly, that
we should address long ago. My oldest child is 30 and so it isn’t lost on me that she has grown her whole life without really significant change in
this particular area. And it isn’t lost on most people, men and women, that we are well and significantly behind other countries, similar countries to
ours in terms of the way we reached out and embrace our families.
I do think though that we can all agree that this is something that we need to solve for. But the differences in how we solve for it is, I think,
always been a stumbling block. There have been lots and lots of proposals given by lots of lots of people. But I am really hopeful now that we are in
kind of an inflection point where honestly COVID, sort of, opened our eyes. Open the eyes of most people to understanding what was going on in people’s
homes, literally, as they were wrestling with the issues of taking care of their families. Not just our children but, frankly, themselves and their
older parents and that, sort of, responsibility.
And so, it’s that anything changed with COVID, we were always doing these things, but I think it became much more visible and much more obvious to
people. And now, I would also say with the Congress being as relatively speaking evenly divided, the Republicans in the majority, the Democrats in
the minority in the House and the opposite in the Senate, maybe now is the time, really, to you know, put this stuff together and to figure out where
the optimized solution will be on this.
MARTIN: Representative Bice, I’ll got you first on this. Do you see a fundamental philosophical difference between the parties on this in the way
that there has been on other issues. Like, for example, on something like, you know, economic support for people who are under resourced. You know,
Democrats tend to be more interested in giving direct aid, Republicans tend to be more interested and using the tax code and things like the Earned
Income Tax Credit.
On the matter of childcare, do you see some kind of fundamental, philosophical difference that you need to bridge?
BICE: You know, I think if you look at some of the prior proposals that have been put forward on the Republican side, they tend to be private
sector focused. And many of the proposals that have been put forward in the Democratic side tend to be government subsidy focused. And so, that’s
really where I think you see a delineation between the two parties is, you know, how they are approach to this.
At the end of the day, we all want the same thing. We want to find a solution to paid family leave. How we get there as — was mentioned
earlier, is in the details. But I do think there’s a possibility for us to come together and find a isolation that works for everyone.
MARTIN: But — I mean, I guess that’s what I’m asking you is — does everybody believe that paid family leave is something that the country
should aspire to? Some sort of generalized system because just look, you all have been in politics. There was a time when — I know, I certainly
have been around long enough when a lot of people would say women with young children should just not work. Does anybody still believe that?
BICE: Michel, I’ve been a member of the state legislature in Oklahoma for six years, and now a member of Congress, I have not one time had anyone
come to me and make those remarks. As a matter of fact, when I was in the legislature and now in Congress, I have had so many people reach out to me,
thanking me for looking into this issue. Taking on this particular policy area because it is so important.
So, no. I think I mentioned earlier, 63 percent of households with children have two parents working. It is a predominantly dual income country. And
so, we have to look at these policies that would allow for our parents to both continue to work outside the home.
MARTIN: Representative Houlahan, what about you?
HOULAHAN: I agree with Stephanie. I don’t see that, sort of, pushback really coming from certainly anybody in my community or the commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and certainly within the Congress and the body itself. I think the issue right now is FMLA, what we have historically, you know,
looked towards as being what we have put forward in the form of a solution is basically a guarantee to some people. Not all people are actually
eligible for it. That they will be able to have their jobs protected and they will be able to return to it. It is not any sort of form of paid
leave.
And so, this is what I think that our economy is demanding. I think our businesses are interested in it. I know that our workforce is interested in
it, both me and women.
We were able to successfully pushed forward legislation that allows all federal employees to be able to have paid leave. We’ve been able to push
forward successful legislation that now allows all uniformed personnel, both moms and dad, to be able to take paid leave.
And so, this is — its time. And I don’t think that there’s really any appreciable pushback that this is something that is not deserved or
something that’s not needed for us to be able to be competitive in this economy. Both the individual workers and also the, you know, the businesses
and economy itself needs to be competitive.
The other thing I’d like to go back to really quickly on, you know, the difference, you know, historic difference between Republicans and Democrats
on this, is yes, we tend to kind of see one side of being, sort of, with the business solutions and the other one is, sort of, being with the
government solutions. But I believe there is an in between. And I think we have seen that in the sense that governor — I’m sorry, that President
Trump put into his budget, a family leave component that had, you know, a kind of a creative way of paying for it. As did President Biden, and I’m
certainly hoping that he will do the same again.
And, you know, if everybody steps back, and Stephanie and I are committed to doing that. And it opens our eyes and it opens our ears and kind of
looks at all the solutions and tries to shed, you know, whose idea it was and why we are very responding negatively or positively to it, maybe
there’s a solution in the in between.
MARTIN: What is it that you are most — what do you considered to be the most dire consequence of the fact that the U.S. does not currently have
some kind of comprehensive system of paid family leave? In the United States, a lot of people seemed to be concerned about the fact that how did
they cover — how do they cover for their employees when they are not there?
Obviously, people who work at large corporations which have, you know, lots of employees can figure out how to backfill and things of that sort. But I
think what I tend to hear is that people who have smaller businesses are worried about how they can keep their businesses going. Is that — you
know, and still accommodate workers who need to take time off. Is that what you hear from your constituents? Like, what is to real pain point that you
hear? Representative Bice, you want to start?
BICE: Sure. You know, those are considerations that we’ll be looking at. Certainly, many corporations across the country are actually offering some
form of paid family leave. I have shared my story when I had my daughters, who are now 18 and 21. I worked for a company, not a large company, but
that had a short-term disability policy in place for me. Should I get pregnant and a half a child and they provided me support for eight weeks
and then subsequently about four months with my second daughter.
These are things that, you know, a majority of moms did not have 20 years ago. You know, the thing that I think it’s important to recognize though is
that only 25 percent of working families have some sort of access to paid family leave right now, either through their companies or others. And so,
it’s a small number. Many of those are large corporations.
And so, we do have to take into consideration how our smaller businesses will be impacted and work with them. Work with the Chambers of Commerce
across the country to figure out, you know, what makes sense that they’re not at a disadvantage within their small businesses.
MARTIN: Representative Houlahan, one of the things that I tend to hear is that the cost of childcare for the consumer is so high, that it’s just
prohibitive for people —
HOULAHAN: Yes.
MARTIN: — in certain jobs. I mean, don’t you hear this? I speak from teachers, for example, teachers, particularly younger teachers at the
beginning of their career say, you know what, it’s going to cost me as much to take care of my child in daycare or have a caregiver at home than I make
at work.
HOULAHAN: That was the exact situation that I was in when I was young lieutenant and pregnant and had my first child, is that I not only had six
weeks of leave and also had six months of a waiting list for based childcare but it would’ve taken my entire paycheck to pay for base
childcare. And so, the decisions that we make as individuals therefore affect the businesses and organizations that we work for.
I chose to separate from the military. I think other people make choices to separate, as you’re mentioning, from education or from teaching for that
reason. We cannot afford for our workforce to be doing exactly that. We need to make sure we are building a workforce that is resilient and that is
able to return to work if they indeed would like to work.
And I think that is one of the things, big or small companies need to acknowledge is that this is something that is the right thing to do. It
definitely has its costs, you know, lots of different kinds of costs. But I think that there is tons and tons of research and study that even the
smallest of small businesses will end up with retention that is much, much higher. Happiness, in terms of their employee satisfaction and their
willingness to stay in a company and not have to be retrained and retooled and, you know, have to rehire people.
And so, we do have to take a look really carefully, as Stephanie mentioned, with the chambers and with the small businesses to make sure we are being
sensible and sensitive to that. But the reality is, here in this office, we are 18-person small business.
And we have a 12-week paid leave policy here, for men and women, because we really believe that that’s the right thing to do and we believe that we
will end up benefiting from it as an organization because of it.
MARTIN: What about you, Representative Bice, what is the leave policy in your office?
BICE: Same, actually. And my deputy chief of staff has had now two children under that policy and is taking paternity leave to stay home with
both his son and daughter and support his family. And so, we, again, when we talk about Republicans being pro-family, this is just another way for us
to show that we are trying to support our moms and dads out there who are, you know, just getting started with their families.
MARTIN: People have tried so hard before, and it just seems so obvious that this is something that — well, it isn’t obvious if people don’t agree
with it. So, let me just, you know, respect the people who just don’t believe this is necessary for whatever reason. But the United States is
such an outlier in this —
BICE: Michel, let me just stop there —
MARTIN: Go ahead.
BICE: I think that that narrative is something that Chrissy and I both don’t really agree with.
MARTIN: Yes.
BICE: I mean, I don’t hear a lot of people out there saying we shouldn’t be doing this. As a matter of fact, since we had the launch of this
particular working group, I haven’t had one single person reach out to my office, through social media or otherwise, and suggests that this isn’t
something that we should be looking into.
MARTIN: No, no. That’s not my point. My point is that there are lots of things that people would like to see happen, that for whatever reason
don’t. And we are just — I — so my question is, is that do you think that the success of this venture will hinge on the timing or the fact that the
two of you are modeling the change you want to see in essence?
HOULAHAN: Well, there’s definitely is the — you know, you can’t be what you can’t see. And if we’re not here doing it, then we cannot certainly
solve this issue. I’m not Pollyanna-ish enough to believe that somehow we are special or unique and that we will crack this problem open and solve
for this problem where many, many people have not.
But I do believe that we are in a unique time and that this is a unique opportunity. And I do also believe that in my limited time here in
Congress, I’ve been here for four years, that fortune favors the bold. And that every once in a while, something miraculous happens in a place like
Washington and things break open.
You know, the reason why we have paid leave for federal employees, actually to Stephanie’s point, came as a combination of rare Earth elements, and we
can have a longer conversation about that. And the fact that we had an overabundance of tungsten in the stockpile combined with a very amenable
chair, Chairman Smith on the NDA — on the Armed Services Committee, combined with Ivanka Trump being very much an advocate for family leave.
And that collision of weirdness ended up and being able to allow for more than 2 million federal employees to have leave.
And so, I am just gung-ho enough to believe that there is that sort of opportunity. And if, for some reason, Stephanie and I and our group doesn’t
succeed in solving the entire problem, our mission is to try to make sure we allow for more people to have more leave — more paid leave. And if we
do that then we have, in many cases, succeeded.
MARTIN: So, let’s stream even bigger. Representative Bice, do you think that the example that the two of you might set on this particular problem
might extend to other very significant issues affecting the country like — oh, I don’t know, the debt ceiling? What do you think?
BICE: We can only hope, you know. I think that, as I mentioned earlier, Americans are looking for some bipartisanship right now. We’ve had a lot of
divisive issues come before us over these last several weeks, months, and years. And I think that showing that we can you know just agree without
being disagreeable, that we can work together to find some sort of common policy ground is important.
And, yes. There is going to be, you know, lines in the sand drawn, you know, on both sides. But at the end of the day, we have to work together to
figure out how do we get across this and find some way to move forward.
MARTIN: Representative Chrissy Houlahan, Representative Stephanie Bice, thank you both so much for talking with us. And I do hope that we will talk
again when you have a bill that we can talk about.
HOULAHAN: Thank you.
BICE: Thanks, Michel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And finally, on the day of Tyre Nichols funeral, we remember his life through his own lens. An avid and aspiring photographer, Tyre captured
the world around him. Showcasing his photos of sunsets and his home, the bustling blue city of Memphis on his website.
This note welcomes visitors. Photography helps me a look at the world and a more creative way. It expresses me in ways that I cannot write down for
people. I hope, to one day, let people see what I see and to hopefully admire my work based on the quality and the ideals of my work.
That is it for now. You can always catch us online, on our podcast and across social media. Thank you for watching, goodbye from London.