Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
President Trump takes his fight squarely to China, barring its telecom giant Huawei from doing business with America. I’ll speak with Jim
Sciutto, author of “The Shadow War,” a new book about the dangerous conflict between East and West.
Plus, Alabama’s governor signs the most restrictive abortion law in the country. I will speak to the doctor on the front lines and the feminist
warrior, Gloria Steinem.
And as President Trump unveils his immigration plan, our Hari Sreenivasan learns how America’s foreign aid impacts migration with Raj Kumar, author
of “The Business of Changing the World.”
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
America’s trade war with China just got hotter. President Trump has now signed an executive order barring U.S. companies from buying telecoms from
sources deemed a national security threat. Target number one, Huawei, the Chinese giant. It leads the world in 5G mobile technology, but the United
States and some other Western allies fear Beijing could be using the company to spy on them. It is something Huawei’s leadership vowed never to
allow. And they say, America’s move will do significant harm to American companies.
It comes, of course, just days after President Trump hiked tariffs on thousands of Chinese imports. It’s increasing the cost for American
consumers but many say it’s a necessary battle to rein in China’s worst trade practices. Jim Sciutto served under President Obama’s ambassador to
Beijing and he is the author of a new book “The Shadow War: Inside Russia’s and China’s Secret Operations to Defeat America.” He is also an anchor and
chief national security correspondent for CNN and joining me now from New York.
Jim, welcome to the program.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Thanks so much for having me. Appreciate it.
AMANPOUR: So, your book really is timely and we will get into the nitty- gritty of it. But I wonder when it comes to “The Shadow War,” is President Trump’s move against Huawei a good counterpunch at this moment?
SCIUTTO: Well, it may very well be necessary. It’s an example where the national security issue dovetails with the economic issue here, right.
Because the trade war principally economic here but Huawei is a genuine national security concern. It’s the view of U.S. intelligence agencies,
the concern at least China installed backdoors as it were in the technology, in a manufacturer that makes much of the technology that makes
the internet and telecommunications work.
So, the concern would be you install that equipment and China has the ability to listen to phone conversations, hoover up information that’s
going through the web, that’s a genuine concern. And that hits China then in two ways.
Now, the president, this president, has not hesitated to blur national security and economic issues here and connect them. Of course, the
question is, is the president imposing this now as a possible bargaining chip in the broader trade negotiations? I mean, he’s brought that up
before regarding the Huawei senior executive, who’s been extradited —
AMANPOUR: Right.
SCIUTTO: — to the U.S. as well. That’s something many of his own administration officials are not comfortable with, two blur those things,
but the two things are connected. And this president is confronting China in a way that previous presidents, Democrat and Republican, have not.
AMANPOUR: So, let’s get to the heart of this, a telecoms giant that, as you point out, is not privately-owned company, it is owned by the Chinese
State. And it is, it has all of the wherewithal to be a national security threat, if that’s how China chooses to use it, right? So, there’s no doubt
about the possibilities of its nefarious possibilities.
SCIUTTO: No question. And here’s one thing, there is no firewall between the public and private sector in China for companies like this. Whether
they’re called state-owned enterprises or not, they have deep connections to the government, deep ownership. And expectation from the Chinese
government is that they will operate by China’s rules and with China’s national interests and heart.
And, listen, U.S. intelligence agencies make these assessments based on intelligence. The fact they have concerns about backdoors with technology
manufactured by Huawei doesn’t come from nowhere. So, it is a genuine concern.
Now, of course, the question is, is the president going to hold the line on the national security side in the midst of this larger trade, trade
negotiation? Is he offering up the possibility? Well, maybe we can let this go if we make a deal here.
You remember a few months ago with ZTE, a Chinese mobile phone maker, the president, in fact, threw a life line to the company, as something of an
olive branch in trying prove — improve, rather, relations between the two countries. And when he did that, there were loads of folks in the
intelligence agencies who were not very happy with that. So, we would have to see how much the president holds the line both on trade and national
security here.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. Let me just quickly ask you, you referred to the fact Huawei’s chief financial officer has been detained and continues to be
detained in Canada. The United States wants her because they say she violated the sanctions policy by selling to Iran, components or other such
things to Iran. Connect the dots, if you like, on this whole China, Huawei, Iran national security issue.
SCIUTTO: So, this was a big push for the U.S. to get China on board with sanctions against Iran and pressure point, back during the Obama
administration to lead to the negotiating table, and lo and behold we have the nuclear agreement that you and I both covered for many months and years
leading up to it. So, the issues are connected, you had to get China on board.
Now, the allegation here is that China was seeking to skirt continuing U.S. sanctions which have continued under this administration because the Trump
administration pulled out of the deal. But it’s interesting again, the issue we were talking about just a couple moments ago, the president has
again brought up the possibility that this legal proceeding here proceeding here, there are U.S. laws which the U.S. says this Chinese executive has
violated, brought up the possibility to saying, “Well, listen. Again, if we could negotiate and make progress on these other economic issues,
perhaps I could let that go.”
And I will tell you, I speak to people in the U.S. Justice Department who pursued this case under U.S. law very aggressively, certainly not
comfortable with that possibility there. But again, they are connected.
AMANPOUR: So, let’s quickly talk about the Iran ratcheting up, the U.S. against Iran. And people are basically saying they have never seen such a
rapid rise in pressure and tensions from the United States. You know, for the last week or so, it’s gone from zero to a thousand, if you would like
to put it that way.
I wonder what you think is the strategy. But first and foremost, let me play you a soundbite from the Iranian foreign minister who is in Japan
meeting with the prime minister there today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: We believe that the escalation of tension in the region is not in the interest of anybody but
Iran. We will not be the party beginning escalation but we will certainly defend ourselves in response to any threat against our national security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, what do the people you’re talking to in the national security establishment in the U.S., in Washington, saying about America’s
strategy?
SCIUTTO: It’s not clear that there is a strategy, frankly. And they are certainly not articulating it. And this is another case where we have
within the administration, you have very public disagreements as to what both the strategy and even tactics are. Because oddly enough, it is
President Trump who is now emerged — I don’t know if want to say peacemaker, but the one seeking reconciliation here, he is speaking to the
Swiss president today, has asked the Swiss to deliver a phone number in effect to the Iranians, sort of a call me maybe, say, “Look, perhaps we
could talk on the phone and settle this.”
While another faction of the administration led by John Bolton, the national security adviser, certainly you and I have been no stranger to him
and his aspirations for Iran through the years, has — it is seen as been the one pushing more a more aggressive stance here, even to the point of
presenting the president with hard military options for Iran.
You’ve seen the reports of up to 120,000 U.S. troops sent to the region. A remarkable thing to be presented for a U.S. president who has shown
interest only in reducing the troop presence there. But it seems, and some of this is coming out more publicly, that President Trump is not
comfortable with all of this talk of war, all of these discussions, and is looking for an off-ramp here. That said, while in the administration, you
have very hard steps being taken or presented that might lead down that path, including what we’ve already seen in the last couple of weeks, which
is an additional aircraft carrier group going to the Persian Gulf, et cetera.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SCIUTTO: It’s not clear what the strategy is because you have two factions in the administration, one the president, one his national security
adviser, offering, you know, policy options apparently in contradiction of each other.
AMANPOUR: Now, I wonder briefly whether you feel that there are similarities or you feel, you know, the atmosphere is a little bit similar
to the lead up to the Iraq war?
SCIUTTO: Absolutely. And you know, I was speaking to Senator Bob Menendez today about this very issue. Because what you have is evidence
of the politicizing of intelligence here. We are well versed on what happened to the lead up to the Iraq war and imperfect intelligence treated
as very certain intelligence that helped lead the U.S. towards that invasion here. And this intelligence coming down to this intelligence
about missiles, photographs of missiles, small ones but missiles nonetheless, spotted on Iranian small boats in the Persian Gulf being
installed on those boats.
And you have two reads of that intelligence in the same — the Trump administration. One side saying this is an offensive step that these
missiles are being installed to attack U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf. You have another view of it saying that, “Well, this is a defensive
response to the increased deployment of U.S. forces there.”
Of course, how you see that might very well affect what decision you say is the next decision for the U.S., are you more aggressive or less aggressive?
And based on the public statements about it, it’s possible, at least, that that intelligence is being colored to suit the competing agendas of two
factions at effect within the administration. It’s a real concern.
AMANPOUR: So, let’s get back to the meat and potatoes of your book, “The Shadow War” and Russia and China’s essential efforts to defeat the United
States of America. Now, you write that all these countries know that they cannot win a shooting war with the United States. However, they may see
other paths to victory. And you pointed out the, for want of a better word, asymmetrical warfare that China and Russia have been conducting for
years now.
Let’s start with China. What has China been doing to make — to do what you have said in your title?
SCIUTTO: It’s a whole host of fronts, some of which Americans and folks around the world are aware of and others that they are just not. One being
the ongoing theft of trade and government secrets. I have a whole chapter in there focusing on one case where China, over the course of four years,
stole the plans for the F-35, the F-22 and C-17. And today, they are fly planes that look similar to those with similar capabilities. They do this
with great success. They have done it for more than two decades now.
That’s the way of leveling the playing field at the U.S. in the event of war, which neither sides wants. But in the event of war, being able to
complete. China, like Russia, has deployed weapons in space. Kamikaze satellites able to take out, destroy, disable U.S. satellites in orbit.
China has even tested and deployed what the U.S. calls a kidnapper satellite. It has a grappling arm that could grab other satellites out of
orbit to disable the U.S., disable the U.S. military, the U.S. civilian world.
China, as well, has created entirely new territory in the South China Sea. It’s a land grab in the midst of, as you well know, territory claimed by
half a dozen other countries, including U.S. allies there. And their broader strategy is, the Chinese call this winning without fighting, is to
make this progress below the threshold of a shooting war. And they’re very accurate in their calculations as to how far they can go without provoking
a definitive U.S. response.
Yes, the U.S. has protested the building of those islands in the South China Sea, China built them. They have them. They’re not going away.
Clearly, the penalties imposed have not worked. And with a whole host of other things. China’s been stealing technology for 20 years. Loads of
U.S. presidents have complained but China keeps on doing it. It’s a remarkably effective strategy.
AMANPOUR: Right. And we just saw some video of you flying over. You were exclusively able to fly over and see those manmade islands not so long ago.
But I’m fascinated by what you call and the Americans call the kidnapper and kamikaze satellites. Tell us why that is so important. In other words
— and President Trump has made space a new frontier. Obviously, that’s necessary, right? Because so much of American and western daily life
depends on the technologies that are enabled by satellites.
SCIUTTO: Absolutely. You know, and people say the president’s kooky to talk about a space force or whatever you call it there already is a U.S.
space force, it’s the U.S. Air Force Space Command. And they’re working — they’re struggling to defend these assets.
The issue is, is that the U.S. is more advanced than any country in the world when it comes to space technology, and that’s a vulnerability. Our
U.S. forces, there’s a reason our smart bombs are smarter. There’s a reason why U.S. drone technology is used with great effect around the
world. There’s a reason why, when I have been embedded with U.S. troops, you will be sitting there, they’ll have a laptop with them, and they will
see a red dot identifying an attacker on the other side of a wall. That takes advantage of U.S. satellite technology.
Because the U.S. has that advantage, both China and Russia know that’s something that they can disable in the event of a war, even short of
a war, to disadvantage U.S. forces. We’re more dependent, we’re more advanced but therefore, more dependent on it and therefore, more
vulnerable.
And the same thing goes for civilian technology. There’s a whole host of things you and I use every day depending upon satellites. I mean, we know
GPS so we don’t get lost, but financial transactions in the New York stock exchange here in New York, they use time stamps that come from GPS
satellites. China and Russia know you disable those satellites, U.S. financial markets can come to a stop. So, the advancement is a
vulnerability and it’s one that China and Russia have become very wise about exploiting.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, obviously many previous presidents believed that China was just waiting to become part of the international world
order, led by America, happy to be part of that order. But in fact, you point out that they are quietly and quickly trying to surpass the United
States. Russia —
SCIUTTO: It is. It’s a —
AMANPOUR: Yes?
SCIUTTO: Go ahead.
AMANPOUR: I just wanted —
SCIUTTO: I was going to say, it’s a persistent delusion.
AMANPOUR: Right. Of the U.S., of the West you mean? Yes.
SCIUTTO: Yes, exactly.
AMANPOUR: So, s Russia different? It has interfered in democracies in the United States and elsewhere, it has perfected the art of the little green
man. In other words, asymmetrical warfare, you know, the whole idea of sending in troops with nonrecognizable insignia or anything like that and
then denying the troops are theirs, we saw in Ukraine and et cetera.
Who is doing a better job of incursions against the United States and U.S. dominance?
SCIUTTO: They’re both doing pretty darn well. They both deployed the space weapons, created vulnerabilities there. They both acquired territory
while breaking international law. Russia and Ukraine, China in the South China sea with other aspirations as well. They have both interfered in
elections. The Chinese feel a lot better on stealing state secrets but Russia is pretty good at spying as well.
When I can intelligence officials, and I’m grateful in this book because I speak to a whole host of current and former intelligence, military
officials, commanders, et cetera and they’re very honest even in their self-criticism here.
When I ask them to say, “OK. Who is the bigger threat, Russia or China?” Generally, they will say in the short-term Russia because it’s openly more
aggressive in a number of ways. But medium and long-term it’s China because China is enormously more powerful. It’s got an economy on par with
the United States, it’s got a larger population, it has had enormous advancement in a short period of time. Russia, a declining power, with its
own dangers to present. But China, a rising power with enormous capability, and I should note, enormous ambition here.
Because — and this is explicit, in their speeches, in their national security documents, their goal is to surpass the United States and take
what they view as their rightful position as the world’s superpower.
AMANPOUR: I want a yes or no answer, does the United States get that?
SCIUTTO: Belatedly, yes. But hasn’t quite come on, struck upon the strategy to respond and win.
AMANPOUR: Got it. Jim Sciutto, it’s fascinating, “The Shadow War.” Thank you so much indeed.
SCIUTTO: Thank you. Appreciate it.
AMANPOUR: And now we’re turning to the U.S. State of Alabama, which has the most restrictive law in America, that was signed in this week.
Governor Kay Ivey has signed the so-called Human Life Protection Act, which will bar abortions even in the cases of rape and incest. It also means
that any doctor who performs an abortion could face life in prison.
Here’s part of the passionate debate in Alabama’s Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. VIVIAN DAVIS FIGURES (D-AL): Do you know what it’s like to be raped?
SEN. CLYDE CHAMBLISS (R-AL): No, ma’am, I don’t.
VIVIAN: Do you know what it’s like to have a relative commit incest on you?
CHAMBLISS: On me? No, ma’am. My consistency is that human life has rights, and when someone takes those rights, that’s what we as government
have to step in.
SEN. LINDA COLEMAN-MADISON (D-AL): Now, you’re in my womb. I want you out. You don’t control this. You don’t own this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: This law has created huge waves overseas as well. And Governor Ivey noted that the law may be unenforceable given the 1973 Roe versus Wade
Supreme Court decision to allow all women the right to choose. But the backers of this law and similar ones in other states want the courts to
take up these cases and partially or completely overturn Roe versus Wade.
A few people know this issue like Gloria Steinem. She’s been on the leading edge of feminism ever since the 1960s. She’s devoted her life to
women’s rights and joining me from New York.
Gloria, welcome back to the program.
GLORIA STEINEM, WOMEN’S RIGHT ACTIVIST: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: You know, you have been fighting this fight and all fights for women’s rights for so many years. Did you see this coming? In
other words, this gradual state-by-state infringement on Roe versus Wade?
STEINEM: Yes, because we now have majority support for the simple idea that women have control over our own bodies, and a combination of profound
sexism, which doesn’t recognize that a woman’s life is a human life, and racism, and concern over the fact that White women are having fewer births
than women of color, in general, has brought this forward. It is very much an exercise of the White nationalists here.
AMANPOUR: Gloria, I’m actually fascinated to hear you put it in that political context because what most of those people who will say who defend
those laws is that we believe in the sanctity of life no matter how, what or where it starts, even in cases of rape or incest. But you’re saying
it’s a much more patriarchal, and you have just said racist, demographic, political power tool.
STEINEM: Yes. I mean, historically two things have happened, that is abortion has been restricted and for women of color, sterilization has been
encouraged. I mean, I remember very well going to interview Fannie Lou Hamer, a great civil rights worker, who had been sterilized in a southern
hospital where she went for other procedures without her knowledge.
So, this is patriarchal in the sense that the only thing that men cannot control is birth, because they don’t have wombs. So, it is fundamentally
patriarchal and profoundly racist.
AMANPOUR: I just do want to put up a picture because I think it sort of hammered home what you’re saying about the patriarchy. The makeup of the
Senate in Alabama, as you can see, is practically all men. And it is — you know, it’s something that many, many, many people have commented on in
the wake of this new law.
Again, you heard that the governor herself said that she doubted this would be enforceable. And I would like to play you a soundbite that surprised me
from Pat Robertson, famous Christian, the head of the Christian Broadcasting Network, who also believes that this may be a step too far.
Let’s just play the soundbite.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT ROBERTSON, CHAIRMAN, CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK: I think Alabama has gone too far. They’ve passed a law that would give a 99-year prison
sentence to people who commit abortion, there’s no exception for rape or incest. It’s an extreme law and they want to challenge Roe versus Wade.
But my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one will lose.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, he’s also being political. You, I assume, think it will lose in the Supreme Court as well. But talk us through it. What do you
think the political and legal steps will be after this? And there are others. You know, I mean, obviously, you know, in other states, they have
also recently enacted much tougher, anti-abortion laws.
STEINEM: Yes. Well, obviously, there has been a challenge to Roe v. Wade brewing for a very long time and I think what he is saying is that this is
not the right challenge from his point you view, which is to do away with Roe v. Wade, and I think he’s right because this is so profoundly,
profoundly, extremist.
But the point is that prohibiting abortions has never ever reduced the number of abortions. It has only increased the number of injuries and
deaths among women. Before Roe v. Wade, when abortion here was illegal, one in three American women had had an abortion at some time in her life.
After Roe v. Wade, it was one in four. Why was it lessened? Not because of Roe v. Wade but because of the increase of availability of birth
control.
AMANPOUR: That is really interesting because people who always say those who are against Roe v. Wade say it’s an invitation to step up abortions,
but you’re saying the numbers tell a different story.
STEINEM: Yes. No, I mean, there’s no way that — look, the question is, do — should women’s bodies be nationalized by the government? Who should
be in control of women’s bodies? It seems to me that the very basis of democracy is women and men control our own physical selves and our own
voices.
The reason that this is a challenge from women is because the impulse of every single authoritarian government in the world that I have ever
studied, the first impulse is to control reproduction because that is the single thing, women’s bodies, that they can’t imitate or
reproduce or, you know, take on to themselves as a power. And this has always been true.
I mean, the most famous example is that Hitler himself did as his — among his very first acts, he padlocked the family planning clinics and declared
abortion against the state and sentenced — the only difference was he sentenced the doctors to death and put women in prison because he realized
that he could then force women to have children while they were in prison.
AMANPOUR: It’s all very chilling. Can I just ask you, I mean, it’s really sort of a personal question, an observation, when you see the elderly
female governor of Alabama signing this law and not using her veto power, and yet, not thinking that this is enforceable, why do you think is going
through her personal and political head?
STEINEM: You know, I can’t know but I assume that she thinks the Supreme Court will strike it down, and that her own political future in Alabama
depends on doing what she did. I think it will haunt her the rest of her life, and I’m very, very sad that she did it.
AMANPOUR: And from what you know about when these kinds of restrictions go into effect, what happens across state borders? What happens to women who
can no longer, in cases of rape or incest or whatever, be able to terminate?
STEINEM: Well, it’s happened in — I mean, many of the clinics in Texas, for instance, have been closed down and that means that women have to drive
hundreds of miles, which they can ill afford, or stay overnight or, you know, to find services. So, it has been getting progressively more
difficult in conservative right-wing states because women have had to travel and that will simply increase.
But the point is, the big point is, that our bodies belong to us. Women and men, you cannot have a democracy in which the state nationalizes
women’s bodies and people who are against abortion should think twice about that because they could also enforce sterilization, of which also has
happened.
The bottom line is that in a democracy, men and women, our bodies belong to ourselves and the government has no right to make those decisions.
AMANPOUR: And you fought for that right for all of your career. How do you feel right now today?
STEINEM: Well, I mean, I feel angry and amazed but I mean, it’s — you know, we have a situation here in which the — all of the social justice
movements in this country, the gay and lesbian movement, the environmental movement, the women’s movement, have won the majority opinion, look at the
public opinion polls.
And so, the people who believe in the old racial gender class hierarchies are feeling threatened. In very short order, this country will no longer
be a majority White country, for instance. In, I don’t know, 20 years, I think, that the first generation that is the majority babies of color have
already been born. That seems to me to be great, why not? I mean, you know, we’ll have better relations with other countries. We’ll have more
interesting culture, better food. But they, because they feel their authority depends on race and class and gender, are in backlash. That’s
how we got Trump.
Trump lost by 6 million votes. He is not the president of the United States by any measure of popular vote. Only because of the electoral
college, which itself was a function of the slave states. That’s how we got it in the first place. We have to get rid of the electoral college.
So, we have a profound backlash here from about a third to 40 percent of the country that feels robbed of the old hierarchy in which they were
secure and they are fighting, but they are not the majority.
AMANPOUR: It’s really, really interesting and important. And we’re so happy to have your voice on today.
Gloria Steinem, thank you for being with us.
STEINEM: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: As we said, Alabama doctors could face life in prison for performing an abortion. Dr. David Eisenberg knows what it’s like to work
under that kind of pressure. He operates the last clinic in Missouri that still performs abortions. And just today, that state’s Senate passed its
own restrictive abortion bill. Eisenberg is also a medical director of planned parenthood in his region. And he’s joining me now from St. Louis.
Welcome to the program.
DAVID EISENBERG: Nice to see you.
AMANPOUR: Nice to see you too.
EISENBERG: Thank you very much. I’m happy to be here on so many levels, including the fact that I actually went to medical school at the University
of Alabama School of Medicine.
I know and love Alabama well. I feel like there are so many things that we can do better to improve the health and wellbeing of people in this
country, and limiting access to basic reproductive health care is just not the way to do it.
AMANPOUR: So tell me then what you would say to the people in Alabama, to those who put this vote over the top? There was a majority in the Senate,
to the governor, to the health practitioners there.
EISENBERG: Well, first and foremost, I would say to the people of Alabama and same to the people of Missouri, where our state legislature just passed
a bill at 3:45 this morning local time, basically outlawing abortion after eight weeks of gestation, is that number one, the bill is not in effect.
The law has not gone into effect and that clinics all over the state of Alabama that are providing abortion services will continue to do so until
that law is enforceable. And hopefully, it never will be.
And here in Missouri is the last free-standing clinic. Our Planned Parenthood is open and we will be taking care of patients who need us. We
will be there to care for them no matter what and we will do what we can to fight these laws in the legal ways that we can in terms of challenges in
the courts but we know the courts have been stacked against us.
And I’m a health care provider. I’m a public health expert. I am a scientist. I’m an educator at medical schools.
And I will tell you that it’s not about the law for me when it comes to the patient that’s in front of me. My patient doesn’t care what the law says.
What she knows is she doesn’t want to be pregnant and she’s looking for care.
More than one in four women will need that in this country in their lifetime. And I’m here to take care of them.
AMANPOUR: And as Gloria Steinem just said, that number one in four, is less than it was before Roe V. Wade. So the numbers are going down.
What is it like for you to get up every morning as the last practitioner and actually, you know, help these women who need it, particularly women
who have been violently made pregnant through rape, incest and the other terrible things that happen to so many women today?
EISENBERG: You know, the women I take care of, whether they’re pregnant and want to be pregnant and are told they have a tragically affected fetus
that has something wrong or they’ve developed a medical problem that they cannot continue the pregnancy without potentially losing their own life or
the women who find themselves pregnant when they don’t want to be are all crises of their — in their world.
And I say this to the medical students, the residents, and the nurses that I teach and the doctors and other folks that I work with, I do a lot of
crisis management. We take care of people when they need us, under the circumstances in which they need us. And sometimes I take care of women
who are asking whether they can continue a pregnancy and asking my input on that.
And the truth is, I started in medical school 20 years ago. I’m a board- certified obstetrician-gynecologist. I’m an expert in reproductive and sexual health care. And I’m an abortion provider.
But I would never tell a woman what to do with her body or what to do with her pregnancy. The fact is that decision belongs to the person who is
pregnant. And people in this country want to make it about some point in pregnancy or some pregnancies where abortion is OK versus they’re not OK.
Whatever the reason is that that person doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy, that’s valid for me. And the fact of the matter is, it’s about
privacy, it’s about agency, and self-determination. That is what matters here.
AMANPOUR: The head of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition said the following about the fact that there are no exemptions. He said, “Regardless of how
the conception takes place, i.e. rape or incest, the product is a child. And so we are saying that an unborn child is a person entitled to the
protection of the law.” What is your response to that?
EISENBERG: You know, it’s really hard to have this conversation with people who don’t believe in science, who don’t believe in the evidence-
based practice of medicine because they approach the world with a religious faith that despite all evidence to the contrary, they continue to believe
their world view.
It doesn’t matter what that state legislator thinks. What matters is what the person who is pregnant thinks about their pregnancy.
And my job, when I take care of my patients, is to provide them education about the risks and the benefits and the alternatives to the
treatment they’re asking for, whether it’s management of really difficult menstrual periods or heavy flow or painful periods or whether it’s the
management of a pregnancy that they weren’t wanting right now or the management of a pregnancy that’s gone horribly wrong.
The fact of the matter is my patient deserves the opportunity to get the care she needs under the circumstances that are right for her and her
family, without the interference of a legislator. I mean, in this country, the most regulated thing in this country is a woman’s uterus. It’s really
remarkable to me.
Twenty years later after having started at the medical school in Alabama and having been a patient escort at the Planned Parenthood of Alabama in
Birmingham, I never thought we would be where we are now, where it’s really, really challenging to take care of the women I take care of and
their families, not because the health care is difficult.
In truth, abortion care is some of the safest medicine that’s practiced. It’s safer than having nearly any other procedure in medicine. But it’s
not about the medicine.
This is about misogyny. This is about politics. This is about the status of people who can become pregnant, mostly women in this country. And as
Ms. Steinem made the point, this is not a new concept. This has been a long-standing issue.
What’s come to a head is the understanding that women in this country no longer can expect the ability to choose when and if to end a pregnancy if
they find themselves pregnant as a result of the state laws and the makeup of the Supreme Court.
AMANPOUR: So I want to play for you a little bit of a comment from a woman from Alabama who did find herself pregnant and she had been raped. This is
what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM BLAKELY, RAPE VICTIM: I suffered from PTSD afterwards. I suffered major depressive disorder. Lots of traumatic things happened.
And I honestly do not believe that I would be able to go through with it. My rapist I know would try to use that child, that child to control me and
to get to me because that’s what he tried to do after I had my abortion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, as you point out, the women have their own very, very particular stories. And you just mentioned, I wonder what somebody like
her, Sam, what can she expect now from not only her own state but the Supreme Court? And you’ve just talked about the makeup of the Supreme
Court.
EISENBERG: Well, first and foremost, I think it’s really telling that in this country, many states, the sentence that her attacker would suffer if
found guilty for the sexual assault that they perpetrated on her would be shorter than the sentence that is embedded within this new law in Alabama.
It’s really remarkable to me. It has so much comment on the status of women and their place in our country. As far as what I would tell this
woman, I’ve taken care of patients like her. You know, the woman who comes to mind right now is a woman I took care of just a few months ago who found
herself pregnant under violent circumstances as the victim of rape, who really just having a pelvic exam in the gynecologist’s office with someone
like me or a nurse practitioner was really traumatic for her after that because of that experience.
She really wanted to have a pill abortion. A pill abortion is literally one of the safest things we do in medicine. But in the State of Alabama —
I’m sorry, in the State of Missouri, I’m required to be an ambulatory surgical center life facility or a hospital to hand her that pill.
In the State of Missouri, I’m required to do a pelvic exam on her despite not medically needing a pelvic exam to be done. So I’m forced to add
insult to that already horrible experience that she’s gone through because she happens to be in a state that does not value her capacity, her agency,
or her ability to make a private health care decision after suffering such a horrible experience.
It’s really difficult. And I’ll tell you, we do the best we can, providing not only that physical care but the emotional and psychosocial support that
these people need.
AMANPOUR: Dr. Eisenberg, thank you so much for joining us from Missouri. And, of course, the prison sentence he was talking about was the one
Alabama has said which could be life in prison for the doctors who perform abortions.
President Trump is unveiling his new immigration plans today, amid a humanitarian crisis on the southern border due to a dramatic increase in
asylum seekers. Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut aid to Central American countries, those who permit the caravans to move north.
But Global Development Specialist Raj Kumar argues that this will drive more migrants to the border, not fewer. He lay it’s out in his new book
“The Business of Changing the World.” He told our Hari Sreenivasan what works and what doesn’t in the world of foreign aid.
HARI SREENIVASAN, CONTRIBUTOR: Just tell us for a perspective, how big is foreign aid around the world?
RAJ KUMAR, EDITOR IN CHIEF, DEVEX: if you add up all of the money from governments, U.S.A and definitely the U.K., you add in the world bank, the
philanthropies, it’s about $200 billion a year.
So it’s a pretty big industry. I think we often think of it as small because we think of our local charity or local institutions but overall,
it’s sizable. It’s about $200 billion a year.
SREENIVASAN: You just also remind people what fraction of the U.S. budget is going to foreign aid.
KUMAR: It’s only around one percent of our federal budget that’s used for foreign aid. So it’s a pretty, pretty small part of what we do as a
country.
SREENIVASAN: Is there a cynicism with the general population of what is working, what isn’t working?
KUMAR: I think so. I think there’s been a long term sense among the American public that too much is spent on foreign aid or that we don’t know
what happens to it, and some of it is wasted. There’s the late Senator Jesse Helms talked about foreign rat holes, the money would go down.
I think most of that skepticism comes from ignorance, not from really knowing how the sector works. When I go and travel around the world and
talk to the organizations doing the work, mostly we’re talking about really well-organized, efficient, professional groups trying their best under very
tough circumstances.
SREENIVASAN: Is this still something that we’re using almost as statecraft? I mean, vote this way with me on the U.N. and you might get a
few extra bags of rice. I’m going to write you a check. It will just be in the form of aid.
KUMAR: So we were doing that in the Cold War.
SREENIVASAN: Yes.
KUMAR: We stopped doing that by and large after the Cold War. We have just started again with the Trump administration. There is now the
president quite regularly talks about the Central American countries, for example, vote with us or change your policies on immigration or sending
people out of your country or we will cut it.
That had largely gone away in a couple of decades after the Cold War ended and has started to come back in a big way.
SREENIVASAN: What’s different then or what’s wrong with the president saying listen, we have been spending so much money in the countries in
Central America and we are not seeing results?
KUMAR: Well, a couple of big things are wrong with it. One, it’s counterproductive, right. So like cutting off funding to those countries,
we’re very likely hurting the people themselves that we’re trying to support and driving more of them to leave and try to come to the southern
border.
In the end, the projects the U.S. government funds, we’re not giving money to the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala. We’re going there and
funding our own projects that directly help people.
So it’s really counterproductive even if it sounds logical in a way. It’s counterproductive to do that.
The second thing is these countries are so far below us in terms of their economic situation. It’s not going to be corrected in a year or 10 years
through normal business activity and economic growth. The gaps are far too wide.
We’re going to need to be there supporting the work of local communities, local governments. We need to be there for generations.
SREENIVASAN: Put in perspective our goals on border security and building a wall in dollar terms relative to what we spend in foreign aid in those
countries or really even the GDP of those countries.
KUMAR: I’m going to guess. I don’t have the exact figures but it’s 10, 20x is what we would spend on border security versus what we would use in
these countries. I mean these are very small countries, low population numbers. The total aid budget there are in the hundreds of millions of
dollars.
We can and should be spending much more than that to address the root causes of the problem. I think if you don’t address problems in a lot of
these countries, they will come back to bite us in economic terms or in security terms.
Many of these are fragile states and that’s where extremism grows and that’s where we end up with terrorism problems. So there are direct kind
of national security arguments around any budget but there’s also a basic, moral, and humanitarian and values-based argument that I think most
Americans find appealing to say we’re the leading country in the world, we’re the richest country in the world, we have an obligation to do our
very best to help the people who are in absolute worst straits.
It’s 2019. Very soon, we might be going around in driverless cars in this country, right. We have so much advanced technology. It’s incredible to
think 10 percent of people on this earth still live in extreme poverty. Less than $2.00 a day. Many of them are down at $0.50 a day.
And the idea that we would simply look at that and say, well, that’s someone else’s issue and not ours I think is not American in terms of the
way we view our values as a country.
SREENIVASAN: You also write in the book about how these kinds of decisions have kind of political cause as well which lead to inefficiencies. You
point out what we did, for example, to Haiti.
KUMAR: Yes.
SREENIVASAN: And we — I mean the intent was to help people and feed them with our bags of rice.
KUMAR: It was. Haiti is a country where rice is a staple crop. People eat a lot of rice there and most of it was grown domestically. There are
Haitian farmers growing rice.
And then, when they went through some real problems, the U.S. thought we’re going to help, we’re going to send rice grown by American farmers. And
essentially, we decimated the Haitian rice industry. When you’re getting it for free, how can you afford to grow it and build the business doing
that?
And so it was good intentions but it really failed. It’s a good example of where the aid industry has not had the kind of accountability that it needs
to have and that I’m calling for going forward.
SREENIVASAN: One way to think about this, look, there’s this entire industry trying to fix problems. Why can’t we figure out ways to just
solve those problems in the first place instead of them getting to a point of such an equity, we need international agencies that are trying this?
KUMAR: Well, in most inequities, we’re looking at them in the world today at the global level started in the Colonial Era. I mean this has been
around for hundreds of years. It’s not a coincidence that the poorest countries in the world were mostly colonies, that the richest in the world
were the colonizers or some of the more imperial economies in the world.
So these are very long-term historical trends that we’re addressing and it will take a long time, maybe generations to fully address them. And there
isn’t really an opportunity in my mind to just sort of step back and let the problems fix themselves.
It would be nice to think that, that revolutions will happen in the poorest countries when poor governments are not addressing the needs of their
people. But realistically, there are lives at stake today.
So we need a robust industry that gets the poorest kids fed. There are kids literally still in this 2019 that are just not getting basic food or
very basic medicine. We can address it. We ought to.
SREENIVASAN: You lay out in the book how one of the big changes here is that there’s a decentralization of power, that it’s not necessarily just
those five, six agencies around the world that are doing all of this but there are new forces at play.
KUMAR: There are. Bill Gates Foundation is a great example, right. So they came on the scene in a huge way. They’re now funding $5 billion, $6
billion a year, which puts them at the level of countries, in terms of the country’s foreign aid budgets.
And so they’re coming and it’s saying we care about the evidence, we care about data. They’re funding organizations that gather evidence about
what’s happening in health, for example, or in agriculture. And that starts to move the whole industry in a certain direction because it’s a lot
harder to justify your foreign aid budget if there’s organizations out there showing what you can get with a dollar and your foreign aid agency
maybe isn’t.
So we started having more competition in the space. Gates is just one example. There are many, many behind them.
And other countries are getting in the space in a big way. Countries like China is now a major foreign aid donor. So this competition around what do
we do with the aid budget is actually driving some innovation and a better focus on what we ought to do and what the results ought to be from every
dollar we spent.
SREENIVASAN: Are we relying too much on billionaires to solve these problems?
KUMAR: Well, it would be great to not have to rely on billionaires to say set the agenda in our sector. I’m thinking we can rely on their money. I
think where there’s danger in relying on billionaires is if they’re setting the agenda around philanthropy or setting the agenda around what we ought
to fund.
That doesn’t have to be the case. It could be science. It could be very basic evidence around what works that set the agenda for our industry.
And as I said, the U.N. has a set of goals that have been agreed to by 193 countries. There are 17 of them so it’s actually quite an array of issues
around health and education and environment.
So my argument to anyone who’s new to the scene of philanthropy is look at that roadmap. And you can still pick the area you want to focus on but do
it in within a framework that’s globally accepted that 193 countries have signed up to.
Just about every NGO and nonprofit and institution in the world is working with, do it within that framework. There’s a lot of room for innovation
but let’s align our efforts in that way.
SREENIVASAN: $200 billion is a lot of money and it is enormous but is there a possibility here that the billionaire class could end up becoming
bigger than that when it comes to giving? Because not all of them are in this space. I mean you point out the Gates and a few other ones that are
but most billionaires are not planning on giving everything away.
KUMAR: That’s right. Only about 10 percent of the billionaires in the world have signed a giving pledge which is this pledge Warren Buffett and
Bill Gates came up with. Now, others might be giving outside of that but it’s hard to give large sums anonymously without people noticing.
So most billionaires, probably 90 percent or so, are really not significant donors at any level. I would hope that all of them would move into the
space.
They hold about $10 trillion in wealth. So there’s enormous potential if that money gets dedicated to the highest priority issues, if it’s spent in
transparent ways we can scrutinize as a public and if it actually goes to things that we know work.
So I think there’s huge potential but we need rules for the road. It might even require legislation. We might even need to have, given the sums of
money going into philanthropy, a new legislative approach to transparency, for example.
SREENIVASAN: You also mentioned that aid is shifting from kind of a wholesale model to a retail model partly because of this. Explain what
does that mean.
KUMAR: Yes. You know for a long time we would cook up good ideas in places like Washington, D.C. and Brussels and London and we would think
about serving whole populations, that we’re going to launch a big project to feed kids in school or a big project around delivering medicines.
And part of the rationale was we cannot actually go and talk to the people affected. There are too many of them. They’re too spread out. They’re
disconnected. That is no longer really an excuse.
You can go to almost any country in the world now, any place, even pretty rural places and find there’s Internet connections, people have cell
phones, often smartphones. Increasingly, people are connected to mobile money systems.
So it’s a lot easier to just get directly to the person you’re trying to help and increasingly, projects are doing that. Now there are examples
like Uber for Tractors. Hello Tractor in Nigeria.
SREENIVASAN: How does that work?
KUMAR: Where basically, they said the tractor was invented over 200 years ago and yet most small-scale farmers don’t have access to one.
So they can’t afford their own but if you can share your tractor among many farmers, it can work.
So this simple technology works very much like Uber. You own a tractor, you share it, other farmers pay you for access to it. And there are now 75
percent of the new tractors coming into Nigeria, use this Hello Tractor sharing technology.
There are five countries across the continent of Africa. It’s a great opportunity where you say, who’s the key to solving royal poverty? It’s
the farmer. It’s not the aid agency. It’s not the nonprofit executive. It’s the framer.
Increasingly, retail aid is about going to the people who are going to really solve the problem, which is poor people themselves, figuring out
what they need and helping them with it.
SREENIVASAN: What about ideas like crowdfunding or — I mean I remember my sort of holiday donation sometimes would go to microlending through TiVo or
through other start-ups that were trying to get money more quickly to the people who actually needed it and could benefit from it instead of going
through a giant charity and then having their decision processed hopefully get to that person?
KUMAR: Yes, there’s a lot of it. So TiVo has grown over a billion dollars of loans through the TiVo platform with individuals often just $25 a time,
making those kinds of donations.
SREENIVASAN: Or donors choose here in the United States?
KUMAR: Donors choose in United States. That’s right.
And now, there’s a group called Give Directly, where you can literally provide cash to a person who needs it who’s living in extreme poverty. The
way they do it, they use satellite imagery to look at rural communities in Kenya, in Tanzania, Uganda, and other places like that and they say which
of these households doesn’t even have the money to afford a tin roof and instead has a thatched roof.
They use it as a sign they’re likely very poor and they directly send about $1,000 to their cell phone. And they study exactly what that does, that
$1,000, and how it lifts up their families, gives them opportunities for new employment.
And they found ways now and these are increasingly kind of competitive market for your donation around the holiday time to say where can I give.
I can give to traditional charities I worked with for a long time who themselves are getting more innovative, more rigorous.
I can give to loans — through loans like TiVo platform. I can give directly to the poorest people in the world through Give Directly. So
there are a lot of new opportunities. And this competition for our dollars, dollars in wealthy countries for ordinary givers I think is really
healthy.
SREENIVASAN: There also seems to be kind of social enterprises and corporations starting to shift a little bit in thinking about not just the
triple bottom line but saying hey, this is going to be part of my mission?
KUMAR: Yes. And I think the big opportunity is not really necessarily the small social enterprise, it’s the big corporations. And increasingly,
their employees, their consumers, their investors are saying you know, you might be a big corporate, billions of dollars, we expect you to have a
social mission in addition to your business mission.
And that’s hard but increasingly, that’s where business could head if we push it. And I think there are big opportunities. And we saw the walkouts
at Google over discrimination. Thousands of employees walking out, right.
Employees have a lot of power and consumers have a lot of power. If we use it, we might be able to shape business so that social entrepreneurship is
kind of the standard approach to doing business, which is critical I think if we want to have any shot of achieving these sustainable developmental
goals, addressing climate change.
It can’t just be there’s some do-gooders over on this side and then the main thrust of what we do in the world is contributing to pollution or
inequality. It kind of all has to work together.
SREENIVASAN: For decades, there’s also been this perception, oh, here comes the Americans, here comes the Europeans to solve all of our problems.
They’re just going to wave a lot of money around. How do we keep that from perpetuating?
KUMAR: It’s getting better. That’s still an issue but it’s getting better. Increasingly, organizations are saying, you know, we’ll actually
fund a local group instead of bringing in a U.S. or European group to do this work.
Many of the big international organizations themselves are becoming more locally oriented. They’re hiring people in these countries. They’re
setting up offices locally.
So it’s starting to really improve. There’s a lot further to go. A lot further.
If local communities, local experts, local businesses are part of the solution, you’re much more likely to actually solve the problem. So it’s
not just a question of representation.
SREENIVASAN: So how did individual users — I guess not users but just citizens, normal people, impact such this enormous $200 billion global aid
industry?
KUMAR: I think one way is to just get educated about it. This is our industry as citizens, whether you’re paying for it through your tax
dollars, you’re paying for it through the donations that you make.
Pay attention to it and learn about it and start asking tougher questions, even if the organizations that you may have known for many years and trust,
find out what they’re doing with that money that you’re donating.
And I think also as a taxpayer, push our government to actually take some more risks, to be a little more innovative, not to say you know what, we
just better be careful not a dime of taxpayer money gets stolen. And to do that we might have to spend huge amounts on bureaucracy.
Let’s get out of that risk game and get more into results and get more into impact. I think we as citizens can push that if we change the way we think
of this industry.
I think for too long the aid industry has been seen as owned by someone else. It’s owned by the nonprofits or it’s owned by aid
workers, or it’s owned by certain agencies at the U.N. This is our industry. This is the public’s.
SREENIVASAN: Raj Kumar, thank you so much for joining us.
KUMAR: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: And Raj Kumar’s book “The Business of Changing the World” which reveals the transformation of the aid industry is out now.
That’s it for our program tonight.
Thanks for watching Amanpour and Company on PBS and join us again tomorrow.
END