Read Full Transcript EXPAND
AMANPOUR:
o everyone and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
SPEAKER:
This is a total disasterous situation, which is a serious departure from what the whole international order is about.
AMANPOUR:
Palestinians reject the U S peace plan. The rest of the region is lukewarm. We hear from the Palestinian prime minister and.
SPEAKER:
Mr. Speaker. Let’s be clear. This is a problem that has bedeviled the world for four decades and the middle East of course in particular, no peace plan is perfect.
AMANPOUR:
The British prime minister supports Trump’s plan while also seeking a post-Brexit US trade deal, but is this in Britain’s best interest form a UK foreign secretary Phillip Hammond joins me on the changing dynamics of the special relationship…plus.
ALBASHEER:
Don’t worry everyone. Tonight I’m going to go home and watch frozen from tragedy come satire journalist and comedian Ahmed Albasheer tells Hari Sreenivasan how his show has become one of the most popular in Iraq.
AMANPOUR:
Welcome to the program everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London. President Trump’s middle East peace plan, which he described as a win-win for both sides is strongly rejected by the Palestinians. The plan which was put together only by the Americans and the Israelis could turn international order as we know it upside down. Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now saying that he wants to act quickly to extend Israeli sovereignty and law over the strategically important Jordan Valley and most Jewish settlements in the West bank. Both Trump and Netanyahu predicted support in the region, yet so far, no Arab States have formally endorsed the proposal. On Tuesday we heard a robust defense of the plan from president Trump’s top advisor, Jared Kushner, who implored the Palestinian leaders to seize this opportunity. And let’s remember that it was only a few years ago, shortly after president Trump’s inauguration, when the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stood next to him at the white house in hope.
PRESIDENT TRUMP:
We want to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We will get it done. We will be working so hard to get it done. It’s been a long time, but we will be working diligently and I think there’s a very, very good chance and I think you feel the same way.
AMANPOUR:
But one year later our boss cut off ties with the administration when it moved the U S embassy and declared sole Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Now all hope appears to have gone. Mohammad Shtayyeh is the prime minister of the Palestinian authority and he joined me from Ramallah. Prime minister Shtayyeh. Thank you so much for joining me.
SHTAYYEH:
Thank you.
AMANPOUR.:
Okay, so let me ask you, it appears that the Palestinian authority has categorically rejected out of hand this plan, is that correct? Do you reject it or do you see it as a basis for negotiations that you can then speak to the Israelis, speak to the United States and try to negotiate a better deal or or better parameters?
SHTAYYEH:
Well, look, this is this a plan that has been rejected by the Palestinian leadership simply because the plan does fully give Jerusalem to the Israelis and it does create a partition of the of the time and the space. It keeps the Jewish settlements on the Palestinian territory. 720,000 Jewish settlers will stay illegally and they are legitimately under Palestinian territory. It does not give backterritory of 67 and most of all, it does make the Palestinian territory shrink by 40% at a time when OSLO agreement was supposed to give all the Palestinian territory to the Palestinians that makes the Palestinian state. All America offered six to one the swab or Hutto hoot Barak offered one to nine. Now what president Trump is actually offering is simply to deduct 30% of the Palestinian territory. Look at this map. This is the Palestinian territory occupied in 67 which is the whole of the West bank and Gaza. This is what residents Trump is offering, which is only a 70% or 60% of that 22% of what used to be called Palestine. This is, this base blend is simply creating Ballis Tinian Bantu stands within the state of Israel. And this is what the reality will look like. So there is no way on earth that Palestinians will accept this reality that the, the best blend of Mr. Trump is talking about.
AMANPOUR:
Okay, so now let me play to you what the administration is saying. They have said, and you heard very clearly, which is I suppose why you’re showing me the maps, that their peace plan increases the size of Palestinian territory and that it is a win win situation for the Palestinians and the Israelis. And in addition, I spoke to Jared Kushner as you know, the architect of this peace plan. And he said to me, look, essentially we’re dealing with today and we’re not dealing with the past. We’re being pragmatic. Listen to what he said.
KUSHNER:
I’m not looking at the world as it existed in 1967 I’m looking at the world as it exists. In 2020 you have 5 million Palestinians who are really trapped because of bad leadership. So what we’ve done is we’ve, we’ve created an opportunity for their leadership to either seize or not, if they, if they screw up this opportunity, which again, they have a perfect track record of missing opportunities. Uh, if they screw this up, I think that they will have a very hard time looking at the international community in the face saying they’re victims saying they have rights. This is a great deal for them. If they, uh, if they come to the table and negotiate, I think they can get something excellent.
AMANPOUR:
Okay. If you come to the table and negotiate, you can get something excellent. This is a great deal for you. Answer that.
SHTAYYEH:
Well, look, I don’t think that, uh, mr questioner knows the [inaudible] interest more than we do that this is not an opportunity. This is not a starter for negotiation. This is, uh, maintaining the status quo and calling the Stata score as stair to Palestine. And that is why imagine a situation in which all the settlements out of there to stay, but the seniors will have no sever on the T by Latinas. We’ll have, we’ll have no control over the passages. Palestinians will have no say whatsoever of control over the natural resources, but as seen on prisoners will stay and the most important on top of all is what Jerusalem is going to look like. It’s not Brexit and Trump has given fully and totally the Holy city of Jerusalem to be under a full 730 of the Israelis and not even maintaining the status quo and the most he won’t to break the status quo on the most by simply, but the the dividing and the partition of the most between Jews and Muslims, time and space. This is, we are walking backwards. This is simply the Palestinian territory is a shrinking with this bland is not expanding and therefore please, I know this game when when secretary I buy a ban in 1968 said that the Arabs don’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The Palestinians never missed a Sierra support unity and we will never miss a serious opportunity and this does not consider it an opportunity to us at all.
ALBASHEER:
Okay, I hear you. The problem is I also know that your former leader, Yasser Arafat, did regret not agreeing to a who’d Barak and president Clinton. And after it was off the table, he then said he agreed with president Clinton and by then it was too late. So what Jared Kushner and the others are saying is we can argue over and over again about who missed what opportunity. But the fact is that they say they’re big pragmatists. They also say what you just said, Israel is there and it’s not going to leave and this is it and take it or leave it. And why don’t you come and try to get the best part of this for yourselves. Otherwise you can’t call yourself victims anymore.
SHTAYYEH:
Well, look if, if the whole, if, if legitimization of uh, breaking international law is a respecting Stata score. This is a total disasters situation, which is a serious departure from what the whole international order is about. We are talking about an Israeli occupation. Israel has occupied the Palestinian territory. They slightly should not be allowed to be above the law. Israel is abusing human rights and Israel is simply expropriating scene. And territories and building Jewish settlements illegally are legitimate. And that the president, president Trump a bland, does not become a substitute for international law. This peace plan has no partner. The partner is between, is the partnership is between America and Israel. They are allies. But casinos had been totally decided. We were not consulted with. Our president has, has had four meetings with president Trump and all of our Southern United States has taken serious measures. They wanted to put us back to the wall, our backs to the wall and what they are efforting. They think they are leaving Gus on the contrary. This is a situation in which cannot be accepted by the Palestinians. It is not a fair deal. Mediator should bring a fair deal to the two parties. And this is about coordinating the Palestinians, which we don’t accept.
AMANPOUR:
Okay. So you’re talking about back to the wall cornering and there’s a literal dimension to that. Um, I think you expected to negotiate what happens to the Jordan Valley as you know, that is part of what the United States has agreed that Israel will retain sovereignty over between. You know that part of the Palestinian territory and the river Jordan. And furthermore, the prime minister of Israel has said that he went implement Israeli law there within a matter of a matter of days. What does that mean to you? What does that mean practically on the ground?
SHTAYYEH:
Well, look, first of all, United States cannot give that thinks that she doesn’t own, this is Palestinian territory. United States cannot give it to Israel and Israel is not entitled to an ex any bar. I think that by, by all means, what is happening now is that the American administration is trying to create a new terms of reference. Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR:
They are giving [inaudible] and they say that openly. They say that openly. Mr prime minister, I played you that soundbite for mr Cushner. We are pragmatists. We are real estate agents. Israel. Oh, real estate, you know, negotiators. Um, Israel is there. This is 2020. My question to you is what is your recourse? I know what you’re saying and I hear you loud and clear. The international community has offered some warm words to the United States. The Arab nations have offered some ward wards to the United States. What are they telling you? Nobody’s standing up and saying, Hey, you can’t do this. It’s a violation of international law. As you have just said.
SHTAYYEH:
Look, this is a violation for international law. It doesn’t change the reality. It doesn’t solve the conflict. The Arab ministers of foreign affairs are going to meet and Cairo, and so I thought a day, and I am hopeful and I’m sure that there will be voice, loud, loud and clear for reaffirming their support for the Palestinian rights. Of course, they want to see the a solution for the situation, but there are certain countries who think that give this a chance. This cannot be given a chance because from one single thing cannot be given a chance to give Jerusalem, which is the future capital for Palestine to give it to the Israelis. This is a no starter. This is not mediation. This is not intermediation,
AMANPOUR:
but president Trump said Eastern Palestine,
SHTAYYEH:
except that the right of Israel to annex Jerusalem.
AMANPOUR:
President Trump said Eastern Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital. It was always envisioned, right?
SHTAYYEH:
No. The president Trump is saying that the Palestinians can choose any territory outside the borders of Jerusalem and call it codes and they can call it their own capital. That is not what Jerusalem is. Jerusalem is not any bar out of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the old city and the vicinity of the old city and the Holy busing of the old city. That is what Jerusalem, Palestinians is. Jerusalem is the city that has been occupied in 1967 the heart of it is the church and the heart of it is the mosque and that is what we refer to. Jerusalem is not choose any part of the West bank or any of the surrounding of Jerusalem and then you will call it [inaudible] and then this becomes your capital. The president Trump wants us to choose any part of the of the over Jerusalem on the outskirts of Jerusalem and then we call it our capital. That is not BS. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about Jerusalem. That used to be the 60 square kilometers, the old city of Jerusalem where the Palestinians are. It’s one square kilometer and the surrounding there are there. The Palestinians who are there are about 300,000 Palestinians live in the city of Jerusalem and that is what Jerusalem important in is how boring the city and Trump is saying that you can build your capital outside the walls of the city. That is not what what Jerusalem is.
AMANPOUR:
Mr prime minister, the president said that under this plan, no Israeli and no Palestinian or no Jewish settlers or no Palestinians will be required to leave their homes. So I’m not sure how you interpret that, but I wonder whether you agree with some and some Arabs who are saying that this is the end of the notion of a two state solution and that anyway, why don’t you now put all your energies into a one state solution and demand full rides, which is apparently what looks like maybe you’re going to get if they, if Israel imposes Israeli law on areas that they have said that they will on the West bank, do you not then get Israeli rights like voting rights, the right to have your utilities and other such things paid for and maintained by the state of Israel?
SHTAYYEH:
You know what the president is saying in his initiative, he is saying that he is giving legitimacy to illegal colonization program in the West bank. He is giving elite. He’s, he is making illegally illegal Jewish presence on [inaudible] territory. He’s trying to legalize it. This does not solve the issue. Now, if it comes to demography, we know, and I will tell you frankly, for the first time in history since 1948 the Palestinians between river Jordan and the Mediterranean sea, we are 200,000 more than the Jewish Israelis. So it’s right, it has to face the reality. If Netanyahu thinks he is winning and the very short term Netanyahu and Israelis will be very losing and the very long term because it’s like today has Jews and if Netanyahu has chosen, the Israeli public didn’t choose yet. Now Tonio is a standing for to be elected or not. And I think the Israeli public will have a say by March 2nd simply because either two States or an apartheid, the state that’s the state of Israel. Dasia is not about one state because the Israelis, Netanyahu in particular, he does not want two States and he does not want one state. Netanyahu wants to maintain that reality that is leading into a disaster squad sequences, which will lead to an apartheid state and the whole state of Palestine. This will change the dynamic and this is why the map of Palestine shows an apartheid system. What the president Trump is proposing is no more than an apartheid system.
AMANPOUR:
This is what prime minister Netanyahu said about why previous attempts had failed and why this one stood a chance of success. This is what he said at the white house.
NETANYAHU:
Since the moment of its birth, Israel is yearned for peace with our Palestinian neighbors and peace with a broader Arab world for decades, that peace has proved elusive despite so many well-intentioned plans. One after the other, they failed. Why did they fail? They failed because they did not strike the right balance between Israel’s vital security and national interests and the Palestinians for self-determination.
AMANPOUR:
So he says this is the one that strikes the right balance between the Palestinians, a legitimate aspiration for self determination and Israel’s legitimate aspiration for [inaudible].
SHTAYYEH:
This blonde has been negotiated between mr Kushner and Natanya and other blinds were negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis. This plan is 100% bias for Israel. Netanyahu is the author of this plan. I have been part of the negotiation. I have seen language, I have seen maps, I have seen the text before and this is 100% Israeli proposal. What we see today is in full harmony with what Netanyahu wants. If you read his book a nation under the sun, you will realize that all what he said in Beijing 350 door reflects itself in the text of that and the language of the Trump initiative. This blend is 100% bias for its like does not give an opportunity for the Palestinians and the Palestinians will continue to be keen for the serious negotiations based on international law, based on international legitimacy at negotiation. That does not recognize the feta complete that Israel has established since 1967 as situation that does change the status quo does not maintain the status quo.
AMANPOUR:
Let me ask you a final question. As you know, the Trump administration tried to underpin this political deal with an economic deal in which they promised to raise and they again re repeated it yesterday, $50 billion for the Palestinian economy. They say they have soft promises. Jared Cushner told me he has soft pledges for this $50 billion and yet he said that these countries, no countries want to invest in a corrupt state with a corrupt leadership pointing to the Palestinian authority are in a state full of terror and insecurity. I realized this is a bit rich talking about corruption since the prime minister of Israel has been formally indicted on those charges. However, this is something that equally the Palestinian people are fed up with. They are fed up with what they consider to be a weak in effectual and often corrupt leadership. Is it time to dissolve the leadership and start something new? Even you’ll see bail in the us. Oslo negotiator says just something new. Oslow doesn’t exist anymore. Maybe two States don’t exist anymore. All
SHTAYYEH:
these sorts of accusations by mr [inaudible]. Question out to the Palestinian leadership as simply a political blackmail. You think if we have accepted the blend, of course not. I couldn’t have said the same about this Palestinian leadership for sure. So therefore I think these sorts of accusations are not applicable to the case of Palestine. We have problems here and there we are standing to corrected. That is not simply this sort of character assassination of the Bella senior leadership does not take mr Kushner anywhere and the, and the situation as we stand today, we know for sure that how this situation has been booked into a very awkward situation by the Israeli measures, by lack of access to our resources by look, ask all donors. We have been receiving donations from international community, including the United States since 1994 none one single corruption case with any donor money. So these accusations have no ground whatsoever. [inaudible] and people have voted for our president for the leadership and we are keen on elections. Ask the Americans to push the Israelis to allow us to have elections in all Palestina Turturro’s including Jerusalem and live the people [inaudible] people have a say. And who is blocking the Palestinian elections? It’s Israel
AMANPOUR:
prime minister Mohammad Shatiya. Thank you so much for joining me.
SHTAYYEH:
Thank you so much for having me.
AMANPOUR:
So one of the most complicated regions of the world appears to have got even more complicated. The British prime minister here, Boris Johnson sided with Trump today urging his own lawmakers to push Palestinians to engage with the United States president’s plan. But is it in the UK? His best interest with Britain formally leaving the EU in just days. Johnson is keen to stay on president Trump’s good side, hoping to secure a great post-Brexit trade deal with Washington. So let’s explore the changing us UK dynamics with Phillip Hamon who served as Britain’s foreign minister under prime minister David Cameron and as chancellor of the Exchequer in charge of Britain’s economy under Theresa May, he resigned his post in July when Boris Johnson became the new Tory leader. Welcome to the program. Thank you for coming in. Really great to have you on, on, on a day like this, especially on a week like this. First and foremost, you are foreign minister. You’ve had to deal with prime minister Netanyahu, you’ve dealt with the other side. What is your immediate take on the plan that was unveiled and you’ve just heard the primers to give his take?
HAMMOND:
Yeah. Well, first of all, um, everybody wants to see some movement on this most intractable problem, but most people are committed to a movement which, uh, which, um, uh, respects the principle of a two state solution, uh, and reconciles Israel’s need for security with the Palestinians need for a viable state. So the question is, is this a credible starting point? I don’t, I don’t think, and we’ve just heard from the Palestinian prime minister, I don’t think this is going to be a plan that will be accepted by the Palestinians. The really interesting question is whether this could be the opening salvo for a proper discussion and anything that gets Palestinians, Israelis, Americans talking seriously about how to create a viable two state solution would be a good thing. Um, but this will be a very bitter pill, the Palestinians to swallow as an opening a position for a discussion.
AMANPOUR:
So I guess you, like many others would urge the Palestinians to engage and not just, you know, stand aside. Um, just on that kind of principle as we’ve heard. However, can you just describe what’s happened? I mean he was saying this is a violation of decades of international law and accepted UN principles from your perspective and from the U K his perspective, just what has just happened?
HAMMOND:
Well the UK, his position has always been, and I’m not aware that the current government has changed the UK position, um, is that um, we recognize that settlements in the West bank are illegal under international law. Then he attempted annexation of land that has been captured in battle is illegal under international law. But kind of that’s all very interesting. But the facts are the facts and the Americans would say, look, we have to move forward and to move forward you have to start from where you are, not where some textbook tells you you should be.
HAMMOND:
So again, there’s a balancing act to do here. The Palestinians to get a settlement are going to have to make some concessions from their theoretical and principled position. But I think the Israelis are also going to have to be pragmatic and, and I have to say, um, this does look like a plan that’s been drawn up in, uh, Washington and Jerusalem rather than a plan which respects and understands the concerns that the Palestinians will have. So if it can be, um, a starting point for a serious discussion, then that’s a positive thing. Let’s see what the Arab foreign ministers say on Saturday. That will be crucial. If they don’t come out wholly against it, then that will put quite a lot of pressure on the Palestinians to engage at some level in a discussion here. At the very least explore whether there is scope for, um, discussing the plan. Um, I fear that what they will be told is that the plan is the plan and it’s got to be implemented as it is in its entirety, in which case I don’t think it’s got much prospect of being accepted. But if there is scope for a discussion, any discussion is good.
AMANPOUR:
Let’s just play then. What the British prime minister, Boris Johnson told parliament he was directly also addressing his opposition. I’m Jeremy Corbyn. Yup.
BORIS JOHNSON:
No peace plan is perfect, but this has the merit or they two state solution. It is a two state solution. It would ensure that Jerusalem is both the capital of Israel and of the Palestinian people. And I urge him rather than being so characteristically negative to reach out to his friend, my friends, our friends in, in the Palestinian authority to Magruder Bassem through mobile, the highest respect and urge him for once to engage with this initiative to get talking rather than to leave a political vacuum.
AMANPOUR:
So you know, he’s sort of having his cake and eating it too. Uh, because obviously that you’ve just explained what the British position is that annexation of occupied territory is illegal under international law and the prime minister of Israel has said he’s going to do precisely that within the next few days. So I guess what, what does that mean right out? Is it correct? Are you concerned that Boris Johnson is saying that kind of thing that diverges somewhat from British policy because of this need to get a great deal from president Trump a post-Brexit? I guess what is the tension there, if any?
HAMMOND:
Well, I don’t think so. I think the Hawaii decision earlier this week shows that Boris Johnson is not, um, towing the Washington line. Uh, in order to Curry favor with president Trump, he’s perfectly prepared to, um, uh, stand up to president Trump when he feels it’s necessary. But I largely agree with what the prime minister just said at the dispatch box that if there is an opportunity here to talk, then let’s talk because um, that can never be a bad thing. I have to say. I’m not quite sure that I agree with him on his analysis of what the proposal around Jerusalem offers. I looked at the plans last night and it doesn’t look to me like it gives the Palestinians what most of us for many years have been describing as a shared, um, uh, Capitol engine.
AMANPOUR:
And you heard the prime minister say that that was the Palestinian prime minister. That was key and everybody in the Arab world and everybody in international community knows that Jerusalem is this very special place that needs,
HAMMOND:
that’s real international example. If that was the real sticking point and the Palestinians were to say, look, we could engage with this plan, but there would have to be some give on Jerusalem if the Arab foreign ministers were to say, this is not wholly bad, but we have to do something on Jerusalem, then at least there would be a challenge. There are the Israelis prepared to talk about Jerusalem? Are the Americans prepared to put some pressure on the Israelis to talk about Jerusalem? So let’s see what happens over the next few days. What the Arab foreign ministers come up with. Uh, and um, what we don’t know. What I certainly don’t know is whether the Americans have precooked any of this with any of the Arab States in the region. They certainly don’t appear to have talked to the Palestinians about it.
AMANPOUR:
Getting back to our way, which is what you just talked about and which has become a big issue. I’m here and in America as you’ve just said, that this is where Boris Johnson has shown some separation between him and president Trump. Just want to quickly play what Boris Johnson said about it in parliament and then we’ll talk about it.
BORIS JOHNSON:
I want to assure the highest sand indeed the country that I think it is absolutely vital that people in this country do have access to the best technology available, but that we do absolutely nothing to imperil our relationship with the United States to do anything to compromise our critical national security infrastructure or to do anything to Impero our extremely valuable cooperation with five buys, security partners.
AMANPOUR:
Now can the prime minister have it both ways because the secretary of state is coming to meet with him about this and he has basically said that, uh, he wants to, you know, have a conversation about how to proceed and he’s called Huawei quote, an extension of the Chinese communist party. Republican senators like Tom cotton have said, it’s like allowing the KGB to build a UK, his telephone network during the cold war. Our new Gingrich has said this is a major defeat for the U S what is this going to do for the British U S relationship, particularly in intelligence sharing. And again, with this super duper trade deal that needs to be negotiated
HAMMOND:
is going to create a tension. But some of this, um, reaction is hyperbole. I mean, first of all who are way is all over the U S telecoms network and has been for years. Uh, and what the UK is proposing is a really rather modest inclusion of the world’s leading 5g equipment provider in the UKs rollout of 5g. And the prime minister’s point, um, in the dispatch box there that the challenge for us is that Britain needs to stay at the cutting edge of the technologies that are enabled by five Jeep, um, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, internet of things. If we don’t stay at the forefront, uh, we will suffer huge, uh, potential damage and it is very difficult to see how you can roll out a five G network quickly and effectively without, um, using who are way equipment. Frankly, the West and the U S has to take, um, largely take the rap for this has been asleep on the job here. Um, they’ve allowed the Chinese to effectively, uh, gain the upper hand in a technology which will be the enabling technology for much of the infrastructure of the 21st century. And I’m not surprised that people in the white house are kicking and screaming when they’ve discovered that that is the case. But there is no us champion. There is no European, um, 5g champion that can step into the breach with equipment of similar capability, um, competitively priced, uh, user-friendly that can be rolled out quickly. So as with most decisions in government, there’s a balance here and the prime minister, um, set out all the pros and cons. You know, we want people to have, uh, 5g. We want it to be rolled out quickly, but we don’t want to compromise the security of our network. And the decision that has been made in my view is the right balance. It’s, it’s exactly what I was advocating a year ago. We should do, um, that we should allow who are we in? But we should do it eyes wide open. Um, we should be very careful about how we protected the security of our network. And we should limit who was involvement both in terms of the total percentage of the market that they could have and also which parts of the network they could be involved in.
AMANPOUR:
Now, it sounds like you support the prime minister and all these things that we’ve just talked about. You did break with the party when he came in and it was over Brexit and he and falling off the cliff today. Some very poignant pictures have come out of bras or have come out of the European parliament whereas the last session in which British MVPs will be present and there was singing and there was handholding and it was, it was quite emotional. What is going to happen next? Are you as former chancellor convinced that a the economy will stay on track? What do you say to the Europeans and the British? I mean the Europeans are concerned that the British wants to deregulate. They’re very concerned about this, a level playing field. What do you think is going to be the relationship with with Britain and the EU as they try to negotiate in this next year?
HAMMOND:
Well, can I first say that there are a lot of people in this country who are very concerned about what the future relationship is going to be, the future trade and economic relationship. But I don’t think there are very many including me who are going to shed any tears over the loss of the European parliament. That was never a, an essential, this is just an image as far as, yeah. But as far as the British people have been concerned, the important thing about our relationship with Europe has been about access to the single market about what it does for our economy, for our trade, um, for investment. And losing all the political paraphernalia is something that I think most people will be quite relaxed about. But many of those people are, many people who voted to leave the European union will still want to, uh, be confident that the government can achieve a deal with the Europeans, which means that British businesses will be able to carry on trading, um, that British jobs will be protected. And the supply chains that have been built up over many years will go on functioning, uh, as they, uh, have done.
AMANPOUR:
But if prime minister Johnson says he wants to deregulate and do a whole load of things, but that don’t match what the European show that.
HAMMOND:
I’ve heard prime minister Johnson say he wants to deregulate. What I’ve heard him say is that we must be in control of our own destiny. We will decide what UK regulations look like. Now that is, that is,
AMANPOUR:
But, isn’t there, it doesn’t there have to be a level playing field to have the kind of soft Brexit that you, yourself wanted.
HAMMOND:
Well, the European union, as you rightly say, has focused on having a set of what they call cross cutting rules. Things like labor market regulation, environmental regulation, consumer protection regulation that are the same. No, not taxes. Taxes are a national competence, uh, even in the European union. And if you talk to a member state like Ireland, a very ardent European, um, about, um, the European union encroaching in their, uh, sovereign territory around tax. They have some pretty firm views on that. But the, the, um, uh, the key issue here is that the Europeans start with a position that in order to trade safely with us in order not to see us as an aggressive undercutting competitor, they’ll want some reassurance about um, what they call level playing field or cross cutting, uh, alignment. British government’s position is that we cannot give you any longterm commitments about regulatory alignment. We have to be free if we choose to diverge. But the chancellor also said in clarification last weekend that we’re not going to diverge just for the sake of diverging. We’ll only diverge where it’s in our interest.
AMANPOUR:
So you’re confident about future?
HAMMOND:
I can envisage a world in which neither side has made any longterm commitments to the other. But as a matter of fact, we are still largely aligned just because we start aligned and we haven’t yet got to the point where we need to diverge for any particular reason. And I hope that if that is the situation, at least in the short term, we would be able to exploit that to carry on trading with each other. Um, tariff free and quota free.
AMANPOUR:
Well, that’s a good optimistic view to end this conversation on. Phillip Hammond, Thank you very much indeed for joining us. Formula, former chancellor of the Exchequer and now we turn to Iraq with thousands of people continue to rally against government corruption in the capital Baghdad. I might have al-Bashir he’s a comedian and host of his own popular political satire television program are by sheer told our Harry Srinivasan about transforming his own life after being wounded by a suicide bombing and his mission to fight extremism with humor.
SREENIVASAN:
Why are you doing this show?
ALBASHEER:
We’re trying actually. The short is just, it’s my job. I’m telling the people the reality because in Iraq there is no independent media. All the media in Iraq institution are connected to some politicians or agendas or other countries. So, uh, we’re doing the show just to tell the people what’s going on and to tell this new generation specifically, which, which is 65% of all Iraqis because 65% of this generation of Iraq, Saudi is between 15 to 35. Wow. So it’s a majority in Iraq. So we’re trying to explain to this generation what’s happening to their political system, what’s happening to their politicians, how do they still need the money? So in the next elections they go and vote, but since they don’t trust the elections and they believe that there is a fraud and their votes won’t go to the right people who they voted for, this is why they’re doing a revolution. This is why they are demanding the democracy that they’ve dreamed of. This is why they are demanding an election under the supervision of the international community.
SREENIVASAN:
You worked as a journalist for awhile. Yeah. Was there a turning point? Was there a moment when you decided this route would be more effective or what, what made you change your mind?
ALBASHEER:
Lots of things. Actually. One of them is, um, it was on 2011 I had a suicide bomber explode themselves next to me and he killed seven of my closest friends. And, uh, then I realized that I don’t want to be an Ember, uh, on the, I don’t want to be just a number of, of casualties in the news. Uh, so I decided to do something at that point. So I moved to a month and I started a a comedy show because I believe that news are very boring and I need some way, uh, to, to give the news from without being bought and to, to, to know what’s happening for 16 years following the us invasion of our country. We have tried to build a democracy from the ground up. We have tried to bring freedom and dignity to the Iraqi people. We have tried to provide liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press that I assemble and the right to disagree with the government without being waterboarded or having electrodes attached to our testicles again. And I know lots of this generation thinks the same. So this is what I did. I, we moved, like we took the script of the news, the same script, which is in [inaudible]. It was high means the, uh, uh, like the F the official language of the TV stations and the news. And we turned it into a slang language with adding some jokes on it. People start to like it and people start to watch it to know about. So now I can see, I can, I can see lots of youth watching the show and they’re learning about their politicians. And for me, it’s amazing.
SREENIVASAN:
It’s amazing how casual you were with the fact that a suicide bomber blew himself up next to you. I mean, it’s a, I think it’s a level of violence in the West that we’re so unfamiliar with that if that’s not the craziest thing that’s happened in your life. Right. And it hasn’t been. And what are the kinds of things that you’ve experienced that have just been normal to you? That when you get to a place like the United States or any of the other countries you’ve lived in, you realize that’s not normal? What, what have you been through?
ALBASHEER:
No, I realize this is not normal. When I was living in Iraq trust, uh, I lost my brother. I lost my father, I lost my uncle, I lost my cousin. I was kidnapped. Uh, lots of my friends were killed in sectarian war. Uh, I, I lived all the things that I think lots of Iraqis lived just like me. This is why this show was very important to me because for me, it’s, um, it’s a, it’s a way to stop the killing from the source. It’s a way to prevent more death and more, more blood spilled on the ground of Iraq because I believe we had enough. So this is the show gives hope and the same time gives you, uh, uh, maybe a better future. Uh, I w w w, w we’re interviewing lots of people who are inspiring to Iraqis and we believe that, uh, with, with this generation, they will stop the killing from the source. And this is exactly what’s happening now. They’re demanding to stop the killing from the source.
SREENIVASAN:
So this new generation, are these the people who have been protesting since October?
ALBASHEER:
Yes. These are the same people.
SREENIVASAN:
And do you know that your work is actually being seen by these people? Are they watching this on their cell phones out on the streets?
ALBASHEER:
Actually, they do watch the show on the, on a big screens in the square as well. While they’re protesting. So this is a, for me, it’s a huge responsibility. One of the things that has unfortunately been undercovered in the United States is the protest that had been going on since October.
SREENIVASAN:
What are the goals of the people that are on the streets now?
ALBASHEER:
Their demand is to, is to regain their own democracy. They wanted a real democracy. They want their votes to go to the right people. They don’t want a fraud. They don’t want militia as they, they don’t want, uh, weapons and guns, uh, uh, outside the control of the government. They want a strong army. They want good relationship with all the countries. Uh, no influence from other countries. And they want, they want friendship actually with everyone else in the world.
SREENIVASAN:
One of the things you say that is a significant cause of concern is the corruption that’s happening inside of Iraq today. In fact, on one of the English episodes that you had a, I want to play a clip you, you talk about in Muhasasa, which is part of the problem. Let’s take a look.
ALBASHEER:
Do you know when Bakker was asked about why he was qualified to be the minister of the interior or to take any of these positions for that matter? Do you know what he said? Yes, that’s right. He got his expertise and statecraft and security from watching the count of Monte Cristo as a child. Yes. So don’t worry everyone tonight I’m going to go home and watch frozen and I learn what I have to learn and then tomorrow I’ll enact some policies that can solve climate change. Don’t worry, I’ve got it from here guys. Gretta let’s. Okay, I’m very qualified now. Go home. Just, just go home.
SREENIVASAN:
is it really that bad?
ALBASHEER:
The Muhasasa? It’s awful actually. They put someone as a minister just because he belongs to some sect. It’s not because he’s qualified. Not because he understand that something, this bucket is the way D he was a minister of interior. He literally said that I was reading for Agatha Christie and I learned how to control the security, uh, for the, for the photo country. He was there just because he belongs to some sect. And of course the some speaker or the speaker of the parliament also was there just because he’s suddenly, but Zubaydah was there just because he’s, she doesn’t, there’s lots of people who can take this job much, much better. I couldn’t do much better than this job, but they want to put them,
SREENIVASAN:
Do the protestors on the ground today, do they want a secular state?
ALBASHEER:
This is exactly one of the, uh, uh, the, the things that the, the protestors are chanting, they are demanding to separate religion from the state. This is one of their demands. They say that religion is respected and we respect that religion and that respect clerics. But clerics and religion shouldn’t interfere in the business of the government because it said diverse country. It’s not a one religion or one sect country. So someone needs to be secular there to control that country, uh, to, to, uh, to rule the country actually. So, um, this is one of their demands. This is why this new generation, this is why these politicians are afraid. They’re afraid from this generation because they don’t believe that they will get their votes by playing on their minds that they will, they’re there to defend their sex or their religion. These things, this generation will never buy it.
SREENIVASAN:
Is this a new Arab spring?
ALBASHEER:
I believe it’s an Iraqi spring. It’s not Arab spring. Iraqis created this, uh, uh, this, this kind of protest. I mean, because when you look at the last one, um, Egypt got the Muslim brotherhood, LCC, um, didn’t work out very well for Syria. Libya. Yeah. Men got into civil Wars. This is now a protracted fight. At what point do you think the Iraqi government says enough is enough? I mean, you’ve already had almost, almost 500 people killed. 600, 600, almost 40, 2000 injured 3000. Armed with the, they will live with their injury for the rest of their lives. And lots of, uh, lots of Protestants lost their eyes actually because they were shooting tear guys on their heads. Um, I believe, um, it’s, it’s not the same because the protesters on the ground are demanding for the Islamic brotherhood brothers, uh, and the other countries to leave.
ALBASHEER:
So we had these people already. We had the Islamic, we had the religion, uh, parties already, uh, and we had the dictatorship before. So since 2003, we, we, we ha we have no dictatorship and we tried these parties, Islamic religion parties. So it’s different. It’s not going to be the same. I think the next, the next step will be the Iraqis who are secular to control the country or to rule the country. Uh, with the good constitution, with the good law, with a strong military, we will, we will be able to be a good sample for the middle East and for the world.
SREENIVASAN:
Did the people on the street, did they support the action that the United States States took against Soleimani?
ALBASHEER:
I w I wouldn’t say that they support the actions. Of course no one wants, uh, as a country to be breached by another two countries. Uh, our [inaudible] was breached by Iran and the us. Uh, we want, we want, uh, we don’t want the war to happen on, on our, our don’t want the act to become an arena for the, for the battle between Iran and the U S we like go fight anywhere in the ocean. We don’t care. Don’t make Iraq pays for what is doing. Actually. This is what Iraqis exactly are doing. They are asking and demanding the militias to stop attacking anyone and they are demanding the Americans to stop attacking anyone. We want a good relation between the U S and between Iran, between Saudi Arabia, between Kuwait, between all the countries. We want a good friendship relation, not a boy and not a father and a boy. A relation, not like sometimes the us or the Iran deal.
SREENIVASAN:
There wasn’t a incomplete parliamentary vote. But after the killing of Somali Solemani, there was a display by the Iraqi parliament that said, we want all foreign troops out of this country. Do the protesters on the streets want the United States to stick around?
SREENIVASAN:
The protesters on the streets want a stable country. And they know definitely that Iraq is not ready yet to take the challenges against ISIS or extremist or malicious. All what happens if the United States leaves, uh, Iraqis are afraid from, from, uh, uh, putting Iraq and Iran in the same, uh, in the same corner. Let’s see. And, uh, he’s, uh, people are afraid of from being, being, um, deal. Just the way that the Iranian people are dealt with. Uh, they don’t want to be, um, sanctioned. They, they don’t want to lose the connections with the world and definitely they don’t want to be in war against any country, uh, or, or hated by any country or, uh, or, uh, uh, international community. Do you hold the U S responsible for making things worse? Definitely. Yeah. The invasion was a disaster and the draw was a more, uh, disaster other than the innovation because the country wasn’t ready at that time. So they, us came and destroyed everything and destroyed all the country. And, uh, and they brought some people who don’t understand anything about the people or the government sectarian people and that they were hungry for money and power, lots of them. And then, uh, they left with them controlling the government and the country. And this is why ISIS actually, uh, uh, occupied cities because the government was weak, the government wasn’t ready. And also, uh, the Americans and they was, was responsible for losing hope of the people in democracy.
SREENIVASAN:
Yeah. You also chose to take on ISIS at a time when they were controlling a third of the country, really at one of the Heights of their power. Well, what happened?
ALBASHEER:
W we were the first in Iraq that mocks ISIS. It was in 2014. Just just after they controlled Mosul. And for that point, we just wanted the people to understand that ISIS is not a, uh, super, uh, people who cannot be fought. Like they’re normal people. You can’t, you can’t, you can fight and you can defeat easily. And for the propaganda that they’ve done when they occupied three cities, three provinces in Iraq, lots of people were terrified of vices believing that these people are invincible. You can’t, you can’t, you can’t defeat them. So we made them a joke telling them the, telling the people that these are just regular people you can make fun of. Uh, we broke the hallowed that they created for themselves.
SREENIVASAN:
This doesn’t come without consequence. Uh, recently you had a death threat because you mentioned McDonnell solder. This is, this is real, right? It just looks limited. Doc. Yeah.
ALBASHEER:
Bullet. That costs a half dollar. That will be enough to end my life.
SREENIVASAN:
How do you feel about that? I mean, that’s your home and eh, right now there’s no real safe way for you to go back.
ALBASHEER:
No, there’s no, there’s no, this is not the only threat, by the way. I’ve got lots of threats also from other militias. So why continue? This is my job. This is what I have to do. Someone needs to tell the people what’s going on with these people. Someone needs to explain to them because all the media are connected to them. Eventually they control everything in the media. This is [inaudible] is the only institution that it’s independent. It doesn’t relate to any politician. And thanks to Dutch Avila, the German TV who gives us that space because if wasn’t, if we’re on the Dutch, Dorchester was there, we will never be able to broadcast this show. We’re banned from every Iraqi TV station by the way.
SREENIVASAN:
The show was carried initially on Iraqi TV. And then what each of those were told not to run you anymore?
ALBASHEER:
Yes. Actually one was stopped by um, the government and the second word were threatened and they were scared.
SREENIVASAN:
And so you make this from outside of Iraq. Yup. Right. And as you go around to these different communities where you make the shows, do you find support there? Do you find Iraqis there that are upset that you’re making this?
ALBASHEER:
Yeah. Not upset. No. No. All the people I meet is the people who support what I, what I, what I’m doing. I see. Like only the people who are upset. I see them on social media and lots of them are funded by political parties because all the Iraqis share the same problems. She had the same, same disasters. They feel the same pain. So no one, no Iraqi will will stand against what I’m doing.
SREENIVASAN:
Tell me a bit about where you grew up. What was it like?
ALBASHEER:
I grew up in a religious family and a very religious family and I had always, like, since I was a child, since I was a teenager, since I started to understand things about life, I was always in them. Um, let’s say, uh, we are two sides. It’s like I am the left and they’re the right. So you are clashing with your parents? My dad. Not your dad. Yeah. Specifically my dad was a believes that I should wake up at 5:00 AM to go to the mosque. I have to memorize all these stuff. So he’s a very strict father. A very religious, yes. Okay. Yeah. And he believed that I should, uh, I shouldn’t have a girlfriend. I shouldn’t call a girls. Uh, talk to girls. I shouldn’t go to uh, let’s say social clubs. We are big family, seven brothers and sisters. Eight actually, uh, no concern for any of their safety because of what you do. All of them are outside. They like all of them are left. All of them because of me left all of them. They have dreams in their home, they have a, they want to stay there. They want to serve their country. Some of them, uh, want to do something for the country, but they can’t. They left and now they’re doing nothing outside the country waiting for the moment to go back and to live like normal people. Just because I’m saying things on TV, they’re almost banned from going to Iraq. You feel responsible for that? Yes, I do. Yeah. But more than four millions heirarchies left the country and all of them for the same reason as I do that they’re searching for freedom and I don’t believe someone free who can live under militias. And that is this regime. This is why protesters are on the streets now.
AMANPOUR:
Iraqi comedian Ahmed al-Bashir talking about the struggles there with our hurry screen of arson. And finally we end our show with hope and rebirth. India is reintroducing cheetahs into the wild for the very first time since the big cats were declared extinct there 70 years ago, there are only 7,000 cheetahs left in the whole world, and the new ones will come to India from Namibia in Southern Africa. Environmental is hope the animals will take to their new home. India has had success boosting its tiger population in the past, thanks to new protections for those endangered animals. That is good news and that is it for our program tonight. Remember, you can follow me on the show on Twitter. Thank you for watching. I’m a porn company on PBS and join us again tomorrow night.