Read Full Transcript EXPAND
♪♪♪
> HELLO, EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO 'AMANPOUR & CO.'
HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.
TWO GREAT POWERS MEET.
WHAT IS THE WORLD TO MAKE OF THIS BRIEF ENCOUNTER?
PUTTING THE BIDEN/PUTIN SUMMIT INTO HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE WITH THE GREAT-GRANDDAUGHTER OF THE SOVIET LEADER RICHARD HAAS.
> PLUS, THE LAST BEST HOPE FOR A DIVIDED AMERICA.
GEORGE PACKER TALKS ABOUT HIS NEW BOOK AND BRINGING TOGETHER A FRACTURED NATION.
TRUTH IS A BATTLE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION.
AND MAYBE NEVER MORE SO THAN NEVER.
WALTER ISAKSON, IN DEFENSE OF TRUTH.
♪♪♪
'AMANPOUR & CO.' IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE ANDERSON FAMILY FUND, SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY, CANDACE KING WEIR, THE STRAUS FAMILY FOUNDATION, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.
THANK YOU.
> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.
I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.
U.S. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN HAVE MET FOR HISTORIC TALKS IN GENEVA.
AND THE RUSSIAN LEADER APPEARED POSITIVE AFTERWARDS.
Translator: I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY KIND OF HOSTILITY.
OUR MEETING WAS OBVIOUSLY A FUNDAMENTAL ONE, MANY OF -- JOINT POSITIONS ARE DIVERGENT, BUT NEVERTHELESS, I THINK THAT BOTH SIDES MANIFESTED DETERMINATION TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER AND TRY AND CONVERGE OUR POSITIONS.
AND I THINK IT WAS VERY CONSTRUCTIVE.
CONSTRUCTIVE AND AS PUTIN SAID, THEY WANT STRATEGIC STABILITY.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME U.S. AND RUSSIAN LEADERS HAVE MET SINCE 1985.
BACK THEN, RONALD REAGAN FACE TO FACE WITH A NEW SOVIET LEADER MICK CAL GORBACHEV MADE AN OPENING SPEECH.
HE SAID THEY'RE THE TWO GREATEST COUNTRIES ON THE EARTH.
THEY'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO IS CAN START WORLD WAR III BUT ALSO THE ONLY TWO COUNTRIES THAT COULD BRING PEACE TO THE WORLD.
WELL, TIMES CERTAINLY HAVE CHANGED.
IN A SMALL NOD, PRESIDENT BIDEN SEEMED TO ELEVATE MOSCOW'S GLOBAL STANDING.
I SAID OUTSIDE --
PRESIDENT BIDEN THERE RESETTING THE BAR AFTER PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD ENRAGED PUTIN BY CALLING MOSCOW JUST A REGIONAL POWER.
NOW THE WHOLE EVENT HAS GENERATED INTENSE GLOBAL ATTENTION.
JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE CHAOS AMONGST THE MEDIA WHO WERE JOCKEYING FOR ACCESS TO THESE TWO LEADERS.
TO TRY TO PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT AND DIG DEEP INTO THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TODAY'S SUMMIT, WE'RE JOINED FROM MOSCOW BY THE RUSSIAN SCHOLAR, SHE'S ALSO THE GREAT-GRANDDAUGHTER OF THE SOVIET LEADER KHRUSHCHEV AND THE RICHARD HAAS.
WELCOME TO OUR PROGRAM.
NINA, PUTIN HAS SPOKEN ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE AIMS AND TALKS ABOUT WANTING STRATEGIC STABILITY AND VARIOUS AREAS OF COOPERATION.
THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME.
HE IS DOING WHAT HE'S ALWAYS DOING, THAT RUSSIA IS A POWER AND IT REALLY MEANS NO HARM TO ANYBODY.
BUT IF YOU WORK WITH US WE ARE GOING TO BE HELPFUL AND WONDERFUL AND WHATNOT.
YOU JUST GAVE HIM, BY THE WAY, WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT YOU GAVE HIM, A GREAT GIFT WHEN YOU SAID TWO GREAT POWERS.
JUST MET IN GENEVA BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE'S BEEN LOOKING FOR.
HE WANTED ANOTHER BIG THREE, THE YALTA SUMMIT DURING WORLD WAR II.
SO HE WOULD BE SEEN AS ONE OF THOSE GREAT POWERS.
OF COURSE, CHINA IS A MUCH GREATER POWER.
IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL SECURITY, PROBABLY, IT HAS CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES.
THEY NEED TO BE SITTING DOWN LIKE THIS.
BUT RUSSIA IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS NOW A NEW CHINESE ALLY AND AN ADVERSARY OF THE UNITED STATES.
IN MANY WAYS WHAT THE PRESS CONFERENCE TOLD ME IS THAT BASICALLY PUTIN AFFIRMED THAT IF THE UNITED STATES STAYS OUT OF ITS INTERNAL AFFAIRS, IT'S GOING TO BE LESS CONFRONTATIONAL AND LESS UNPREDICTABLE ON THE WORLD STAGE, OR SO I READ ABOUT -- THE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT HE HAD.
OKAY.
SO LET ME GO TO RICHARD HAAS BECAUSE I DIDN'T GIVE HIM THAT GREAT GIFT, THAT WAS PRESIDENT BIDEN'S GIFT OF THE USE OF THE WORLD GLOBAL POWER.
THERE ARE MANY IN THE UNITED STATES SAY BIDEN SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.
IT'S APPEASING PUTIN.
WHAT'S YOUR ASSESSMENT SO FAR OF THE TONE AT LEAST?
SO FAR THE TONE IS QUITE BUSINESS-LIKE.
IN THE CONTEXT OF U.S./RUSSIA RELATIONS IN RECENT YEARS, IT'S AS IF SOMEBODY DIALED IT DOWN SLIGHTLY.
PUTIN GOT IN HIS SHOTS PUBLICLY GOING AFTER THE CHAOS POLITICALLY IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT A LOT OF THAT IS AIMED NOT JUST AT US BUT AT HOME.
IT'S HIS WAY OF JUSTIFYING -- WE ASSOCIATE THE WORD DEMOCRACY WITH SOMETHING THAT IS UNRULY.
BUT I THINK PUTIN IS OPEN TO A SLIGHTLY MORE STABLE RELATIONSHIP.
WOULD OBVIOUSLY LIKE TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF ECONOMIC RELIEF AND BIDEN IS OPEN TO A MORE STABLE RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE IN LARGE PART HE DOESN'T WANT PROBLEMS CAUSED BY RUSSIA AND EUROPE.
DOESN'T WANT PROBLEMS CAUSED BY RUSSIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST AND WANTS TO FOCUS DOMESTICALLY, WHICH IS HIS PRIORITY, AND TO FOCUS ON CHINA IN THE ASIA PACIFIC.
SO IN THEIR OWN SORT OF WAY, THEY PROBABLY BOTH HAVE A SLIGHT CASE FOR CALMING THIS RELATIONSHIP, BUT NO ONE SHOULD CONFUSE THAT WITH DEVELOPING A SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP.
RUSSIA IS NOT ONE OF THE GREAT POWERS OF THIS ERA OF HISTORY AND RUSSIA HAS SHOWN ZERO INCLINATION TO USE WHAT POWER IT DOES HAVE IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FASHION.
I JUST WANT TO PLAY PUTIN'S SOMEWHAT CONCILIATORY REMARKS TO BIDEN AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
Translator: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT, FOR COMING UP WITH THE INITIATE FOR THIS MEETING.
I KNOW THAT YOU'VE HAD A LONG JOURNEY AND THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF WORK.
BUT NEVERTHELESS THE U.S. AND RUSSIA HAVE ACCUMULATED A LOT OF ISSUES THAT REQUIRE A MEETING AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
AND I TRUST THAT OUR MEETING WILL THEREFORE BE PRODUCTIVE.
SO, NINA, HE SAID THERE WAS NO HOSTILITY BETWEEN ME AND BIDEN.
HE EVEN MADE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TONE, THE PROFESSIONALISM OF PRESIDENT BIDEN VERSUS THE MORE IMPULSE-DRIVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WHAT BEYOND THIS ACCEPTANCE ON A WORLD STAGE IS IN IT FOR HIM?
IS IT IN PUTIN'S INTEREST TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, HOLDING OUT SORT OF HIMSELF AS THE ONLY GLOBAL CONFRONTER OF THE SUPERPOWER, UNITED STATES?
WELL, IN A SENSE, YES, BECAUSE HE DOES SEE HIMSELF AS THE SORT OF SUCCESSOR OF THE SOVIET LEADERS AND, THEREFORE, RUSSIA, THE SUCCESS OF THE SOVIET UNION AND THEREFORE HE CRAVES THAT PARITY.
THAT'S A GIVEN.
AT THE SAME TIME HE ALSO DOES UNDERSTAND -- AND I'M SURE HE UNDERSTANDS THAT, THAT IF AMERICA DECIDES TO REALLY DAMAGE RUSSIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, BANK INFRASTRUCTURE, THE WAY THE RUSSIANS ALLEGEDLY OR CONFIRMED BY THE AMERICAN SECURITY FORCES WAS DAMAGING, SAY, PARTS OF THE POWER GRID, SO THAT CAN HAPPEN.
AND I THINK PUTIN IS INTERESTED IN MANY WAYS AS THE SOVIET LEADERS WERE BEFORE WHEN THEY WOULD BE HOLDING NUCLEAR TALKS.
IT WAS ONCE SAID, WE PRODUCE NUCLEAR WARHEADS LIKE SAUSAGES AND YET THEY WERE EAGER WITH THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, THEY WERE EAGER TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT GLOBAL SECURITY.
AND I DO THINK IT'S NOT IN VAIN THAT BEFORE THE MEETING PUTIN TALKED ABOUT THE CYBERSECURITY AND HOW IT SHOULD BE THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
AND I BELIEVE IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE AMERICAN SIDE -- IT SOUNDS PROBABLY OXYMORONIC, BUT IT COULD BE USEFUL FOR THE WORLD.
RICHARD, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'VE BEEN SECOND IN COMMAND AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
YOU'VE HELD MANY DIPLOMATIC POSITIONS DEALING WITH THESE VERY ISSUES FOR MANY DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS.
IS TODAY THE CYBERTHREAT IS THE BIGGEST THREAT, NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION WAS BACK THEN.
I WANT TO ASK YOU IF WHETHER WHAT PUTIN SAID ABOUT THAT IS ENOUGH FOR THE UNITED STATES.
IN THE NUCLEAR AGE, AMERICA NEW WHERE EVERY SOVIET WEAPON WAS LOCATED.
IN THE CYBER AGE THERE'S NO WAY TO COUNT THE THREATS OR FIGURE OUT WHO HAS THEIR FINGER ON THE KEYBOARD.
THE GENERAL HACKERS, TEENAGERS, RICHARD, PUTIN TALKED ABOUT HAVING A BILATERAL CONVERSATION ABOUT CYBERSECURITY, PUT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVE AND HOW BIG A THREAT THIS IS AND WHAT HE SAID DID IT SATISFY SOMEONE LIKE YOURSELF?
IT WON'T SATISFY ME AT ALL.
SAYING SOMETHING IS CHEAP.
NOT DOING THESE ACTIVITIES HIMSELF, THAT'S WHAT MATTERS.
BUT I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING INTERESTING HERE.
WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THE EMERGENCE OF CYBER AS MAYBE THE PRINCIPLE ISSUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA.
WE'VE ALREADY FIGURED OUT HOW TO MANAGE OUR NUCLEAR COMPETITION.
WE'VE GOT TO SORT OF UNEASY STABILITY IN EUROPE.
YOU'VE GOT FROZEN CONFERENCE, NATO AND SO FORTH.
BUT CYBER HAS EMERGED AS THE GREATEST AREA OF FRICTION FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW.
PUTIN, THOUGH, CARES MOST ABOUT HIS OWN DOMESTIC POSITION.
IS THERE SOMETHING WHERE AT SOME POINT PUTIN MAY REIN IN SOME OF THEIR CYBER-RELATED BEHAVIOR WHICH IS SOMETHING WE WANT IN ORDER TO PUSH BACK AGAINST US TO MAYBE HAVE US EASE UP A LITTLE BIT ON SOME OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OR DEMOCRACY EMPHASIS.
I THINK THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
FOR HIM, CYBER IS A TOOL.
WHAT MATTERS MOST IS HIS OWN CONTINUED POLITICAL RULE AND CYBER IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THAT.
BUT HE KNOWS IT MATTERS TO US.
TO ME, THE INTERESTING QUESTION IS, WHAT IS HE WILLING TO TRADE SOME RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR FOR IN THE REALM OF CYBER.
WHAT IS HE GOING TO WANT FOR THAT?
THAT'S A SPACE TO WATCH.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
WHAT DOES YOUR GUT SAY?
MY GUT IS THAT HE'S GOTTEN SOMETHING OUT OF CYBER.
HE'S GOT -- HE'S GOT OUR ATTENTION.
HE DENIED IT AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY SAYING HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE VARIOUS GROUPS.
WE KNOW THAT'S NONSENSE.
THERE'S NOT A RUSSIAN WORD, IF YOU WILL, FOR FREELANCING IN PUTIN'S RUSSIA.
WE KNOW THESE GROUPS ONLY CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING BECAUSE THEY'RE TOLERATED OR EVEN SUPPORTED BY THE REGIME.
BUT HE OBVIOUSLY KNOWS IT MEANS A GREAT DEAL FOR US.
MY GUESS IS, HE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE, WHAT IF ANY LEVERAGE THAT HE COULD DERIVE FROM THAT, WHAT HE COULD TRADE IT FOR, WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING ON SANCTIONS, SOME EASING ON THE PRESSURE ON DEMOCRACY.
I THINK WHAT IS HAPPENED, WE'VE OPENED UP A DE FACTO NEGOTIATION OR AT LEAST A CONVERSATION WITH RUSSIA ON WHAT CONCERNS US MOST AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE WHAT CONCERNS HIM THE MOST.
BUT I THINK THIS IS THE OPENING ROUND OF THAT CONVERSATION TO BE CONTINUED.
REALLY INTERESTING.
AND, NINA, I WONDER WHETHER YOU THINK AT ALL BIDEN -- PRESIDENT BIDEN BROUGHT UP HUMAN RIGHTS?
I PRESUME HE DID.
BUT I WONDER WHETHER PUTIN RESPONDED IN THE SAME WAY HE DID AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE WHICH WAS THE REFUSAL TO MENTION ALEXEY NAVALNY AND PUTTING THE OWNERS OF NAVALNY'S IMPRISONMENT ON NAVALNY HIMSELF.
TAKE A LISTEN.
Translator: AS FAR AS OUR NONSYSTEMIC OR NONSTANDARD OPPOSITION IS CONCERNED AND THE GENTLEMAN YOU EQUATED, THIS MAN KNEW THAT HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW OF RUSSIA.
TWICE CONVICTED AND HE CONSCIOUSLY IGNORED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.
NINA, NAVALNY HAS DONE WHAT VERY FEW OTHER OPPOSITION LEADERS HAVE DONE, MADE THEMSELVES FRONT AND CENTER IN THE RUSSIAN DYNAMIC, OR HAS HE?
IS PUTIN ABLE TO CONTINUE JUST IGNORING HIM, KEEPING HIM IMPRISONED AND REMOVING HIM AS A POTENT FORCE?
HE'S NOT IGNORING HIM, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN A CONVERSATION ALL THE TIME AND I'M SURE PRESIDENT BIDEN BROUGHT IT UP AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS QUESTION CAME AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE BECAUSE I FORGET PROBABLY -- RUSSIA ONE, OR WHATEVER, THERE'S ALL VERY KREMLIN-CONNECTED OUTLETS.
I'M SURE THEY WERE ASKING THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS PROBABLY PART OF THE CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THEN PUTIN HAD TO SHOW TO THE WORLD WHERE HE STANDS ON THOSE ISSUES WHICH MEANS THAT NAVALNY IS NOBODY TO HIM.
IT MEANS NOTHING TO HIM.
KEEP ASKING, I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY BEHAVIOR.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE CYBER TO WHAT RICHARD WAS SAYING, THE CYBERSECURITY COULD ALSO BE, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE NAVALNY CONVERSATION AS WELL.
PUTIN IS NEVER GOING TO ADMIT OR ACCEPT, ACKNOWLEDGE, NAVALNY, BUT HE MAY LET HIM GO AS HE DID, AS YOU REMEMBER, WITH THE PREVIOUS OPPOSITION LEADER OR PREVIOUS PUTIN OPPONENT, THE OIL HEAD AND -- HE WAS PUT TO -- IN PRISON FOR POLITICAL WORK AND THEN WAS RELEASED AND WAS SENT TO SWITZERLAND, I BELIEVE.
SO IT IS POSSIBLE.
BUT BASICALLY WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOR ME IS THAT PUTIN REALLY -- HE DREW THOSE RED LINES THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK GLOBALLY ON A VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT ARE INTERESTING TO THE UNITED STATES AND MAYBE SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING THROUGH THE UNITED STATES, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET US TELL -- LET -- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TELL US HOW TO DEAL WITH OUR INTERNAL PROBLEMS.
IT WAS INTERESTING, HE MENTIONED EUROPE AND RUSSIA TODAY IN THE SAME QUESTION.
RUSSIA TODAY IS THE PROPAGANDA CHANNEL OF THE KREMLIN BROADCASTING IN ENGLISH.
SO HE EQUATED THEM.
HE SAID, IF WE -- IF YOU SAY WE CREATE OUR PROPAGANDA TO THE WEST, THEN YOU CREATE YOUR PROPAGANDA TO US.
AND WE ARE GOING TO WORK ON THIS, BUT ONLY ON THE QUESTIONS OF BALANCE AND EQUALITY.
SO I THINK HE REALLY MADE IT KNOWN, LET US BE WHAT WE ARE INSTEAD AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE OUTSIDE ISSUES.
WELL, AS IF ON CUE, AS WE ARE SPEAKING, PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS STARTED HIS PRESS CONFERENCE AND HE STARTED BY SAYING THAT MY AGENDA IS NOT AGAINST RUSSIA, BUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
HE'S SAYING THAT THERE'S NO SUBSTITUTE FOR LEADER-TO-LEADER DISCUSSIONS ON THESE ISSUES, PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE, AND HE SAYS HE BROUGHT UP HUMAN RIGHTS.
I TOLD PRESIDENT PUTIN MY AGENDA IS NOT AGAINST RUSSIA OR ANYONE ELSE.
IT'S FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
FIGHTING COVID-19, REBUILDING OUR ECONOMY, RE-ESTABLISHING RELATIONSHIPS AROUND THE WORLD WITH OUR ALLIES AND FRIENDS AND PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY AS PRESIDENT.
I ALSO TOLD HIM THAT NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD KEEP FAITH WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IF THEY DID NOT SPEAK OUT TO DEFEND OUR DEMOCRATIC VALUES, TO STAND UP FOR THE UNIVERSAL AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS THAT ALL MEN AND WOMEN HAVE IN OUR VIEW, THAT'S JUST PART OF THE DNA OF OUR COUNTRY.
SO HUMAN RIGHTS IS GOING TO ALWAYS BE ON THE TABLE, I TOLD HIM.
SO, RICHARD, TO NINA'S POINT AND ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE, CLEARLY PUTIN, YOU KNOW, SWATTED IT AWAY.
AND HE ALSO BROUGHT UP, AS HE ALWAYS DOES, PUTS THE ONUS ON AMERICA.
WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6TH?
AND ON AND ON.
IS THIS JUST A -- IT'S NEVER GOING TO WORK, ANY KIND OF AMERICAN EFFORT TO GET HIM TO PLAY BALL ON GLOBALLY ACCEPTED HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES?
AGAIN, HE'LL ONLY PLAY BALL IF HE SEES IT AS CONSISTENT WITH HIS OWN MAINTENANCE OF POWER.
IF HE DOESN'T SEE IT AS CONSISTENT AND HE TENDS NOT TO, HE WON'T PLAY BALL.
IT'S NOT HIS PRIORITY.
I THINK HE JUST POKES AT US BECAUSE, AGAIN, HE -- HE CAN'T RESIST IT.
AND IT'S USEFUL AT HOME TO SOME EXTENT BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT POINTS OUT THE IMPERFECTIONS OF DEMOCRACY.
BUT THE LARGER QUESTION IS REALLY FOR THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.
COMING OUT OF GENEVA, HOW DO WE RANK OR PRIORITIES WITH DEALING WITH PUTIN AND RUSSIA?
IF WE PUT DEMOCRACY FIRST, WE'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND, ONE, WE'RE PUTTING A LOT OF STAKE IN SOMETHING WHERE WE MIGHT NOT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE, AND, TWO, IT PROBABLY REMOVES THE POSSIBILITY OF PROGRESS ELSEWHERE.
IF WE'RE PREPARED NOT TO PUT IT FIRST, BUT TO PUT IT SECOND OR THIRD AND INSTEAD WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON CYBER OR FOCUS ON NUCLEAR OR AFGHANISTAN, THEN IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP.
SO I ACTUALLY THINK COMING OUT OF GENEVA, THE BIGGEST QUESTION FOR THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TO THINK, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THE PRIORITIES IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY?
WHAT EXTENT IS IT GOING TO BE THE RULE OF LAW IN PLACES LIKE RUSSIA AND PLACES LIKE CHINA OR TO WHAT EXTENT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE BASED UPON -- UNDERSTANDING WE GOT A BROAD RANGE OF ISSUES AND THIS LIMITS TO OUR INFLUENCE WHEN IT COMES TO PUSHING FOR INTERNAL POLITICAL CHANGE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
IT'S REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THAT OBVIOUSLY IS ALSO A CONUNDRUM IN DEALING WITH THE OTHER GREAT CHALLENGING POWER AND THAT'S CHINA.
HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THOSE ISSUES WHILE HAVING TO ALSO COOPERATE ON VITAL IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR GLOBAL STABILITY.
LET ME ASK YOU BOTH NOW TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT WAS A CHOREOGRAPHED, SEPARATE PRESS CONFERENCES, WE UNDERSTAND CERTAINLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, THEY DIDN'T WANT ANY POSSIBILITY OF A REPEAT OF WHAT WAS TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES A DEBACLE BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND PUTIN IN HELSINKI A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE TRUMP LOOKED LIKE HE WAS GIVING AWAY THE SHOP TO PUTIN.
ESPECIALLY ON INTELLIGENCE.
THIS IS WHAT FIONA HILL, THE FORMER RUSSIA DIRECTOR UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO CNN ABOUT THAT MOMENT WHEN THEY COULD SEE THE WHOLE THING FALLING APART IN HELSINKI.
FIRST OF ALL, I LOOKED AROUND TO SEE IF THERE WAS A FIRE ALARM.
BUT WE WERE IN A RATHER GRAND BUILDING ATTACHED TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PALACE OF THE FINISH PRESIDENT AND I COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLED A FIRE ALARM.
LOOK, I HAD EXACTLY THE SAME FEELING THAT DEBRA HAD DURING THE INFAMOUS PRESS CONFERENCE WITH THE SUGGESTION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT INJECTING BLEACH TO COUNTERACT THE CORONAVIRUS.
IT WAS ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS WHERE IT WAS MORTIFYING AND HUMILIATING FOR THE COUNTRY.
I WANT TO PUT THE QUESTION IN CONTEXT OF PREVIOUS SUMMITS.
WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
NINA, YOUR GREAT GRANDFATHER, THE SECOND MAJOR LEADER OF THE SOVIET UNION, HE HAD INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT SIT-DOWNS WITH PRESIDENT KENNEDY, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT AND AROUND THE CUBAN MISSILES CRISIS.
LET ME ASK YOU, FIRST, TO DESCRIBE THAT DEBACLE, TODAY'S MEETING IN CONTEXT OF THE HISTORIC MEETINGS, OF COURSE, REAGAN AND GORBACHEV.
I THINK IT WAS A VERY SMART DECISION NOT TO HAVE BOTH PRESS CONFERENCES, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK PUTIN WOULD HAVE MADE MINCEMEAT OUT OF BIDEN, NO WAY.
BIDEN CAN SOMETIMES BE PRONE TO GAFFES, NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT PUTIN WOULD OUTSMART HIM AT A CONFERENCE.
BUT I THINK YOU CANNOT REALLY COUNT FOR THE JOURNALIST.
IF IT WAS A, LET'S HAVE A CONVERSATION, BY THE WAY, THAT WAS A VERY -- ALSO VERY GOOD FRAMING OF THE MEETING.
FOR THE FIRST TIME I THINK AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO SOLVE THE RELATIONSHIP.
HE SAID, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T GET WORST, BUT NO WORDS OF OPTIMISM, WHICH COOLED DOWN, I THINK, TEMPERS QUITE A BIT.
YOU CANNOT COUNT ON A JOURNALIST -- IN FACT, WE SAW IT WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN, PEOPLE WERE ASKING FOR -- MEDIA WAS ASKING HIM VERY PROBIC QUESTIONS.
HE DEALT WITH THEM.
BUT IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF JOE BIDEN WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE.
THEY ARE NOT AGREEING, ESPECIALLY, ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
THAT WOULD BE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE PRESS CONFERENCE TOGETHER IF YOU TRIED TO SOMEHOW AT LEAST EVEN OUT -- NOT MEND THE RELATIONSHIP, BUT AT LEAST EVEN OUT.
WITH KENNEDY AND KHRUSHCHEV IN '61, THERE WAS A DISASTER BECAUSE KHRUSHCHEV UNDERESTIMATED KENNEDY, KENNEDY OVERESTIMATED KHRUSHCHEV.
AND IN THE '61 MEETING, WE GOT THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS IN '62.
IN '85 THEY WERE CAREFUL MEETING IN GENEVA, HAVING A MEETING WHERE THEY WOULD REINTRODUCE ALL -- GORBACHEV WOULD REINTRODUCE THE SOVIET UNION THAT WOULD LIKE TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION TO THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE COMFORTABLE ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS.
LET ME TURN TO YOU --
GO AHEAD.
GO AHEAD.
AND I WANT YOU TO ALSO ANALYZE FOR ME THE YELTSIN/CLINTON ONE.
WHERE CLINTON HOPED THAT YELTSIN WOULD BRING IN A DEMOCRATIC PARTNERSHIP IN RUSSIA.
I THINK FOR THEIR OWN REASONS THEY WERE BOTH WISE NOT TO HAVE A JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE.
LET ME TALK ABOUT IT FROM BIDEN'S POINT OF VIEW.
IT WASN'T A LACK OF CONFIDENCE.
BIDEN AFTER 40, 50 YEARS OF DOING THIS IS MORE THAN ABLE TO HOLD HIS OWN.
BUT IT WOULD HAVE INTRODUCED THE COMPETITIVE DYNAMIC, EVEN A DISSTRUCKTIVE DYNAMIC.
AND IF THE PURPOSE WAS TO STABILIZE THIS RELATIONSHIP AND NOT TO FORCE EACH OTHER TO SAY THINGS IN PUBLIC THAT WOULD HAVE ALL SPORTS OF COMPLICATING CONSEQUENCES, THE BEST WAY TO AVOID THAT WAS TO AVOID A SITUATION YOU COULDN'T CONTROL.
THIS WAY, THEY WOULD EACH HAVE THEIR OWN SITUATION WITH THE PRESS MUCH MORE MAYBE CONTROL IS TOO STRONG OF A WORD.
BUT MUCH MORE ABLE TO LIMIT HOW -- THE DYNAMICS OF THE SESSION.
SO I THINK FROM BIDEN'S POINT OF VIEW, THIS WASN'T EVEN A CLOSE CALL.
REALLY A SMART THING TO -- BOTH TO AVOID.
JUST TO DO IT SEPARATELY.
ALSO BIDEN HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF COMING AFTER PUTIN.
IT GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT SPIN PUTIN PUT ON THINGS AND BIDEN COULD PLAY OFF IT, CORRECT IT, REINFORCE IT AND SO FORTH.
WHAT WE'VE LEARNED ALSO, WHETHER IT WAS WITH YELTSIN OR ANYONE ELSE, THE DANGER IS ALWAYS THAT IT INTRODUCES A DEGREE OF UNPREDICTABILITY.
THAT YOU CAN'T SCRIPT THESE THINGS WHEN YOU GO PUBLIC AFTERWARDS.
YOU CAN'T SCRIPT A QUESTION.
YOU CAN'T SCRIPT THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS, PARTICULAR WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE AS LIKE YELTSIN.
THERE'S NO UPSIDE.
I THINK THIS WAY THEY BOTH GET OUT OF GENEVA AND THEY LIVE TO DISAGREE ANOTHER DAY AND THAT'S OKAY.
IT DOES LOOK -- PUTIN SAYS THEY'VE AGREED TO EXCHANGE AND, YOU KNOW, BRING BACK THEIR AMBASSADORS.
SO BOTH COUNTRIES, BOTH CAPITALS WILL HAVE THEIR AMBASSADORS HELPING WITH DIPLOMACY IN THAT LEVEL.
IT'S BEEN FASCINATING TALKING TO BOTH OF YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH ON THIS REALLY IMPORTANT DAY.
> OF COURSE, ALL EYES ARE ON GENEVA, BUT PRESIDENT BIDEN FACES A CRISIS CLOSER TO HOME.
THE FRACTURES OF U.S. SOCIETY.
THE JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR GEORGE PACKER ARGUES THAT AMERICANS ARE SPLITTING INTO FOUR DISTINCT GROUPS.
IT'S A SUBJECT OF HIS NEW BOOK 'LAST BEST HOPE.'
AND GEORGE PACKER IS JOINING ME FROM NEW YORK.
WELCOME BACK TO THE PROGRAM.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS FIRST IN CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'VE JUST BEEN DISCUSSING AND MOST PARTICULARLY ABOUT DEMOCRACY WHERE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S TRIP ABROAD AND IN RUSSIA AND TO THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ABOUT DEFENDING DEMOCRACY FIRST AND FOREMOST.
GIVE ME YOUR TAKE ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN TODAY AND HOW IT FITS INTO YOUR THESIS.
WELL, THERE'S SOMETHING REALLY FAMILIAR ABOUT SEEING AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT, MEETING WITH THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT.
ALL THE USUAL FORMALITIES OF IT.
FAMILIAR, TO THE KNOWN AFTER THE TUMULT OF THE TRUMP YEARS.
BUT THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING WHICH IS THAT BIDEN IS THE PRESIDENT OF A -- NOT JUST DEEPLY DIVIDED, BUT BADLY AILING COUNTRY WHERE DEMOCRACY ITSELF I THINK IS NO QUESTION AND ITS SURVIVAL IS IN QUESTION.
THE UNITED STATES WOULD LIKE TO BE IN A POSITION TO HOLD RUSSIA'S FEET TO THE FIRE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, REASSURE OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES THAT WE'RE BACK, ET CETERA.
BUT EVERYONE KNOWS WE'RE NOT BACK.
IF I WERE A EUROPEAN LEADER, I WOULD BE THINKING, WELL, THIS IS VERY NICE TO HAVE THE U.S.
PRESIDENT SAYING ALL THESE GOOD THINGS ONCE AGAIN.
ALL WELL AND GOOD.
BUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN TWO YEARS OR IN FOUR YEARS AND HOW CAN WE BE SURE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RETURN TO WHERE THEY WERE UNDER TRUMP AND THAT IS THE REAL AMERICA RATHER THAN WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY.
IN SOME WAYS, THIS IS AN AILING DEMOCRACY THAT REALLY CAN'T PLAY THE ROLE THAT IT ONCE DID IN SETTING THE EXAMPLE FOR EUROPE AND CHALLENGING RUSSIA AND COMPETING WITH CHINA ALL AT ONCE.
IT'S A BIT OF A -- A LITTLE BIT OF A FACADE THAT HAS SOMETHING HALLOW BEHIND IT.
OKAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S QUITE, I GUESS, SOBERING TO HEAR FROM YOU THAT MANY WORLD LEADERS ARE NOT 100% SURE WHETHER AMERICA IS BACK.
AND DO LOOK AT THE 74-PLUS MILLION PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP AND WONDER WHETHER THIS FRACTURIZATION, THIS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WORLD IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK IN FULL FORCE IN FOUR YEARS OR THROUGHOUT.
I WANT YOU TO COMMENT ON THAT.
YOU SAY IN YOUR BOOK SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG WITH THE LAST BEST HOPE OF EARTH, AMERICANS KNOW IT.
THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT.
YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT HOW IT'S GONE WRONG.
HOW DOES ONE MAKE IT GO BACK INTO THE BOX?
NOTHING EVER RETURNS TO WHERE IT WAS IN HISTORY.
OBVIOUSLY, THINGS JUST SIMPLY KEEP EVOLVING FORWARD.
IN MY BOOK, I LOOK AT THE LAST HALF CENTURY OF AMERICAN LIFE AND I SEE FOUR WAYS IN WHICH AMERICANS IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND THE COUNTRY, DOMINANT WAYS.
THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE NOT DOMINANT.
THESE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE.
THEY'RE ALL IN THE KIND OF CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER FOR SUPREMACY.
THERE'S A LOT OF STATUS COMPETITION.
IT'S THE SOURCE OF A GREAT DEAL OF OUR VITRIOL AND RESENTMENT AND POLARIZATION.
AND THEY'VE KIND OF PROCEEDED CHRONOLOGICALLY FROM WHAT I CALL FREE AMERICA, WHICH WAS REAGAN'S AMERICA, THE AMERICA OF UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM AND INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE TO SMART AMERICA, THE AMERICA OF THE CLINTONS, THE MERITOCRACY, EDUCATED, PROFESSIONAL AMERICA, TO REAL AMERICA WHICH BEGAN IN SOME WAYS WITH SARAH PALIN WHO USED THAT PHRASE AND HAD ITS FULLEST REALIZATION WITH DONALD TRUMP.
THE RIGHT-WING POPULISM THAT LOOKED AT AMERICANS AS ARE YOU A REAL AMERICAN OR ARE YOU ONE OF THEM, THE ELITES, THE NONWHITES, THE FOREIGNERS.
AND THEN WHAT I CALL JUST AMERICA WHICH IS A REBELLION ON THE PART OF A YOUNGER GENERATION THAT BELIEVES MERITOCRACY IS A SHAM.
IN SOME WAYS THERE ARE TWO ELITE NARRATIVES, FREE, LIBERTARIAN AND SMART, AND TWO REBELLIOUS NARRATIVES FROM BELOW, REAL, WHICH IS RIGHT-WING POPULIST, AND JUST, WHICH IS A SOCIAL JUSTICE NARRATIVE AND THAT -- THERE'S CONFLICTS BOTH ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RED/BLUE DIVIDE AND WITHIN EACH SIDE SO THAT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN SIMPLY TWO COUNTRIES.
WE ARE TWO COUNTRIES.
BUT EACH COUNTRY IS AT WAR WITH ITSELF IN SOME WAYS.
IT'S SO COMPLICATED.
ALMOST, ONE COUNTRY, FOUR NARRATIVES AND I WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU COME DOWN ON WHICH ONE WILL WIN AND I MEAN, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHICH STARTS OR STANDS FOR THOSE GREATEST IDEALS AND JUST TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE, IN 1838, BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, IT WAS ABRAHAM LINCOLN WHO SAID HOW MIGHT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY DIE.
AND ESSENTIALLY, LONG STORY SHORT, HIS VIEW IS THAT IT WILL BE DESTROYED BY SUICIDE.
IN OTHER WORDS, AMERICANS THEMSELVES WILL DESTROY THIS DEMOCRACY THAT THEY HAVE TRIED TO PERFECT BUT ALSO TRIED TO PURSUE AND MOMENT AROUND THE WORLD.
WHERE DO YOU COME DOWN ON THE -- I DON'T KNOW, IS IT A WINNER OR LOSER OR WHO GRADUALLY IS IN THOSE FOUR NARRATIVES THAT YOU OUTLINED.
THEY'RE ALL INADEQUATE BECAUSE THEY LEAVE LARGE NUMBERS OF US OUT BECAUSE THEY CREATE WINNERS AND LOSERS.
FOR FREE AMERICA, THE WINNERS ARE THE MAKERS, THE LOSERS ARE THE TAKERS WHO DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT.
FOR SMART AMERICA, THE WINNERS ARE THE EDUCATED, THE LOSERS ARE THE UNEDUCATED WHO ARE FALLING BEHIND.
FOR REAL AMERICA, THE WINNERS ARE IN THE WHITE CHRISTIAN HEART LAND AND THE LOSERS ARE THE COASTAL ELITES AND THE NONWHITES IN THE CITIES.
AND FOR JUST AMERICA, THERE'S A KIND OF INVERSION OF THE OLD HIERARCHY SO THAT THE OPPRESSED BECOME -- ARE NOW ON TOP AND THE OPPRESSORS ARE ON THE BOTTOM.
THERE'S ALWAYS A DIVISION IN ALL OF THEM.
MY IDEA IS WHAT WE NEED IS EQUAL AMERICA.
THAT'S MY NAME FOR THE NARRATIVE THAT MIGHT GET US OUT OF THIS HOLE.
IT'S AN OLD IDEA.
IT GOES BACK TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
AND TO THE OBSERVATION THAT THE THING THAT'S MOST STRIKING ABOUT AMERICANS IS THE PASSION FOR EQUALITY.
THE DESIRE TO BE AS GOOD AS ANYONE ELSE.
THAT IS STILL THERE.
IT'S NEVER REALIZED.
WE'VE ALWAYS FAILED TO LIVE UP TO IT.
BUT IT BURNS INSIDE EACH OF US.
WHEN IT'S UNREALIZED, IT CREATES IMMENSE SOCIAL CONFLICT AND I THINK THERE ARE WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD BEGIN TO LOWER THE TEMPERATURE OF OUR POLITICS BY TRYING TO MAKE THE CONDITIONS OF LIFE MORE EQUAL IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY'VE BECOME SO RADICALLY UNEQUAL OVER THE LAST HALF CENTURY.
AND I THINK INEQUALITY IS REALLY AT THE HEART OF THESE DIVISIONS.
THAT'S MY TWO-WORD SOLUTION FOR A MASSIVE PROBLEM, EQUAL AMERICA.
AND THE INEQUALITY IS ABSOLUTELY BEEN EXPOSED LIKE NEVER BEFORE DURING THE PANDEMIC WHETHER IT'S AS YOU SAY INCOME AND FINANCIAL INEQUALITY, RACIAL INEQUALITY, AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT THERE WAS ALSO AN AMAZING SPEECH -- IF WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT HOPES OR RENEWAL.
IT WAS AFTER ONE OF THOSE POLICE SHOOTINGS IN KENOSHA.
JACOB BLAKE WHO WAS KILLED, HIS MOTHER, A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER SAID THIS --
BADLY WOUNDED.
BADLY WOUNDED, YES.
HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID.
PLEASE LET'S BEGIN TO PRAY FOR HEALING FOR OUR NATION.
WE ARE THE UNITED STATES.
HAVE WE BEEN UNITED?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE FALL BECAUSE A HOUSE THAT IS AGAINST EACH OTHER CANNOT STAND.
SO, OF COURSE, BADLY WOUNDED, BUT YOU SAY THIS SPEECH BY HIS MOTHER WAS THE ONE THAT AMERICA MOST NEEDED TO HEAR LAST YEAR.
EXPLAIN.
IT CAME IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT SUMMER OF THE PANDEMIC, OF THE TRUMP -- THE DEATH THROES IN SOME WAY OF THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY WHICH SEEMED LIKE IT ACTUALLY MIGHT HAVE A NEW LIFE.
AND OF THE PROTESTS.
THE ANTIPOLICE BRUTALITY PROTESTS WHICH HAD TURNED VIOLENT IN SOME PLACES, INCLUDING IN KENOSHA AFTER JACOB BLAKE'S SHOOTING AND JULIA JACKSON, HIS MOTHER, HAD DRIVEN THROUGH THE BURNED STREETS OF HER CITY TO GIVE THOSE REMARKS AND SAID HER SON WOULD NOT BE PLEASED TO SEE IT.
I FOUND HER SPEECH INCREDIBLY MOVING AND WISE BECAUSE SHE WAS ESSENTIALLY WARNING US, WE ARE HEADED FOR SOMETHING TERRIBLE IF WE KEEP FIGHTING ONE ANOTHER WITH THE FULL-ON MY WAY, NOT YOURS, WE'RE ENEMIES.
WE CAN NEVER GET ALONG ATTITUDE THAT WE'VE HAD AND SHE WAS QUOTING LINCOLN.
SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT A HOUSE DIVIDED.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF SHE WAS FULLY CONSCIOUS OF THE QUOTE, BUT IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL INVOCATION OF A CRUCIAL MOMENT IN OUR HISTORY BACK BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR AND A LOT OF AMERICANS TODAY WONDER IF WE'RE HEADED NOT FOR A FULL-ON MILITARY CIVIL WAR LIKE THAT BUT FOR SOME KIND OF PROLONGED CIVIL CONFLICT IN WHICH WE DON'T EMERGE RECOGNIZABLE TO OURSELVES.
I THOUGHT JULIA JACKSON WAS SAYING JUST WHAT WE NEEDED TO HEAR AT JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT, WHETHER OR NOT WE HEARD HER.
IT'S REALLY, REALLY AN IMPORTANT REALITY CHECK.
GEORGE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THOSE VALUABLE INSIGHTS.
THANK YOU.
> AND NOW OUR NEXT GUEST IS IS NO STRANGER TO ATTACKS ON FREE SPEECH.
IN 1989 HE WAS FAMOUSLY THE SUBJECT -- BY THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC CALLING FOR HIS ASSASSINATION ALL BECAUSE HIS NOVEL WAS DEEMED BLASPHEMOUS.
AND THE AUTHOR IS OUT WITH A NEW COLLECTION OF ESSAYS, LANGUAGES OF TRUTH.
HERE HE IS SPEAKING TO WALTER ISAKSON ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF STORYTELLING AND THE DANGERS OF CANCEL CULTURE.
THANK YOU.
WELCOME TO THE SHOW.
HELLO, NICE TO BE WITH YOU AGAIN.
YOUR WONDERFUL NEW COLLECTION OF ESSAYS IS CALLED 'THE LANGUAGES OF TRUTH.'
YOU SAY THAT THE LANGUAGES OF TRUTH THE ONLY MAGIC IN WHICH I BELIEVE.
THAT'S A WONDERFUL SENTENCE IN YOUR COLLECTION.
TELL ME WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT.
I'M NOT -- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT I'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF MAGIC REALISM ALL MY LIFE.
I ACTUALLY DON'T BELIEVE IN THE LITERALLY TRUTH OF FAIRYTALES.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT CARPETS FLY.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL IMAGES ARE TRUE IN A KIND OF LITERALLY WORLD WAY.
BUT I THINK THEY CONTAIN DEEP TRUTH AS WE ALL KNOW FROM CHILDHOOD UPWARDS.
WHEN WE READ THESE BEAUTIFUL TALES, WE RECEIVE THEM AS THE TRUTH.
AND THEY HELP TO SHAPE OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE ARTS CAN DO -- AND I'M MAKING A SPECIAL CASE FOR LITERATURE, BUT I THINK IT APPLIES ACROSS THE ARTS, IS THAT THEY CAN -- IF YOU LIKE, ESTABLISH A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE READER AND THE WRITER ABOUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS.
WHEN YOU READ A BOOK THAT YOU LIKE, OR WHICH SPEAKS TO YOU, YOU FIND YOURSELF THINKING, YES, THIS IS HOW IT IS.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LIKE.
THIS IS WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO TO EACH OTHER.
AND SO WE GET A NEUTRAL BELIEF BETWEEN THE WRITER AND THE READER.
AND I THINK PARTICULARLY IN AN AGE WHERE THE TRUTH HAS BEEN ASTONISHINGLY UNDER ATTACK, THAT MAY NOT BE -- THAT MIGHT BE A VALUABLE THING TO DO.
YOU SAY THE TRUTH IS UNDER ATTACK.
DO YOU THINK THE TRUTH IS AN OBJECTIVE THING THAT WE CAN GATHER WITH FACTS OR ARE THERE MULTIPLE TRUTHS?
WELL, I THINK THERE ARE THINGS WHICH ARE JUST SO.
THE WORLD IS ROUND.
THERE'S A WONDERFUL PASSAGE IN '100 YEARS OF SOLITUDE' IN WHICH THE GREAT PATRIARCH COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORLD IS ROUND.
HE TELLS HIS WIFE, THE WORLD IS ROUND LIKE AN ORANGE AND SHE SAYS YOU CAN DO THAT CRAZY STUFF IN THE LABORATORY, BUT DON'T FILL YOUR KIDS' HEADS WITH THAT NONSENSE.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PROVABLY SO.
AND ONE OF THE WEIRD THINGS ABOUT OUR TIME IS THAT EVEN THOSE THINGS, WHO WON THE ELECTION, FOR WHICH THERE IS OBVIOUS OBJECTIVE PROOF ARE NOW BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.
BUT ANOTHER SENSE IN WHICH THE TRUTH IS A VERY CONTESTED THING.
I GREW UP IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
AND WHAT THE BRITISH TOLD PEOPLE WAS THE TRUTH ABOUT IT WAS VERY RAPIDLY PROVED TO BE SOMETHING VERY UNLIKE THE TRUTH.
I REMEMBER IN INDIA, THE HISTORY BOOKS CHANGING, FROM THE ONES THAT THE BRITISH HAD LEFT BEHIND, TO THE ONES THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN AFTER INDEPENDENCE AND PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS VILLAINS WERE CHARACTERIZED AS HEROES BECAUSE OF THEIR PART IN THE INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE.
SO TRUTH IS A BACKLOG, THERE'S NO QUESTION.
AND MAYBE NEVER MORE SO THAN NOW.
WE'RE REWRITING HISTORY NOW SOMETIMES TO GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING TO BE REWRITING HISTORY AND TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTHS OF THE PAST?
I THINK EVERY AGE DOES IT.
THE TRUTH -- WHEN I WAS -- I STUDIED HISTORY AT THE UNIVERSITY AND ONE OF THE THINGS YOU FIND IS THAT EACH SUCCESSIVE AGE REWRITES THE PAST TO SUIT ITS OWN INTERESTS.
WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN TODAY, WE LOOK BACK INTO THE PAST AND WE SEE IT THERE.
WE SEE VERSIONS OF IT THERE.
THE WAY IN WHICH 17th CENTURY LOOKED AT THE 16th CENTURY IS NOT THE WAY IN WHICH THE 18th CENTURY LOOKED AT THE 16th CENTURY.
AS THE CENTURIES ROLL BY, WE'RE ALWAYS REWRITING THE PAST.
AND SOMETIMES THAT CAN BE ENORMOUSLY BENEFICIAL.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN AMERICA, THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN SLAVERY WAS AN ACCEPTED THING.
AND THEN THAT RADICALLY CHANGED.
AND THE HISTORY OF SLAVE-OWNING AMERICA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REWRITTEN IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
SO EACH AGE RETHINKS THE PAST, REUNDERSTANDS IT TO PICK ITS OWN INTERESTS AND THIS AGE IS NO EXCEPTION.
WHAT IS THE CONNECTION IN YOUR MIND BETWEEN TRUTH AND FREEDOM?
I THINK THEY'RE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.
I THINK ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL AUTHORITARIAN AND UNFREE SOCIETIES IS THEY TRY TO IMPOSE ON THEIR SOCIETY A NARRATIVE WHICH IS A LIE.
WHATEVER KIND OF DICTATOR OR AUTHORITARIAN RULER THERE'S EVER BEEN, TRIES TO IMPOSE HIS NARRATIVE ON THE WORLD AND TO DENY THE TRUTH OF EVERYTHING ELSE, AND THAT NARRATIVE IS USUALLY RADICALLY FALSE NARRATIVE.
SO THE TRUTH IS -- HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHEN PEOPLE SAY THE TRUTH CAN SET YOU FREE, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY MEAN IS THE TRUTH HAS TO GO TO WAR AGAINST THE LIE.
AND IT'S VERY OFTEN A BLOODY WAR.
YOU WRITE THAT WE LIVE IN ANNAGE IN WHICH MANY PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE COME TO FEEL THAT LIMITATIONS NEEDS TO BE PLACED ON FREE EXPRESSION.
WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF CANCEL CULTURE, DEPLATFORMING?
I'M NOT A FAN OF IT, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH.
HERE'S THE THING.
EVEN IN THE WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, DIFFERENCE SOCIETIES DRAW THE LINE IN DIFFERENT PLACES.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE UK, THERE'S A THING CALLED THE RACE RELATIONS ACT.
AND IT MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO MAKE RACIST REMARKS.
IF YOU MAKE OPENLY RACIST REMARKS, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED AND SENT TO JAIL.
HERE IN AMERICA, THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS A BROADER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE SPEECH.
AND THINGS THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE RACE RELATIONS ACT ARE PERMISSIBLE HERE.
THERE ARE COUNTRIES IN EUROPE WHICH MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO DENY THE HOLOCAUST.
IT'S PUNISHABLE BY JAIL SENTENCES TO DENY THE HOLOCAUST.
I BELIEVE IN GERMANY AND AUSTRIA.
YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY.
IN THIS COUNTRY, THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS EVEN THAT.
SO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THIS IS AN ARGUMENT AMONGST FRIENDS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF EXPRESSION?
AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS THE BROADEST ANSWER TO THAT.
AND WHEN I 21 YEARS AGO CAME TO LIVE IN AMERICA FROM ENGLAND, ESSENTIALLY I CHANGED MY MIND.
I USED TO THINK THAT THE BRITISH WAY WAS FINE.
IF PEOPLE ARE PRESENTED FROM MAKING RACIST REMARKS, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT.
I THOUGHT PERFECTLY REASONABLE.
I CAME TO SEE THAT THIS BROADER CHURCH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WHERE EVEN VERY UNATTRACTIVE FORMS OF SPEECH ARE PERMITTED IS PREFERABLE BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON'T CHANGE UNPLEASANT OPINIONS BY FOR BIDDING THEM TO BE EXPRESSED.
YOU SOMETIMES GIVE THEM THE GLAMOUR OF BEING UNDERGROUND AND TABOO.
I WOULD SOONER KNOW WHERE THOSE UNPLEASANT EXPRESSIONS ARE, WHO THINKS THAT.
I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE ENEMY IS, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, RATHER THAN HAVE THE ENEMIES STALKING IN THE SHADOWS.
I CAME AROUND TO THINKING THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS PREFERABLE TO THE BRITISH WAY.
BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE BRITISH WAY.
IT'S A CONSTANT -- IT'S AN INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE WHERE THE LINE OF FREEDOM IS DRAWN.
WHEN YOU WERE HIT BY THE IRANIANS FOR BLAPHSAMY, DID THAT HELP BE IN FAVOR OF FREE SPEECH.
I WAS LIVING IN THE UK AT THE TIME.
I HAD BEEN INVOLVED FOR MANY, MANY YEARS SUBSEQUENTLY WITH PAN AMERICA.
SO I HAD -- I WAS IN THAT CAMP ANYWAY.
BUT IT MADE IT PERSONAL IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
AND, YEAH, IT CLARIFIED A LOT OF THINGS FOR ME.
IT MADE ME FEEL VERY CLEAR ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IDEAS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED.
IT'S PERFECTLY RIGHT THAT YOU SHOULD PROTECT PEOPLE OF THIS OR THAT RELIGION AGAINST HATEFUL ATTACKS.
BUT IT'S NOT CORRECT THAT YOU REFENCE THE THINGS PEOPLE THINK.
IF YOU BELIEVE THE WORLD IS FLAT AND I KNOW THAT THE WORLD AIN'T FLAT, IT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR ME TO CALL YOU AN IDIOT, EVEN IF YOU SAY THE WORLD BEING FLAT IS A PART OF YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.
YOU'RE STILL AN IDIOT.
AND I THINK IT MUST BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO DISAGREE WITH PEOPLE'S IDEAS, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
EVEN IF THOSE IDEAS ARE GIVEN THE KIND OF PROTECTION OF SOME KIND OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM.
IF YOU DISSENT FROM THAT, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.
YOU CAN'T PERSECUTE PEOPLE FOR BELIEVING DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.
I MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROTECTING HUMAN BEINGS, BUT NOT PROTECTING IDEAS.
YOUR FIGHT AGAINST BLASPHEMY WAS WITH AUTHORITARIANS ON THE RIGHT, AUTHORITARIANS WHO TRIED TO CENSOR SPEECH.
DO YOU THINK WE'RE FACED WITH A SIMILAR CHALLENGE FROM THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT?
I THINK THERE'S A BIT OF IT, YEAH.
I THINK -- IT CERTAINLY USED TO BE THE CASE THAT CENSORSHIP CAME FROM OLD CONSERVATIVE LARGELY WHITE MEN.
NOT ALWAYS WHITE MEN.
NOW YOU FIND THAT THERE'S A WILLINGNESS AMONG THE YOUNGER PEOPLE FOR IDEALISTIC REASONS TO SAY THAT CERTAIN KINDS OF EXPRESSION SHOULD NOT HAVE ITS PLACE IN SOCIETY.
AND THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE DOING IT FOR BAD REASONS.
THEY THINK THEY'RE DOING IT FOR PRINCIPLED REASONS.
AND NO DOUBT, THEY ARE ACTING OUT OF A KIND OF PRINCIPLE.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF CENSORSHIP, WHEREVER CENSORSHIP HAS BEEN IMPOSED RIGOROUSLY, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MINORITIES WHO HAVE SUFFERED THE MOST.
BY MINORITIES I WILL INCLUDE WOMEN.
WOMEN, RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SUFFER WHEN CENSORSHIP -- WHEN SPEECH IS LIMITED.
AND SO IF IN THE NAME OF DEFENDING THOSE MINORITIES YOU BEGIN TO BECOME WILLING TO RESTRICT SPEECH, IT'S A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE.
HISTORY TELLS US THAT THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE MOST AFFECTED.
DON'T YOU THINK WE SOMETIMES HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T OFFEND PEOPLE'S FEELINGS?
AS A HUMAN BEING, I DON'T LIKE OFFENDING PEOPLE'S FEELINGS.
I THINK I'M A REASONABLY POLITE GUY.
IF THE EXPRESSION OF AN IDEA STRONGLY EXPRESSED IS NOT LIKED BY SOMEBODY ELSE, THEN I'M AFRAID THAT'S JUST TOUGH.
I REMEMBER SEEING THE BRITISH WRITER AND COMEDIAN STEVEN FRY INTERESTING INTERVIEWED ON THIS SUBJECT AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU FEEL, WHAT -- HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE FACT THAT I MAY FIND SOMETHING YOU SAY VERY OFFENSIVE?
AND STEVEN REPLIED, SO WHAT?
THE POINT BEING, SERIOUS POINT BEING, THERE'S NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE A BOOK, READ ANOTHER BOOK.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE AN IDEA ON TELEVISION, CHANGE THE CHANNEL.
IN A FREE SOCIETY, WE GET TO CHOOSE WHAT WE READ, WHAT -- WHAT WE LISTEN TO, WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, WHAT WE ACCEPT AND WHAT WE REJECT.
BUT WE DON'T, I THINK, HAVE RIGHT TO VETO THE EXISTENCE OF THINGS WITH WHICH WE DON'T AGREE.
THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT.
IT'S QUITE EASY TO BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH IF BELIEVING IN FREE SPEECH ONLY BELIEVES IN FEATURE THAT YOU BELIEVE IN.
IT'S WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS SOMETHING YOU DON'T LIKE THAT YOU DISCOVER WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH OR NOT.
VERY OFTEN IN THIS CORNER OF THE WORLD YOU FIND YOURSELF DEFENDING STUFF YOU CAN'T STAND.
DEFENDING ITS RIGHT TO BE.
THAT HAS TO BE SO, OTHERWISE WE LOSE IT.
STORIES WE FALL IN LOVE WITH WHEN WE'RE YOUNG DEFINE WHO WE ARE.
WHAT DID YOU FALL IN LOVE WITH WHEN YOU ARE YOUNG GROWING UP IN BOMBAY.
THE WONDERFUL THING ABOUT GROWING UP IN INDIA IS THAT YOU ARE SURROUNDED -- THE KIND OF STOREHOUSE OF LITERATURE THAT IS GIVEN TO YOU IS VERY MAGICAL.
IT'S FULL OF SUPERNATURAL BEINGS AND GRAND AERIAL BATTLES AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU NOW SEE IN MARVEL COMICS AND MOVIES, YOU KNOW, DONE MUCH BETTER.
THE FIRST TIME I HEARD ABOUT THE SAILOR, ALADDIN WAS IN STORIES THAT MY FATHER TOLD ME AS BEDTIME STORIES WHICH WERE HIS ADAPTATIONS OF THE ORIGINALS.
BUT THEY LEFT A LASTING EFFECT ON ME BECAUSE THEY WERE ABOUT THINGS THAT HUMAN BEINGS RECOGNIZED.
THEY'RE ABOUT COURAGE AND COWARD ESS, LOVE AND HATRED.
YOU GET AN UNDERSTANDING WHAT HUMAN NATURE IS LIKE.
MANY OF THE STORIES -- IN MANY OF THE STORIES PEOPLE BEHAVE IN SNEAKY WAYS.
THERE'S LOTS OF KIND OF POOR BEHAVIOR AND ALSO IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE THAT THE BAD GUYS GET THEIR COMEUPPANCE.
IN MANY OF THE STORIES, THE BAD GUYS WIN.
THAT'S A LESSON TO LEARN WHEN YOU'RE YOUNG AS WELL.
IT GAVE ME A GROUNDING, FIRST OF ALL, IN A WONDERFUL RANGE OF POSSIBILITY FOR FICTION.
I DIDN'T HAVE TO SIMPLY BE UNNATURALISTIC.
IT COULD BE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
BUT ALSO GROUNDING IN THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITING ABOUT THE DEEP TRUTHS ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS.
AND I THINK -- I ALWAYS TRY TO DO THAT AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE I SAY THAT LITERATURE IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE TRUTH.
IT JUST COMES -- THIS KIND OF LITERATURE, FABULOUS LITERATURE, FANTASTIC LITERATURE, SIMPLY COMES AT THE TRUTH THROUGH DIFFERENT DOORS.
THE SUBJECT IS ALWAYS WHAT ARE WE LIKE?
WHO ARE WE?
WHY DO WE DO THE THINGS WE DO?
HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE WORLDS IN WHICH WE LIVE.
CAN WE CHANGE THE WORLD OR DOES THE WORLD JUST SIMPLY CHANGE US?
ALL THE GREAT QUESTIONS OF LITERATURE CAN BE ANSWERED THROUGH THE FAIRY TALE, THROUGH THE WONDER TALE AS MUCH AS IT CAN THROUGH THE REALISTIC MODEL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US AGAIN.
THANK YOU.
> AND FINALLY TONIGHT, GUESS WHO IS COMING TO DINNER?
AS PRESIDENT BIDEN FOSTERS ALLIANCES ABROAD, VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS IS DOING THE SAME AT HOME.
LAST NIGHT AMERICA'S FIRST FEMALE VP AND THE FIRST OF COLOR HOSTED A DINNER FOR 21 FEMALE SENATORS.
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS P. THE GOAL, BRIDGING THE BRUTAL PARTISAN DIVIDE THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT ON THIS PROGRAM.
IT WAS OVER A DELICIOUS MEAL OF MAHI-MAHI, ICE CREAM AND WINE.
HARRIS EVEN MADE THE CHEESE PUFFS AND NO TIE-BREAKING VOTE WAS NEEDED.
THE EVENING WAS A HIT WITH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.
MARSHA BLACKBURN CALLED IT A LOVELY EVENT FULL OF RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING, BREAKING BREAD TO BREAK DOWN WALLS.
> AND ON THAT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTE, THAT IS IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.
REMEMBER, YOU CAN FOLLOW ME AND THE SHOW ON TWITTER.
THANKS FOR WATCHING 'AMANPOUR & CO.' ON PBS AND I'LL BE BACK ON MONDAY.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH THE REST OF THIS WEEK.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪