Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, HOST: Hello everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: There is no question, Russia is significantly worse off today than it was before its full-scale invasion of
Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Speaking in Helsinki, U.S. secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, calls Putin’s war against Ukraine a strategic failure. I asked Finnish
foreign minister, Pekka Haavisto, how joining NATO is impacting Finland, and how Finland is changing NATO.
Then, troubling signs of democratic backsliding in Guatemala. Its most prominent journalist is in jail on Trumped up charges. Today, a plea for
justice from his son, Jose Carlos Zamora.
And —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSE ANDRES, FOUNDER, GLOBAL FOOD INSTITUTE AT GW AND FOUNDER, WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: Hunger and poverty is not an issue of Republicans or
Democrats, it’s an issue of Americans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — Hari Sreenivasan speaks world-renowned chef, Joe Andres, as he tackles food insecurity around the world.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Finland today to welcome NATO’s newest member and launched a message across its 832-mile Russian
border. Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine has been a strategic failure. Greatly diminishing Russia’s power and influence. Blinken called
for diplomatic efforts from any quarter to end the war while keeping Ukraine’s sovereignty secure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States has been working with Ukraine and allies and partners around the world to build consensus
around the core elements of a just and lasting peace. To be clear, the United States welcomes any initiative that helps bring President Putin to
the table to engage in meaningful diplomacy. Will support efforts whether by Brazil, by China, or by any other nation, if they help find a way to
adjust in lasting peace, consistent with the principles of the United Nations charter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: But the war — the end of this war is nowhere in sight. Ukraine says that it shot down three dozen drones and missiles targeting Kyiv
overnight. And Russian officials report more attacks on their regions Friday, as the war reaches across the border.
Secretary Blinken calls Finland’s entry into NATO a sea change, a direct consequence of Russia’s war in Ukraine. And Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto
met with U.S. secretary of state earlier today, and he joins me now from Helsinki.
Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. First of all, give us some of the more notable things that came out of your
conversation with Secretary of State Blinken.
PEKKA HAAVISTO, FINNISH FOREIGN MINISTER: Yes. Here in Helsinki, actually excellent discussion with Secretary Blinken, and then he gave a good speech
on Russia and Ukraine and the developments there. But now, bilaterally we discussed, of course, Finnish succession to NATO, what we need mean to NATO
defense, what NATO can give to us. And also, some speculation of the coming Vilnius summit of NATO. And then, bilaterally, since we discussed about
arctic issue, Finland is an arctic country, U.S. is an Arctic country, the issue of the Arctic countries in both — for both of us. So, this type of
issues there in our discussions.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And as we noted, Finland is the latest country to join NATO, just in April of this year. And you’re already wrapping up military
exercises near the Arctic Circle with NATO forces. When you talked about what Finland can contribute to NATO, you’re talking about over 1 million-
plus in the military there, 300,000 active military personnel. So, 900,000 reserves.
Tell us about what these last few months have meant for the country and how transformative it has been since becoming a member of NATO.
HAAVISTO: Well, of course, it has been an important process for us. Actually, the — one of the most important foreign policy processes after
the Russian attack against Ukraine when the opinion of the Finnish politicians and the whole Finnish population moved much more positive
towards the NATO. We applied for NATO memberships and when finally, Turkey and Hungary ratified them and we, in April, got the final membership in
NATO.
Of course, it’s a big game changer in our thinking. But at the same time, we are ready to defend our own country. We still have conscripts and army.
We have a big reserve, as you said. And of course, in the case that we are attacked or any threat is posed against Finland, then NATO is of great help
to us.
GOLODRYGA: Of course, the impetus for us this action was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. You share an over 800-mile border with Russia. And
obviously, the war in Ukraine was a major part of your conversation there with the secretary of state, Blinken.
I want to play a sound for you of what he said in terms of what a potential end of this war could look like. Obviously, that is what everybody wants,
but everyone wants a sound end of war and not something that’s just temporary. And here was his take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLINKEN: Over the coming weeks and months, some countries will call for a cease-fire. And on the surface, that sounds sensible. Attractive even.
After all, who doesn’t want warring parties to lay down their arms. Who doesn’t want the killing to stop? But a cease-fire that simply freezes
current lines in place and enables Putin to consolidate control over the territory he seized and then rest, re-arm and re-attack, that is not a just
and lasting peace. It’s a Potemkin peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Really important to hear those words from him as we’re expecting to see the counteroffensive from Ukraine actually launch in the next days
or weeks to come. Given the outcome, and whatever comes of this counteroffensive, I think this conversation of what a cease-fire may or may
not look like in any pressure on both sides, namely Ukraine, to come to the table, is something that is discussed now in capitals across the alliance.
What is Finland’s take on a potential cease-fire, and who would benefit more at this point?
HAAVISTO: And of course, I think Secretary Blinken has a right opinion on this, because if Russia stops fighting, the war will end. If Ukraine now
stops fighting, it will be the end of Ukraine, independent Ukraine.
Now, I think this is exactly has been the Russian goal, to destroy the country, to change the leaders there. So, Ukraine has to the right to
defend themselves and we have the right to help them, according to the U.N. chapter. Independent — Ukraine is an independent state.
But of course, when we look to the future and when Russia will withdraw from those areas that it has occupied Ukraine still will remain an
independent country, but it will need a lot of help from us, help to develop Ukraine’s military capabilities also in the future, best assurance
for Ukraine state in the future is a strong military. And at the same time, Ukraine has the perspective of joining NATO, the perspective of coming
European Union, member state, and of this part, we will support from Finnish side.
GOLODRYGA: I want to talk to you about the potential, obviously. Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO, which have been at the forefront, even before
this war. But obviously, any reasonable person would argue that now is not the time for Ukraine to join, given that they are in the middle of a war
right now. That is what we’re hearing from many of your allied nations there.
That having been said, what will it take for Vladimir Putin to withdraw his forces permanently? Because we’ve already seen sanctions leveled against
the country that we have not seen any time in the recent history by multiple nations. That hasn’t stopped. And the death and casualty rate of
perhaps 200,000 or more of his troops has not stopped him.
Finland joining NATO, which obviously would have been one of his worst nightmares, that has not stopped him. So, what is your take into what will?
HAAVISTO: Well, of course, it’s, first of all, extremely important that more than 140 countries in U.N. have condemned the Russian action, it’s
against the international law, it’s totally irresponsible action against Ukraine and clearly majority of the countries, all over the world are
condemning this.
But, of course, there is this fight over the souls (ph) going also in U.N. and/or African continent, on the Latin America. So, it’s very important
that all countries are taking stand from this issue. We — nobody should seek that defense when international rules are broken in this way, as
Russians have been doing.
And then, of course, when we look at the Ukraine development, it’s closer to NATO, it’s closer to European Union compared with the earlier
developments. And this war has pushed, of course, Ukraine also much closer to us. And it’s important that we help Ukraine now with the military means.
Finland has delivered 60 military packages, almost one per month after the Russian invasion. And of course, we had to pave way for Ukraine to be a
full member also in European Union in the future.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You mentioned aid from Finland alone is about $1.2 billion to Ukraine. You’ve just announced you will be delivering $117 million worth
of additional military equipment and anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine eminently.
There is, obviously, a lot of concern about what lies ahead politically in the United States, the biggest guarantor here of Ukraine, providing some
$50 billion in aid. There’s concern about how long that can continue, specifically as it relates to the U.S. elections. And I sense that it’s not
just Ukraine that’s worried about the upcoming elections in the United States and stability in terms of the alliance and its support for Ukraine,
but its other nations as well.
We infamously remember that the 2018 summit, between Vladimir Putin and then Donald Trump. We know how the former president feels about NATO and
their contributions to the alliance, each country’s contributions to the alliance. He is now the front runner, again, for the Republican nominee.
What is your country’s view on the stability of the United States going forward in terms of keeping that alliance sound and whole?
HAAVISTO: Well, of course, I have been visiting senators in the U.S. Senate and then, the senators have been really visiting Finland. It has been
really a bipartisan support to Ukraine, bipartisan support to Finland, Sweden joining NATO, and I think this is a very important issue. It’s not
the partisan issue on that sense.
And of — but of course, we have particularly seen a very strong Transatlantic ties now recently between U.S. and European countries, U.S.
and European Union, and I think this is remarkable. And also, I have seen that the European Union has changed its nature. It has been uniting on
sanctions against Russia, it has been united on helping Ukraine with military packages through the European peace facility and so forth, and we
have been really working hand in hand with the U.S.
Of course, this is a very important issue from the European perspective and whoever is taking the lead, of course, I hope that this will — this good
cooperation will remain.
GOLODRYGA: Do you believe that their cooperation will remain if President Trump returns to power here in the United States?
HAAVISTO: Well, I don’t want to speculate too much on the issues, but I think there are good arguments why this good Transatlantic cooperation
should continue. And it’s actually not only about Ukraine at the moment, it’s about the technological development. It’s about the green transition.
Many, many issues are going now very rapidly for Transatlantic cooperation.
GOLODRYGA: Another big priority, I know, for Finland, is to see neighboring Sweden and its accession into NATO as well. As soon as the next NATO summit
in Vilnius next month. There has been some delay and concern perhaps from other countries, namely Turkey, on where they stand on this issue and how
you and Sweden combat terrorism in their view. Turkey greenlit Finland’s accession. What do you think it will take for Sweden to see the same?
HAAVISTO: And of course, we have been walking the same path with Sweden. We decided our NATO applications at the same time. We’re last time together in
Madrid NATO summit and the process went on. We also established these three important working groups, there is Sweden, Finland and Turkey to solve some
of these issues, like the terrorist issues. Turkey was confident about the role of the PKK and so forth and Nordic countries.
We have done our best on these issues, fulfil memorandum of three apartheids working group. Sweden has done definitely its best. They have
even changed their legislation, vis-a-vis terrorist new laws start to be enforced 1st of June. So, I think everything is ready for Sweden to access.
And of course, now, after the Turkish presidency and parliamentary elections, we hope that the process goes on.
GOLODRYGA: So, it sounds like you’re optimistic that Turkey — that Sweden will end up joining NATO. Are you hearing any concerns that speak
otherwise?
HAAVISTO: Of course, you can always hear concerns, but I’m really optimistic based on the facts what Sweden already has done. And also, when
you look from the NATO perspective, how important it is that a country like Sweden around the Baltic Sea is part of the NATO military planning, NATO
security. So, it’s not only for Sweden or for Finland that’s a good thing, but it’s for the whole NATO.
GOLODRYGA: You know, have you spoken with Secretary of State Blinken about these strikes that we’ve seen increase over the past several weeks inside
of Russia itself? There had been a concern, and the United States had been resistant in supplying Ukraine with certain types of weapons since the war
began for fear of this war escalating into Russia with U.S.-made and provided weapons.
Kyiv is not saying that they hold responsibility for these attacks, but there is some ambiguity as to what they know and what they sanctioned or
not. What is Finland’s take?
HAAVISTO: Of course, these attacks that we have seen, or drones — drone attacks we have seen in Moscow and so forth, we don’t know all the details
behind those issues, whether they are Russians against Russians or that they are manipulated from some other source and so forth. So, we have, of
course, first to have the facts correct.
And then, of course, we know that the war always have rules and we have the general conventions. We are not allowed to attack civilian targets and so
forth and it’s very important also, in all circumstances, underline these rules.
GOLODRYGA: Do you believe that Ukraine reserves the right to attack inside of Russia? And if so, do you think they should be doing that with western
supplied weapons?
HAAVISTO: Well, I think the weapons that are donated to Ukraine are to support their taking back their territories and fighting back Russians on
their territories. Unfortunately, Russia has invaded parts of Ukraine and definitely, Ukraine has the right to fight back on those territories.
GOLODRYGA: Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.
HAAVISTO: Thank you. My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: This is the last article and we’re leaving. With that, “El Periodico de Guatemala,” the leading independent newspaper in Central
America’s most populous country shut down. Jose Ruben Zamora, the newspapers’ legendary publisher was arrested in July of trumped up charges.
“El Periodico” respected around the world for speaking truth to power was silenced. Victim of a campaign by Guatemalan president, Alejandro
Giammattei, to undermine democracy.
Just a month before the presidential election, the leading candidate to replace the term limited Giammattei was kicked off the ballot by
Guatemala’s top court. A move condemned by Humans Rights Watch. All of this in a country that was an anti-corruption success story not so long ago.
Jose Carlos Zamora is the son of “El Periodico’s” jail publisher, and he joins me now from Miami.
Thank you so much, Jose, for joining us today.
First, let’s just talk about politically what is taking place in the country. As we mentioned, Guatemalan judges have now banned four opposition
presidential candidates from participating in elections later this month, including the front runner, Carlos Pineda. Pineda tweeted, corruption won,
Guatemala lost.
Now, these judges made this ruling after political rival alleged irregularities during the nomination process. Can you explain to us what is
happening inside the courts in the country right now?
JOSE CARLOS ZAMORA, SON OF GUATEMALAN JAILED JOURNALIST: Thank you, Bianna, and thank you for the invitation.
Guatemala has gone backwards under the Giammattei administration. In general, most governments during the last 30 years have been corrupt, but
in addition to being corrupt, he has been very repressive. And what we’re seeing is that he has corrupted the state and he is persecuting anybody who
he considers opposition or a critical voice. And that is what we are seeing with political candidates.
We have elections coming up on June 25th, and anybody who they see as a competition, anyone who they see leading in the polls who is not one of
their allies, they have used the Tribunal Supremo Electoral, the entity that allows candidates to compete, to ensure that they keep them out of the
race.
GOLODRYGA: So, is the judiciary no longer independent?
ZAMORA: I doubt it is. It’s really — we have — Guatemala has a democratic facade. But under that democratic facade is the executive that is
controlling all the different branches of power.
GOLODRYGA: Well, your father really was at the heart of digging in and investigating corruption in the country, and you argue that that’s one of
the reasons why he’s behind jail — behind bars now, in jail on what you say are trumped up charges. He was arrested last July. He is still
detained, as you described, dozens of agents swarmed his home. His grandchildren were huddling in the closet there. He was charged with money
laundering, blackmail and influence peddling.
Can you tell us why exactly you view these charges are trumped up and false?
ZAMORA: Well, first, he’s innocent and he’s being persecuted because of his investigative reporting.
During the first 144 weeks of Giammattei administration, “El Periodico” published 144 investigations on corruption in the government. That is
really what led to this persecution. The case is furious (ph), the government hasn’t been able to really prove anything. They don’t have
anything in the process, and not only that, but also throughout they have constantly violated the right to due process and the to a legal defense.
GOLODRYGA: I’d say he’s gone through several attorneys at this point. How is your father doing right now? When was the last time you spoke with him?
ZAMORA: The last time I spoke with him was two days ago. I actually hadn’t talked with him for over six months, that was the last time I visited
Guatemala and attended a hearing with him. He — he’s well, he’s healthy, he’s in good spirits. He has lost a lot of weight, but he’s fighting this
corrupt system. In many ways, he has a very long and well-recognized career for doing journalism. And this time, like being in prison is another way of
continuing to fight the corruption system and push for democracy and liberty.
GOLODRYGA: President Giammattei in an interview denies the charges leveled against him. That your father was jailed because of his investigative work.
And has said, if you are a journalist, do you have the right to commit criminal acts because you’re a journalist? Does journalism grant you
immunity? What is your response to those words from the president?
ZAMORA: Well, it’s incredible to see the president of a country, the president of Guatemala, lying so bluntly. He’s really the one who’s
responsible for these persecutions. And they know my father is innocent and they really went after him because they want to make sure everybody in
Guatemala, journalists in Guatemala know that in Guatemala doing journalism is a crime.
And they really only had three objectives when they arrested him. And one was punish my — punishing my father directly. Today, he has been 308 days
in preventive prison. The second goal was to make sure “El Periodico” shuts down and tragically, for the country, because there is less information.
They achieved that on May 15th. They thought it was going to happen much sooner, but still because of supporters and the incredible team at “El
Periodico,” it was able to continue publishing until this month. And then they really wanted to send that clear message to all journalists in the
country, that if they continue to announce an investigative corruption, they’ll come after them.
GOLODRYGA: “El Periodico” was founded in 1996 at the end of the country’s civil war there, it was really seen as a beacon of democracy and a freedom
of press. Your father wrote the final editorial from prison. Here’s what he said, despite the fatigue, the severe adverse conditions, the humiliation
and derision, I will not cease in my fight for freedom and democracy in Guatemala. What is the loss of “El Periodico” mean for transparency and for
the stability of democracy in that country?
ZAMORA: Well, it’s a — it’s — it really brings darkness to the country. “El Periodico” and its team had been doing exceptional, rigorous journalism
for 26 years. And they ensured over those two decades, that Guatemalan citizens were well informed. But in addition to that, they ensured that the
government didn’t continue doing corrupt acts. So, they — it’s really, really sad and I think it’s really terrible for the country and for freedom
of the press.
GOLODRYGA: Guatemala, as you know, so the largest country where population in central America, as we noted before, was a beacon of democracy. And we
really saw a fight in that country to root out corruption for transparency and democracy over the last several decades since.
What’s led to this tragic decline in your view?
ZAMORA: Well, it’s very interesting because over the last decade, there was a very important effort to strengthen democracy, and part of that process
was fighting corruption. That’s one of the biggest problems in the country. And those efforts led to really persecuting corrupt people, both in the
government, organized crime, and in the private sector.
When that started happening, all sectors became allies and they worked together to end that process. And then, corrupt politicians really took
over the government, not only that they dismantled those efforts and the entities that we are fighting corruption, but they started persecuting
anything and anyone who had been working on fighting corruption. From the highest profile, judges, prosecutors, activists and journalists. And my
father is an example of that. But really, what’s incredible to see is that during the Giammattei administration, like, he really focused on
systematically attacking all democratic institutions in the country.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, since 2018, 35 judges, anti-corruption prosecutors and their lawyers have gone into exile. Let me bring in the role of the United
States here, because the relationship between the two countries and the reliance on Guatemala in terms of the border crisis here in the United
States is something that has been at the forefront and something that has – – multiple administrations, including the Biden administration, and the Trump administration really trying to work more closely together.
There have been accusations that the Trump administration, sort of, turned a blind eye to the issue of freedom of the press and democracy in exchange
for Guatemala holding and detaining some of the migrants that would have crossed into the U.S. border.
Otherwise, President Biden, at least, has been publicly outspoken in support of the fight against corruption in that country, in support for
freedom for the press and journalism. But have his words translated into action? Have you seen any change and more pressure from this administration
on your government there in Guatemala to act more decisively against these corruption allegations?
ZAMORA: I think there have been some actions, but they are not enough. When we see constantly, sometimes, they say like Twitter, diplomacy, which is
important, but it’s definitely not enough. There have been important efforts, especially that we’re very effective in the past. Like placing
public officials or corrupt actors and anti-democratic actors on U.S. state department lists, and also removing their visas.
And that used to be effective in the past, and they are some of the current public officials on those lists, but they — it’s amazing, like, they
really — they are shameless, and they don’t mind. They actually feel like they won an award when they are placed on those lists.
So, I think the actions need to be stronger and there needs to be more sanctions, monetary sanctions. And there needs to be — really, they should
stop cooperating with these corrupt governments in — especially here in the case of Guatemala.
I think the U.S., because its main focus is — it’s curtailing migrant — immigration, they really look to the other side on this democracy issues
and freedom of the press issues. And I think that is, sadly, very near- sighted because really the main issue that leads to migration is corruption because it’s really stealing the future of all Guatemalans and that’s why
migration won’t stop.
GOLODRYGA: It leads to a significant political challenge here, domestically, in the United States as well. Nearly 230,000 Guatemalans were
apprehended at the U.S. southern border in 2022, that’s the second largest nationality just after Mexicans.
There is a lot more to discuss here. I hope we have you on in the future, Jose Carlos Zamora, to give us an update, not only the elections, but on
your father’s status as well, behind bars. Thank you for joining us.
ZAMORA: Thank you, Bianna. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you.
Well, the severity of global food insecurity is worsened ever. According to a new report from the World Food Programme that identifies 18 hotspots on
the brink of catastrophic hunger. And this isn’t just a problem in countries facing war, famine and climate disasters. In the United States
alone, nearly a third of college students struggle with food insecurity. Chef and humanitarian activists, Jose Andres, is on the frontline of the
global food crisis. He joined Hari Sreenivasan to discuss his new plans to tackle it all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Chef Jose Andres, thanks so much for joining us.
You have been addressing and tackling the problems of food insecurity for so long now, and you are now launching a new Global Food Institute
partnered with George Washington University. Why? What is this going to do?
JOSE ANDRES, FOUNDER, GLOBAL FOOD INSTITUTE AT GW AND FOUNDER, WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: Well, let me tell you why the idea of Global Food
Institute right in Washington, D.C. at George Washington University, that happens is when the universities in America that addresses politics and
food policy like no other university. So, close to Washington D.C. power, White House and the capital.
Today, we see a world in the United States and countries everywhere where food seems — is always an afterthought. Where the different apartments of
agriculture almost seems, sometimes, they’re running to see food as a commodity. Where often is not solving the issues that people face. Today,
planet earth produces enough food to feed all of humanity, two, three times. But still, we have hundreds of millions of people that go to bed
hungry.
We need to start creating a smarter policy, smarter bills that becomes good politics in bipartisan ways. We need to start considering food that’s a
national security issue, and we need to start thinking that the presidents of every country will have a national food security adviser. Why? Because
time is precious. We have, right now, time had changed that this is affecting crops every country around the world.
We have drought stat distant time. We have plagues that right now are attacking entire countries in the heart of Africa. We have wars. We have
mass migrations happening. If we don’t start taking food more seriously, I’m afraid that we’re going to be very close to one of the biggest
migrations in the easter of time. And then today, we feel food. It’s available to all of us. One day we may wake up, one day, and we’re
actually, actually is not enough food to feed everybody.
That’s why we need to create this Global Food Institute — to start putting more importance into the into the World Food. Every politician running for
president, for governor, for — senator or congressman, in America, around the world, is going to have to have, what is their food policy. How are
they going to be thinking of food in the way they do politics? That’s what we hope to achieve in at this institute.
SREENIVASAN: So, is the institute responsible for, kind of, primary research. Are you going to try make to, kind of, practical suggestions? Is
there going to be the coven of, like, a training camp for food policy activities from the world to come and watch or participate in?
ANDRES: I would say — obviously, you need to start small and keep building bigger. But I would say, it’s all of the above (ph). Right now, in the
United States we have more than 40 departments and offices running over 200 food programs. They don’t even speak one — with each other.
Well, we’re going to be trying to do one very simple thing. I believe that we put food in the middle of the table, like I’ve been doing already for
over 10 years with this class that we’ve done at George Washington where we’ve been testing the waters. And all of a sudden you realize that food is
immigration. Food is climate change in this environment. Food, in many ways, is the department of defense.
Remember that the school lunch program in the United States of America was launched in 1946 at the request of the Department of the Defense in the
Pentagon. Why? Because it was — where a moment that the Pentagon couldn’t fulfill all the needs of the army because all the young men and women going
in the military were unfit to serve because they were hungry, because they were coming from very poor areas.
Right now, we see the completely opposite. Right now, we see that the military is having issues fulfilling their needs because of many other
issues, like obesity, et cetera. If we started thinking food is very much everything, even the way we do humanitarian aid in the rich countries,
cannot be that the way the rich countries do humanitarian aid. It’s standing there is a surplus of food to solve the food problems. Why?
We start in Haiti after the earthquake. We send so much food for free, that we put all the farmers in Haiti out of business. Well, now 14 years later,
we see farmers knocking on the door, trying to come to America. Everything is connected. The way we do humanitarian aid is what also makes poor
countries poorer in the process we have people migrating because they don’t have a way to feed their families. We need to start having an entire
government that — where the departments speak more to each other.
The Department of Health to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure with Homeland Security. We need to start having a more,
kind of, interaction when we put food in the middle about every single department. All work together or we will have many problems. If we make
them work together, we can be solving many of the issues we are facing right now.
SREENIVASAN: You know, most people, if they have seen you over the past few years, they think of you and food in the context of crises, and we’ll talk
about that a little bit. But there are lots of other ways where it’s not just in the context of a war or an immediate famine or an earthquake that
people are suffering food insecurity. Even here in the United States.
ANDRES: It’s really — we have a tendency to think that what’s happened in Haiti has nothing to do with what’s happening in Ohio. And at the end, if
you start thinking, you start off with distribution. Every — we have enough food in the planet, but we have people hungry. You will agree with
me that the — about distribution.
We’ve seen what’s happening in the last week in Washington, that you see Republican and Democrats, they’ve been negotiating about increasing the
debt. One of the names of the issues they’ve been talking all the time has been about snaps. Do we cut the SNAPs, what we call, in more practical
terms, food stamps — which is a supplement that is given to American families that may have a difficult time putting food on the table.
The way we are doing the stamps right now shouldn’t be about if we cut it or not. But the conversation by Republicans and Democrats should be about,
how do we improve it? Very much the SNAPs is an old program that has proven very effective, but that has, in a way, not modernized itself. Why we don’t
make sure that we increase the SNAPs but — to buy fresh fruits and vegetable from different farmers in rural areas that in the process of
keeping those families fed.
We help the local rural economies in the process of solving the problem of hunger in American families. We increased the output of further money that
goes to invest at the rural areas. All of this time, we solve the problem, but in the process, we help rural economies that sometimes they fall behind
do better.
Why we cannot use the SNAPs in local restaurants or diners? Why do people that received the SNAPs benefits that usually they leave in some of the
poor communities in the cities in America? Cannot be spending that money in the same community they live? They usually have to go so — other community
because in the communities they live, sometimes they are so poor that there is no restaurant, there is no supermarkets.
Let’s make sure that in the process of helping the American families, we don’t throw in the problem but in the process, we encourage economic growth
by opening diners. Opening food trucks. Creating jobs endorsed for communities. Opening markets that sell actually fresh fruits and
vegetables. You see, if we have a smarter policy, smarter bills, all of a sudden, we have start solving problems one at a time.
SREENIVASAN: Speaking of hunger here at home based on a survey back in 2020 by Temple University, about 30 percent of students at a four-year colleges
and 40 percent of students at two-year colleges are facing food insecurity today. So, I’m wondering whether that’s something that you’re going to be
studying at the Food Institute in George Washington?
ANDRES: I’m a big believer in working both sides. You have to make sure that the big thinking happens in the places of power and you achieve this
through good policy and good bills. But then you may need to make sure that all these filters down all the way to every single situation and every
single community. So, yes, places like George Washington, some of the richest universities in America, where the tuition can be very expensive.
We hear all over every time that these many students, as you mentioned, that they’re having a hard time of putting food on the table. Obviously,
George Washington, as I’m — let’s say I’m a new faculty member now and I will be even more involved in the universities. We will make sure that, if
anything, George Washington becomes one of these universities that is part of the solution and not part of the problem.
But listen, it’s like in Washington, D.C., this in Central Kitchen. I was 26 or 27 years old when President Clinton came to visit. I saw, in first
person, a hunger focus where senators of both parties left the Hill and came to that soup kitchen. Where an entire homeless shelter was right above
to do this kind of smart conversation about how to solve hunger issues.
So, I’m a big believer that, yes, policymakers, they need to be thinking big, but they need to be doing so at the street level where the problems
are. Hunger and poverty is not an issue of Republicans or Democrats. It’s an issue of Americans. It’s a problem — not a problem for us to solve, but
an opportunity for us to seize. Again, that’s the reason of the Global Food Institute.
That’s — well, what we have big dreams, but obviously, you need to start one plate of food at a time. One smart policy at a time. But I hope, slowly
but surely, we will be able to bring everybody to this longer table where the right ideas that are happening right now in every point in America, in
many places America, many places around the world, that we give voice to those ideas. And one idea at a time will become a smart policy that
hopefully will help America and the world be better in relationship to the way we produce and we feed the world.
SREENIVASAN: The U.N. World Food Programme said recently, they put out a report, 18 hotspots across 22 different countries. And it said, basically,
millions of people are currently in or on the brink of, “Catastrophic conditions in which starvation, death, destitution and extremely critical
acute malnutrition levels are evident.
So, what are some of the consequences of that? And how do you intercede? How do you, in the kind of, immediate regions of crisis, get food into
places that other aid agencies have a tough time getting into?
ANDRES: Well, obviously, in my case, for Central Kitchen, we’ve been more based around the idea in natural disasters. Showing up in the very short-
term, early days, hours, days, and weeks to make sure that we cover the short-term need in a disaster of food into the communities. Obviously, is –
– many agencies around the world, obviously, the biggest one being World Food Programme, who — they’ve been doing an amazing job over the years.
Always with room to improve, but an amazing job over the years.
But here, you are in this kind of moment of where we’re having many issues that they seem — they are very localized but they’re having a huge impact,
regionally or worldwide. What’s happening in Ukraine, in a way, is a country defending themselves from these massive attack by Russians, an
unfair attack. Killing civilians, mainly every single day with bombs. But in the process, we are realizing that that war is not only for their people
and their freedom.
Ukraine, with the grain its produced in those fertile lands of that country, feeds roughly between 450 and 500 million people every year.
That’s why you see this grain deal to try to make sure that the Russians allow the grain exports to continue. Without that grain, we are going to be
seeing bigger hunger issues in many countries in the world, in Africa. And this is going to be a conversation.
But the bigger conversation is, why African countries still depend from that Ukrainian grain to feed themselves? Why, after so many years of
talking that we need to make sure that Africa is a continent that can feed itself? Why is the world talking about shipping grain to feed those
Africans? The short-term, to solve the hunger issues, yes. Will be the war to end, hopefully the grain to keep flowing from Ukraine to Africa.
But the bigger picture is, why, once and for all, the African nations, with the help of richer countries around the world, has not helped to have a
stronger farming production that itself, Africa can be feeding itself. These are, kind of, the long-term solutions that they’re not going to be
resolved in one day and they’re not going to be resolved by one bill or by U.N. program overnight.
We need to start investing right now.
SREENIVASAN: Chef, for people who might not be familiar, how do you get aid into a place after a natural disaster so quickly? How are you able to scale
up, whether it’s Haiti or Turkey? I mean, how does the world at Central Kitchen do it? What’s your model?
ANDRES: So, again, I want to say, we are not the only food relief organization. There are many great people doing God’s work in many parts of
the world. But very often, especially since we were founded — I founded it over 13,14 years ago. And especially I would say, right after Maria, that
this one we had the very big growth.
I said before, big problems have very simple solutions. And everybody always asks me, Jose, where do you guys get the food? I’m like, in the food
warehouses and in the supermarkets? They are there. They may not answer the phone, but the food is there.
What we do is fairly practical. When you have to stop a fire, who do you send? You send firefighters. When you have to take care of the wounded, who
you send? Nurses and doctors. When you need to be feeding people, who do you sent? Well, you send cooks and people that think — like cooks. Even in
Central Kitchen, this organization that this — a big team of people that they are beyond cooks.
But really, to feed, you have to cook. What do you do? You find restaurants, restaurants that survived the hurricane, or restaurant that
survived the earthquake, and they are strategically located. I don’t need to build a field kitchen if I don’t have to if I have restaurants that are
available. So, let’s use their assets that they have in place.
If we activate food trucks because they’re available, they happen in Florida in Fort Myers. We may be activating 10, 20, 30, 50 if we don’t have
a kitchen like what happened in Bahamas in Abaco, because the entire island was underwater. There, we bring it initially by helicopter or by boat to
every island. We did more than 80,000 meals a day in the early weeks until we built a field kitchen in Abaco while the situation improves.
You see, we adapt. And usually so with local people that want to help. Usually so with local assets and restaurants and food trucks that we can
activate immediately. And usually, it’s always warehouses full of food. And if not, we bring it with us in a case of hurricane, we can predispose food
trucks all across with food and refrigerators, generators, everything running.
Again, the only thing we do is that we show up and do it. We don’t — we always say, we don’t like to meet too much, but we like this to start
cooking. Going in the field, and then start looking for one community at a time. In the process, you keep increasing the output every day. Very much
that’s how at Central Kitchen have been doing it from day one.
SREENIVASAN: Chef Jose Andres, founder of the Global Food Institute at George Washington, as well as the founder of the World Central Kitchen,
thanks so much for joining us.
ANDRES: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, we dig into the archives, as Puerto Rico continues rebuilding from devastating natural disasters over the last few years. The
smash hit musical, “Hamilton”,” is returning to the Caribbean Island for two weeks this month. And writer Lin-Manuel Miranda is attending a
fundraising benefit performance there.
Christiane spoke with him for the opening of the production in London in 2017. At the time, he was raising money for Puerto Rico following Hurricane
Maria. “Hamilton” continues to be a huge success on the West End and Broadway all these years later. Here’s a look back at that interesting
conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Lin-Manuel Miranda, welcome to the program.
LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA, “HAMILTON” CREATOR: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, I mean, first of all, we are surrounded by all these big, big, big images of your life. What does mean to you to have done that and
now to be bringing it here to England?
MIRANDA: It’s really thrilling, you know this is the first international company to show, I feel like they have a real pride of ownership in the
show in representing us to London and the wider world. You know, they — their American accents are better than ours which is infuriating as someone
who spent eight months of the year trying to vaguely east end accent for Mary Poppins.
AMANPOUR: So, of course, “Hamilton” is all about immigrants, immigration as well, right?
MIRANDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it’s celebrating that arrival to the United States.
MIRANDA: Yes, I have to say, you know, people ask me — well, you know, is it going to play well in London? They don’t know our history. I didn’t know
much of this history going in. What I knew about Hamilton, when I picked up Ron Chernow’s amazing biography was — I knew he was the guy on the $10
bill, I knew he died in a dual, and I knew his son has died in a dual a few years prior.
And then there was something about the fact that he was sort of our proto immigrant story. I mean really, came here on a scholarship to get his
education and ended up shaping the world. That to me, reminded me of my father and reminded me of so many immigrants I knew growing up in my part
of New York in Northern Manhattan, you know.
I never knew my parents to have less than three jobs, you know. It’s that thing of, no, the deal is that we just have to work three times as hard.
And that to me, Hamilton is the embodiment of that story which I think is the best of us, is the best American story that, you know, is increasingly
hard to see but is true.
AMANPOUR: Did you ever imagine that the tsunami of tweets and the repetition of this certain message against immigrants does have a corrosive
effect? I mean, maybe some thought, well, it’s just him tweeting. It won’t make a material difference.
MIRANDA: Yes, well I — listen, I think that — think words matter. And they matter in ways, big and small. I can tell you that one of the most
devastating ones that I’ve been dealing with for the past two months, you know, when hurricanes hit Texas and Florida, the president tweeted, we’ll
be there. Anything you need, whatever you need, we’ll be there, he was there. National guard was there instantly. But Puerto Rico gets hit with a
hurricane and he tweets a message of good luck to the governor, the day it makes landfall, and doesn’t tweet about Puerto Rico for a week.
AMANPOUR: And this is what you said in response?
MIRANDA: Not to that. What I said that in response to was when he began attacking the people of Puerto Rico themselves. Saying, our people are
doing great but they want everything done for themselves. You know, the sort of dog whistle rhetoric. And then attacking the mayor of San Juan,
like — I just — to me, natural disasters are so easy. It’s like, well, they’re no one’s fault. Your job is to unite us, your job is to get the
help to people that need it. Like, this is not a partisan issue. And I’ve never seen the president attack people who are already the victims of a
natural disaster. And so, those are the only words I had left for that.
AMANPOUR: And before we get to you actually going there and helping out, you’re using “Hamilton” and this period up to the launch to actually
auction or raffle off some tickets, right —
MIRANDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — to let some people come? And the donations, the contributions will go to a Puerto Rico climate charity, is that right?
MIRANDA: My new full-time job is raising money for Puerto Rico, for relief. We are still in the humanitarian crisis. Half the island still without
power. That is something that is — it’s very easy to fall off the face of the — off the front of the news but it’s still happening. But —
AMANPOUR: Still half without power?
MIRANDA: Yes, still half without power.
AMANPOUR: It’s incredible to hear that. And there are American citizens, we do have to keep saying that.
MIRANDA: Yes, 3.5 million American citizens. You know, the — but the other thing that we’re doing that’s related to that, is that my wife and I
started this Prizeo campaign, basically, we raffle off two tickets to three nights in London, hang out, see opening night of “Hamilton,” come with us
to the after party. And the benefits, the raffle tickets all go to the NRDC and 10:10, which are both climate change organizations that are London
based.
AMANPOUR: Fantastic. You developed, you wrote, you’ve done everything for “Hamilton”. And you’re no longer in the lead role.
MIRANDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you haven’t been for a while.
MIRANDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: How does that feel?
MIRANDA: Great.
AMANPOUR: No.
MIRANDA: It does. I mean, you know, listen, I do have a pang every time I see one of our companies, you know, when you see an incredible Burr, when
you see an incandescent Eliza. And you get that, oh man, I wish I could play opposite that. And, you know, I get that pang because I’m an actor as
well as a writer. At the same time, I really get the joy of watching these people grow into their roles and take ownership of it.
AMANPOUR: And are you taking it anywhere else around the world? Do you have plans?
MIRANDA: Well, yes, we have some plans. So, we have this company that’s opening in London. We’ll have another company that’s opening very soon in
Seattle. And then I’m coming out of retirement January 2019, and we’ll open a new company in Puerto Rico in January 2019. This is been in the works for
a long time. It’s been in the works for six months before the hurricane. But we announced it recently because we want to plant a flag and say, we’ve
got to be ready. We’ve got to rebuild our island, and time is of the essence. And two, to raise as much money on the island as we can.
AMANPOUR: That’s wonderful.
MIRANDA: So, that’s the goal.
AMANPOUR: Do you feel political? I know you’re a cultural phenomenon. But do you feel political? Might you go into politics?
MIRANDA: No, that’s a big red line I’ve drawn for myself. You know, I think the big political take away from “Hamilton” is the limit of our
representative democracy is we can elect who we put there but we can’t control what they do once they’re there. That’s really what room where it
happens, which is, you know, every politician’s favorite song is about.
You know, it’s — we ask our leaders to save the day, but we don’t get a say in what they trade away. That’s — you know, those are the lyrics that
I think really best articulate my healthy cynicism about politics.
AMANPOUR: Lin-Manuel Miranda, thank you so much.
MIRANDA: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Six years later, “Hamilton” is still the gift that keeps on giving. It is a phenomenal show.
Well, that is it for us today. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York. Have a great weekend.