Read Full Transcript EXPAND
Christiane: Hello, everyone.
And welcome to "Amanpour and Company."
Here's what's coming up.
>> There is still much to be done.
Christiane: Russia casts a long shadow at the G7.
Is it time to play peacemaker?
We dive into this with President of the center for American progress, ambassador Patrick Gaspard.
As well as the impact of the U.S. debt crisis.
Plus -- >> I'm not sure that the time for actual peace negotiations are at hand right now.
Christiane: Former American ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch weighs in on what it will take to end Russia's war.
Then -- >> Please help us.
Humanitarian organizations.
Please help us.
Not for us, but for the sake of these children.
Christiane: Desperation in Sudan where the warlords compete for total control.
I'm joined by U.N. humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths.
Also ahead -- >> I see about three times the consults for sterilization as I used to.
Christiane: A personal story on the abortion laws impossible choices facing America's women.
ANNOUNCER: Show so is made possible by the Anderson family fund.
Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III.
Candace king Weir.
Jim Attwood and Leslie Williams.
The family foundation of Leila and Mickey Straus.
Mark J. Blechner.
Seton J. Melvin.
Bernard and Denise Schwartz.
Koo and Patricia Yeun.
Committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.
Barbara hope Zuckerberg.
We try to live in the moment.
To not miss what's right in front of us.
At mutual of America, we believe taking care of tomorrow can help you make the most of today.
Mutual of America financial group.
Retirement services and investments.
Additional support provided by these funders.
And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.
Thank you.
Christiane: Welcome to the program, everyone.
I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.
G7 leaders are gathering in Hiroshima, Japan, for a high stakes session and the Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky will address the summit via video limping.
He once again is asking the world's most powerful leaders to support his fight against Russian aggression.
But not all countries are on the same side of the alliance.
China, of course, remains close to Moscow.
While also attempting to play peacemaker.
Sending a special envoy to Ukraine this week.
Meanwhile, South Africa's President is trying to mediate, too.
He says both countries have accepted his proposal to host an African peace mission.
And while President Joe Biden contends with these diplomatic challenges in Japan, his focus is very much on the homefront where the serious threat of debt default is looming.
Patrick Gaspard, the President of the center for American progress, and a former U.S. ambassador to South Africa, is joining me from Washington.
Welcome back to our program, ambassador.
Patrick: Christiane, it's an honor to join you particularly in this fraught moment for our economies and for democratic practice across the globe.
Christiane: That's what we're going to discuss.
So we're glad to have you.
In all your capacity its.
So you were once a member of the Obama-Biden administration so let me just ask you about the economy and the debt.
President Biden as we said is cutting short most of that Asian trip.
He's coming back on Sunday, not going to Australia and elsewhere.
Because of this showdown.
Is it the right thing for him to do, what kind of message does it send?
Patrick: Well, first, Christiane, the President is right to go to Japan, to go to the G7, to reassure them that we're going to resolve this crisis at home with the default crisis.
And he's right to cut the trip short.
To come back to get a deal done.
Christiane, everyone should of course understand that according to Moody's analytics, if default crisis lasts even a few weeks of unresolved debt, that could lead to the loss of six million jobs in the U.S. and $12 trillion loss in household, family wealth across America and could lead to a recession, not only in America but that could spiral out across the world.
So it's an incredibly consequential moment.
He's right to go and reassure that the U.S. line is backed faithful to its full debt and credit.
But we got to get a deal done here at home.
Christiane: Do you think there's a possibility of a deal?
And have you ever seen it get to this kind of showdown?
Or has -- have we been here before?
There have been these crises before.
Patrick: We've been here multiple times before.
Certainly when I served in the Obama-Biden White House, we had a similar crisis in 2011 and again in 2013.
Each instance we got to a resolution.
But have to say, Christiane, that we've never had a Congress like this one where regrettably we're all quite concerned that the Republican leadership influence by MAGA Republicans like Marjorie Taylor green are far more concerned about their own power than they are about the debt and credit of the United States.
I'm heartened by the talks that occurred yesterday and that both sides came out and said that one, we agree that there should not be default.
And two, there's enough recognition that we got to get something done and that we've got to segregate out the question of the debt of the United States from issues of budget which are open to negotiation.
Christiane: Can I just ask you since this is happening in international global context, of course, with the President abroad, you know that a few weeks ago, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton wrote about this as a national security issue.
Basically saying that any default or even a suggestion thereof contributes to the image of a declining democracy in America.
And this is actually what she said.
Trust matters in international affairs, we frequently ask other nations to put their faith in the United States.
Our military will be there to protect allies, our financial system is secure, and when we warn about compromised Chinese telecom equipment, or an impending Russian invasion, we're telling the truth.
Threatening to break America's promise to pay our debt calls all that into question.
Do you agree what would be the practical ramifications at this point?
Patrick: I rarely disagree with Hillary Clinton.
She is spot on this her analysis there.
Secretary Blinken said similar things.
Americans need to understand that the world relies on the stability of our economy and the stability of our democratic infrastructures.
Some of that sense of reliance and resilience has surely been shaken by dead ceiling crisis, by the crisis that we have in our -- banking crisis, courts, and by some of the political violence that we've seen in the U.S. the last few years.
But I think that President Biden is bringing significant reassurance to our G7 partners.
There's a confidence that exists there.
And in our markets, that we will get a deal done because Republican leadership appreciates that it would be perilous to go over that cliff.
Or at least I hope that they are recognizing that.
But of course secretary Clinton is correct.
Christiane: OK.
So one final one on this before we move on to other peace and war, etc.
But you mentioned MAGA Republicans are determined to have their way.
Obviously the leader of the house, the speaker of the house, is not a MAGA Republican.
But he has had to I suppose give a lot to them in order to be elected the leader of the house as we recall.
Do you think he gets the crisis nature of a default and more importantly, will he prevail over his rather restive caucus?
Patrick: We heard from speaker McCarthy in the last 24 hours.
And altogether different than what we've observed in the last many weeks, even months from the moment he gaveled into his leadership of the house, he has been beholden to extreme elements of his party.
And we saw those extreme elements really hold Republican party captive during the primary process that cost them house seats and senate seats and I think ultimately cost them the President in 2020 -- the presidency in 2020 and is likely to do so again in 2024.
Kevin McCarthy seems as if he's being a good deal more responsible in this hour than he has been in the last few weeks.
There's every reason to believe that a deal will get done.
But it's important that as they get to the outline of a deal, the contours of one that there's no retreat on the significant unprecedented legislative gains that President Biden and Democrats made on infrastructure, on health care expansion, on standing up a new resilience in our budgeting as a result of the historic bills that were passed last year.
Christiane: So let's move on and maybe this sort of influences or impacts some of the other big geo political issues that the President is dealing with.
First, in our former capacity as U.S. ambassador to South Africa, what do you make of the fact that the President of South Africa, Siro Ramapoza, is a, trying to play peacemaker and hasn't been fully on the side of the western alliance when it comes to censuring and sanctioning Russia, and is now saying that both Russia and Ukraine have accepted an African union peace delegation?
Can you put all that into context in terms of the -- you know, the playing field right now or the battlefield right now?
Patrick: Well, thanks for giving me an opportunity to revisit my past service from the U.S. to South Africa.
Christiane, I'll answer in the south African context but I'll also bring in Brazil and India into this.
They are essential members of BRICs and also critical democracies and allies of the United States that we have rich shared history and shared values with.
It's encouraging that Siro Ramapoza is working with other BRICs nations to encourage a peace process and I have to say that while I appreciate the history that exists between South Africa and Russia, it's disconcerting that some of the rhetoric has really held Ukraine and the NATO nations responsible for Putin's illegal aggressive incursion into a neighboring democratic sovereign state.
Lula in Brazil, leadership in India, need to be encouraging Vladimir Putin to the peace table and to encourage Vladimir Bute ton pull out his tanks and his soldiers and in -- to turn the tide here toward peace.
So we're encouraging of this.
The Biden administration certainly has done everything that it can to invest in and resource the ability of sub-Saharan African nations to play an essential role in peacekeeping, and in diplomacy in their region and throughout the world.
And this is an important step that can only be encouraged.
Christiane: Ambassador Gaspard, you mentioned BRICs, the alliance made of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and it is an alliance that I guess more and more is facing off against NATO, G7, etc.
So my first question before I get to a conversation I had with the Brazilian foreign minister this week is why are they taking this position?
These are mostly democratic -- the most of the BRICs are democratic nations.
Why are they taking this position at this point against the democratic rights of Ukraine?
Patrick: I think sometimes Christiane we make an error when we have conversations about challenging issues like the war in Ukraine.
The error we make is that we treat all of this as if the history is a approximate one.
It's not.
If we look at South Africa in isolation, you of course know that there is a complicated history between the United States and South Africa during the period of apartheid where formerly our government was in allianceship with the apartheid regime and had this initiative called constructive engagement with the apartheid leadership and was seen by the A.N.C.
and others as being hostile to the creation of black franchise in South Africa.
All of that history still continues to inform and influence outcomes in this challenging moment.
During the entire period of the cold war, there were a set of relationships that Brazil and India had with Russia and with China that were altogether different than how they viewed the west.
All of those challenges continue to be persistent in this moment.
We also have to recognize that even our economy is absolutely complex and in this moment, where we have sanctions against Russia, there are still ongoing trade, ongoing commerce, particularly as it is interdependent on energy and all of that is certainly true for the BRICs nations as well.
They are trying to thread a needle where they maintain a set of complex relationships with the west, with Russia, and with China because their economies are dependent on those relationships.
But they recognize that because of their shared values with us on human rights, principles of peace, that they have to get to the other side of this conflict.
I'll also add that in the south African constitution, and in the way they conduct their politics, there is a radical insistence on the sovereignty of nations.
They should take that insistence to Vladimir Putin during these negotiations to insist on the sovereignty of the democratic nation of Ukraine, that Putin refuses to recognize as such.
Christiane: And if we pull back further, again, as I mentioned to Brazil, Brazil has actually actively complained that the E.U.
is sending, you know, weapons along with the U.S. and others to Ukraine, wants it to stop.
Won't send any defensive weapons itself.
But when I talk to the Brazilian foreign minister, he again denied that they were taking sides.
But talked about peace.
This is what he said.
Just take a listen.
Patrick: Yes.
>> We are not silent, one country against the other, or the other way around.
We are talking.
And giving our contribution and trying to convince those two countries involved with which we have direct communications the need to sit down and negotiate.
That's what we are driving at.
Christiane: So do you think that there is a moment for negotiation right now?
Or is that not yet reached the -- yeah.
Patrick: Christiane, I'm sorry.
I really take umbrage with the -- with the foreign minister said there.
And I respect him.
And I respect the sovereignty of Brazil in -- and South Africa.
As it relates to their foreign relations.
But the truth of the matter is each and every one of them in turn have been critical of the west for arming Ukraine and the reality is if not for our support, for Zelensky and Ukraine, that nation would have absolutely been steamrolled by this point.
And it would be a satellite of Putin's Russia.
That is the reality.
Foreign minister needs to face that.
John F. can Kennedy once said that diplomacy and defense are not exclusive of one another and are reliant upon each other.
We are going to continue to be robust partners with the people of Ukraine who hunger and thirst for peace, for democracy, and for the heel of Russia to be removed from their throats.
Christiane: Can I bring you back now into the United States?
You know, yours is the center for American progress.
As you see former President trump has obviously thrown his hat into the ring.
It appears that the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, is very close to doing the same thing.
And in the run-up to any declaration, he is apparently signed a whole stack of very, very tough -- tough bills.
What do you think, how is this going to proceed actual campaign season right now?
Everybody competing for the most extreme, at least on the Republican side?
Patrick: You know, Christiane, the -- the blood of democracy courses through the heart of competition.
We need robust parties.
But we need those parties to take up a sense of pluralism, a sense of fairness in competition.
That's not what we're experiencing right now.
Both Ron DeSantis and Donald trump and others who are declared and soon to be declared candidates are playing to the extremes of the Republican primary which unfortunately has been captured by MAGA interests and MAGA instincts.
And we have to guard against that.
Those of us who care about democracy have to be vigilant when we consider what occurred on January 6 on Capitol Hill.
When we consider the kind of policy secession that we're seeing in state after state where they're blocking the right to vote, the right of women to choose a direction of their own lives and are subverting democratic practice.
But Christiane, I'm going to say that in addition to the competition between parties, in this country and elsewhere, vibrant media that we can hold to account.
You said Donald trump has stepped forward.
It's disturbing when we have our mainstream media not social media, treating the political contests in this country as if it is a blood sport in the Roman coliseum.
Replete with built in cheering crowds for the most extreme and viral and violent statements made by the former President.
The work that we do at the center for American progress is meant to stand up a robust civil society that can hold our government to account.
But that has to extend to the business of media as well.
Which is a vital part of our democracy.
Christiane: Very finally, we have one minute.
Do you think obviously you're a Democrat and you support your President Biden who's running for re-election, do you think he can again survive these culture wars and what -- what "The New York Times" is reporting to be a second attempt, maybe a stealth attempt by lots of G.O.P.
legislatures to actually, you know, undertake a new wave of voting restrictions?
Which is largely going unnoticed?
Patrick: Yeah.
You know, it's important to know, Christiane, that the initiatives that are being advanced by the extreme wing of the Republican party, which is -- the dominant wing of that party now, they don't have a popular mandate for that agenda.
They've lost election after election across the country.
The majority of -- majority of Democrats, majority of independents, the -- a plural majority of Republicans, stand against these extreme measures and they know that their only opportunity to bring the stuff into law is by subverting democratic practice.
Joe Biden will be successful because he will be able to tell a story about the historic gains Americans have been able to make under his leadership in the economy, with employment -- unemployment being at its lowest in the history of the U.S., and with unprecedented success in Capitol Hill and passing infrastructure bill, expanding access to health care, and making certain that senior citizens don't have to make some of the toughest choices about paying their rent or getting access to medication.
Joe Biden has done that and he will tell that story.
Christiane: Thank you so much for being with us.
Patrick: Thank you, Christiane.
Christiane: And next we turn to the heavy tolling of another war in Sudan, fighting is entering its second month.
The U.N. says nearly a million people are internally displaced and about a quarter million have actually fled the country.
It that is launched an urgent appeal to meet the rising humanitarian crisis.
Martin Griffiths, the U.N. humanitarian chief, is heading up that effort.
And he joined me to discuss what's at stake.
He has seen first-hand the suffering in the war-torn country.
And he's just back from Jetta in Saudi Arabia where attempts are being made to broker an end to this civil war.
Martin Griffiths, welcome back to our program.
Martin: Thank you.
Thank you, Christiane.
Christiane: So you're back at headquarters in Geneva after having spent I assume quite difficult moments trying to resolve the situation in Sudan.
What is the current actual state of the humanitarian crisis including the numbers of people who have been forced to leave, the levels of food and other critical needs?
Martin: As of today, we reckon there are over a million people Sudan ease who have been uprooted.
Most of them displaced still within Sudan but over 200,000 who pled the country to neighboring states, as you know, Egypt, central republic nation Chad and so forth.
So over a million displaced within a month.
That's a lot of people and it's still going on.
Secondly, we calculate and we launched an appeal yesterday for the humanitarian needs for the new crisis as well as the old for about $2.6 billion.
And we calculate that half the population of Sudan, 25 likely people, are in need of -- 25 million people, are in need of humanitarian assistance.
That's an increase of six million or seven million on top of the existing caseload if I could put it that way.
That came out of the whole crisis the last decade.
So it's a really, really big viral rapidly expanding crisis.
Christiane: So let me just put to you what another of your U.N. chiefs have said in terms of the head of the world food program, Sidney McCain, I spoke to her a week or so ago about trying to get food toward these people who you just say are desperate.
And at the time, she told me there had been quite a lot of attacks on the U.N. humanitarian... >> They have looted our food, some of our trucks are gone and they have completely gone into our housing and destroyed that.
It's an Al-out wilding as far as I'm concerned in Sudan.
The important thing to remember is that with our other U.N. agencies, we're working out half we can get into more places and work as best we can to provide food to the -- those who are most vulnerable and left behind because of this.
And it's usually women and children.
Christiane: So Martin Griffiths, just talk a little bit about that.
But also we understand, you know, U.N. officials and aid officials are -- workers have been killed.
Health facilities have been destroyed over there.
Put what Sidney McCain said in current context.
Martin: First of all, thank God for Cindy McCain who has joined united nations to run the world food program this mega agency and gone straight into the middle of this crisis.
And very quick time.
And what she says is completely -- first of all, true.
But represents what's happened to others.
UNICEF had its warehouses looted in soba, a town south of Khartoum in recent days.
W.F.P.
had its office in Khartoum bombed again, apparently, the night before last.
And so the story goes on.
And there's been specific looting of humanitarian supplies, W.F.P.
calculates that they have lost $56 million worth of food and other supplies as a result of the looting in this last month.
So that's a really, really bad story.
And as you say, Christiane, humanitarian workers have not been spared, either.
Three staph lost at the beginning and other agencies -- staff lost at the beginning and other agencies as well.
That's why we have placed such an emphasis on what was eventually signed last week by the two parties, this declaration of commitment as it's called, this united nations document which outlines what we expect of them advice via humanitarian operation.
-- vis-a-vis a humanitarian operation.
Christiane: Is it being respected?
It is not a cease-fire but how you termed it, not a political deal but in order to facilitate humanitarian distribution.
Is it being respected?
Martin: Not enough.
Is the quick answer to that.
What we're doing is -- this is what I had explained to the two generals when I was in Sudan about 10 days ago.
We will begin with the signing and understanding of the declaration of commitments and thank you by the way to the two organizers of the Jetta talks for their negotiation with the two parties of this document.
Christiane: You mean the United States and Saudi Arabia, right?
Martin: United States, Saudi Arabia, whose day long, night long work has led to this negotiation.
And importantly, the two parties studied that document in great detail.
Made some suggestions for amendment which we all agreed and have now signed it.
But it's when you negotiate the precise local arrangements based on those high concepts that it becomes real.
And of course as of now, we still haven't got the kind of accountability and the kind of record that we want to see.
We are, therefore, of course, keeping a record of where we see breaches of it.
And as you say this is not about cease-fires.
Which would of course be wonderful.
But they're not a sine qwa non for humanitarian operations but about not looting humanitarian stocks and not stopping humanitarian aid workers from doing their work.
And humanitarian workers include very importantly in this context the incredible heroes of this conflict which are the local communities, the resistance committees, the civil society in places like Khartoum and elsewhere.
They are our humanitarian partners.
They need to be respected and protected as well.
Christiane: Doesn't it really all go back to the beginning so to speak, you know, 2021, the -- basic attempt to get democracy, there was a coup, these two generals are now struggling for all-out control it seems.
I want to ask you about how the west, how the international community dealt with or failed to deal with what they were seeing on the ground.
Because Jeffrey Feltman, who as you know was the U.S. envoy to the horn of Africa, he basically has said that this violent breakdown between these two generals was, quote, predictable.
He said we avoided exacting consequences for repeated acts of impunity that might have otherwise forced a change in calculus.
Instead, we reflexively appeased and accommodated the two warlords.
We considered ourselves pragmatic, hindsight suggested wishful thinking to be a more accurate description.
Now, I know you're in the humanitarian recommend -- realm right now but comment on that.
Because that's fundamental.
Martin: Yes, it is.
And Jeff with whom I'm in frequent contact, was reminding me of exactly those sentiments when I was down in the region.
And of course he's right.
However, I know myself from my own experience of mediation that there is an imperative in any conflict to get those who are -- in control of the guns to get them to agree to silence them.
This is not an inappropriate ambition or aspiration.
And to do that, you have to deal with them and by the way, if we look at Yemen where we have some hopes for the future, in Yemen, the focus has been for now on ending the fighting and opening up the economy.
And the political consultations have yet to begin.
And not only Sudan which looks at silencing the guns as a permissible priority.
So that's my first comment.
It means that silencing the guns cease-fires, cessations of hostilities, never work.
They're never sustainable in my experience at least, if they don't also become rested or nestled in a political framework.
To that extent, Jeffrey is right.
Whether it is true, Christiane, that stern admonition and stern judgments of accountability would have been more useful than alleged disregard and allowing impunity, I don't know.
It's very -- Sudan specific.
And I'm not an expert.
I can understand, however, how there were such hopes.
What's really important now, I think, on the basis of the Jeff Feltman sort of playbook, is that the focus on the civilian element in the future of Sudan, the political process, that is needed to -- within which cease-fire staff can be embedded, that's what we need to see.
There's no reason to wait for efforts to make cease-fires to happen for that to happen.
In fact, that could be, you know, a revisiting.
Mistake that was made last time.
I'm very loathe to -- to use hindsight about conflict resolution.
Because it's too easily done.
However, if I was a Sudanese, I would be using hindsight quite a lot at the moment.
>> And fact is Alex rondos, U.N. envoy to the same region also spoke to me.
Martin: Yeah.
Christiane: He said the international community had been "too polite" that really these warlords were all about control of the resources.
And right now, and wanting total control for themselves and right now, as you know, the fighting has spread to Darfur, which has horrible ramifications because of the genocide that took place there in early 2000's.
So what -- if you don't want hindsight what do you see in all your experience as a way forward to actually end this war, to actually get a cease-fire and to move this process forward?
Martin: You know, I think getting a cease-fire is incredibly important and not necessary for humanitarian operations but that doesn't reduce its importance.
Its priority at all.
So yes, that's an allowable emphasis and priority.
But, however, and I've had endless experience in this, as I said earlier, it doesn't work without a political framework.
And so what is really needed is not simply, I would suggest, to rely on the two generals to suddenly find God and stop fighting.
But it is indeed to, you know, embed them in a framework which allows the people of Sudan to speak.
Now, we all know how difficult it is to find that kind of framework.
To find out who are the people who should be around the table.
That would appear to me to be as imperative right now as is -- as are the efforts going on in Jetta to get those elusive cease-fires.
And of course it's very important and this is where the region as you know Christiane comes to the fore.
Christiane: Exactly.
So finally, you know, you have a lot of humanitarian crises and disasters on your plate right now from Ukraine where an increasing number of civilians are being killed and wounded.
In Russia's relentless miss strikes and also got Afghanistan where the last time we spoke to you, the U.N. was essentially putting its humanitarian efforts on hold because of the Taliban's refusal to allow women to work.
And for the U.N. What is the status in Afghanistan?
Particularly for those women?
Martin: What we're doing in Afghanistan now is what we put into place as a result of the edict that came out on December 24.
You'll remember which stopped the working of women and humanitarian organizations limited to N.G.O.s and extended to U.N. a couple of Simoes later.
But the framework that we put into place in late January is still operating.
And what it provides for is where we can work with women, we will work with women.
And for women and children.
And what the Taliban have done after these edicts has made exemptions and exceptions as you know, Christiane, we discussed it, in certain sectors, for example, the health sector, and in some parts of the country.
So humanitarian organizations continue to as the saying goes, stay and deliver where they can.
But what we do not do is exceed -- accede to the men only aspiration of those edicts.
That is unacceptable.
And frankly, it also doesn't work in practical terms for humanitarian assistance in a place like Afghanistan.
So we are continuing to operate.
We never left.
We will not leave.
Where there is a moment's opportunity to work with and for its people.
Afghanistan needs a break.
Christiane: Boy, does it.
It's such a difficult, difficult situation.
Martin Griffiths, thank you so much indeed.
Martin: Thanks, Christiane.
Thank you very much indeed.
Christiane: Now, returning to the war in Ukraine and the possibility of peace as we were discussing earlier, Marie Yovanovitch served as the U.S. ambassador there after Moscow invaded Crimea.
She was removed from that post by President trump later testifying in his first impeachment trial about the U.S. withholding aid from Ukraine.
To discuss how this war can end, and why the west must not repeat the mistakes of Crimea, the former ambassador is joining Walter Isaac son now.
>> Ambassador Marie -- Marie Yovanovitch, welcome back to the show.
Marie: Thank you very much.
>> There's been a busy week on the Ukraine front.
You were ambassador to Ukraine.
We have a lot of movement both diplomatic and with the start of the military offensive.
Let's start with the diplomatic ones.
The Chinese special envoy is going to be wandering through the region going to Russia and going to Ukraine for the first time.
Jake Sullivan, our national security advisor, just met with his counterpart from China to discuss possible things that could be done in Ukraine.
As a diplomat, and somebody who once worked in the state department as a career foreign service officer, what do you make of all this diplomacy happening and what could it lead to?
Marie: Well, I think it's a very good sign.
I think, you know, jaja is better than war-war.
I welcome the fact that various parties are talking to each other.
China obviously the country in the world that has the most influence if any country does over Russia.
And so China could play -- could play, we'll have to see.
But could play a constructive role here.
And I think the Chinese envoy is also going to countries in Europe, France and Germany as well.
So I think, you know, trying to get a sense of what is out there, what is possible, the talks between Jake Sullivan and the Chinese last week you mentioned sounded like they were pretty constructive as well.
So let's see where we -- where we go from here.
I would say as a note of caution, though, that there's a time and a season as it says for everything.
And I'm not sure that the time for actual peace negotiations are at hand right now.
Walter: why is that?
Marie: Because I think both sides want to -- want facts on the ground that will strengthen them at the negotiating table and certainly true for Ukraine.
Ukraine wants to push Russia further back hopefully all the way back so Ukraine can reclaim its territories.
Walter: what do you mean by all the way back?
You moon all the way to -- through Crimea?
As well?
Marie: Yeah.
I mean, Zelensky has been pretty explicit about that.
So and the Ukrainian people support that as well.
So we all know that in negotiations that -- this war will end.
All wars end.
And it will most likely end to be followed by negotiations as most wars do.
And the Ukrainian people have -- usually there are compromises when there are negotiations.
But the Ukrainian people have been very explicit and -- in poll after poll after poll, they want all their territory back.
They want no concessions for Russia.
Walter: wait, I don't quite understand Crimea.
How that could possibly be one militarily -- won militarily in the foreseeable future.
Marie: Well, I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that this is the view of the Ukrainian people.
And Ukraine is a democracy.
This is something that I think Vladimir Putin of the many things that he doesn't understand about Ukraine is that it is a democracy.
And so while leaders may be ready to make compromises including perhaps on Crimea at some point, they also need to bring the Ukrainian people along with them.
That's going to be a critical factor.
And it's going to be really -- I think challenging for Zelensky.
Walter: we've seen a whole lot of assurances of new weapons, the Germans coming in with a very big package.
The British coming in with the type of long-range missiles that even the U.S. was reluctant to supply.
So tell me why was the U.S. reluctant to supply these missiles?
These long-range mixes from Britain help?
And will they put Ukraine in a better position to perhaps win?
Marie: Yeah.
I think it's very significant.
The British have always been out front in terms of, you know, where they position their own military with regard to Ukraine.
The kinds of systems that they have been providing.
And we have often followed suit.
You know, the most recent example being tanks to Ukraine.
We'll see whether this example of long-range missiles will provide that same kind of incentive for the U.S.
But yeah, I think potentially it's -- I don't want to say a game changer.
But potentially very significant because it can -- these missiles can reach very, very far and will force the Russians to pull back troops and -- so there's more -- Walter: you talk about a game changer -- Marie: I didn't want to call it a game changer after the words came out of my mouth.
Walter: right.
But game changer is a double edged thing.
Meaning it could really change the game if there are long-range missile attacks on the Russian homeland.
Do you think that could lead to tactical nuclear weapons being used by Putin?
Marie: Well, I don't know what kind of caveats the British received or demanded from the Ukrainians.
So as you are well-aware, when we have provided certain weapon systems, we have told the Ukrainians that they can't use them on Russian territory.
And so again, I don't know whether the British asked for that or not.
Water: do you think that's a good idea when you -- you even negotiated things like the javelin missiles which are just anti-tank missiles.
But did you feel it was a good idea to say you can't use weapons on Russian territory?
Marie: Well, you know, it provides -- it provides sanctuary for the Russians.
You know, they can attack, and then they can run back and hide.
And now the Ukrainians do have their own weapons which they have very successfully used.
Against -- against Russian forces, against Russian infrastructure.
And military objects.
But, you know, this idea of sanctuary in Russia really gives Russia an advantage.
Walter: what are your expectations for the counteroffensive that the Ukrainians seem ready to begin right now?
And how far do you think they could take it?
Marie: Well, you know, one thing that's been constant since the beginning of this war is that we underestimate Ukraine.
And we underestimate the Ukrainian military.
So I don't want to make that mistake because -- because you know, again, I just know the Ukrainian people and I know the Ukrainian military from my time there.
And I think that they could really move -- move forward quite successfully?
You know, what we're seeing right now in back mutt -- in Bakhmut, and this is -- what we're seeing in Bakhmut some pretty sophisticated fighting there and the Ukrainians are gaining on their Russian adversaries.
So if that continues, in the counteroffensive, I think -- I think they could be pushing the Russians back quite a bit.
And I hope that that is what will happen because it's important, the facts on the ground are important.
And they will strengthen Ukraine's hands in negotiations that we assume will come at some point in the future.
But the other thing I did want to say, Walter, is whatever happens with this counteroffensive, it's not going to be the end of the war.
No matter how wildly successful the Ukrainians are.
And I think we shouldn't overestimate what -- what is going to come.
Because the war, I think, will continue for some time.
I don't think Russia is ready to give up at this point, and I wouldn't anticipate that they would be by the end of the summer, either.
So we need to understand that victories are a great 1-2-3 inning and will build to ultimate success for Ukraine but it will take time.
Walter: you talk about there being a time for war and a time for diplomacy and about facts on the ground and the facts on the ground may be at the end of this summer after the offensive.
When do you think that the facts on the ground or the timing would be right for everybody to say, OK, let's stop this, at least have a permanent guaranteed cease-fire or perhaps even a comprehensive peace?
Marie: It's hard to know.
But I think -- I think it will take some time and to -- the next calendar year even.
And I think we just need to be steadfast and continue to support the Ukrainians.
And I think that as we look at what the contours of a comprehensive peace would be, because just to recall, back in 2014-2015 the Germans and the French, the Russians and the Ukrainians they did come up with a cease-fire and the -- Minsk agreements which weren't successful and the Russians never adhered to them and there wasn't an actual cease-fire but it got us to take our eye off the ball.
And I think that's what the Russians are looking for, some temporary -- certainly right now, they're looking for some temporary cease-fire that they can use the time gained to regroup, rearm, rest, and then come back when they assess that the west has moved on to the next shiny object and -- that could be years from now.
I mean, if you consider that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014-2015 and then reinvaded with this total war that we're seeing now, in 2022.
Russia is patient.
Walter: you've said that this war could go on, then, indefinitely.
That would mean a change of mindset almost in the United States and in the west.
Which is not just providing weapons right now but providing a very sustained war in Ukraine.
What do you fear about the politics in the United States as people start, especially on the left and the right, peeling off from wanting this war to continue?
Marie: Yeah.
I mean, you raise a really important issue.
And I think that what -- what we need to do, what Zelensky needs to do and I think he's doing that in his outreach in Europe the last week and this week, and presumably he will -- at some point come to the U.S. again as well, what Zelensky needs to do I think with the Biden administration needs to do is communicate to publics, including the American public, what the stakes are.
That this is a war about Ukraine.
But it is also about much, much more.
It is about our national security.
It's about global security.
Zelensky when he was here in December told Congress, you know, helping Ukraine isn't a charity.
It's an investment in your national security.
And I think that's absolutely right.
And explaining to the American public why that is the case.
That Zelensky -- that Putin, if he is successful in Ukraine, he will keep on going.
That's been his pattern since he took power.
And he's told us this.
And I think we need to believe him.
That will undermine as it is undermining right now the international rules-based order where sovereignty is kind of the golden rule where you don't invade other countries.
And Putin has of course violated that -- that rule.
Walter: and sort of encouraged in some ways that he did that a year ago and it turned out it was a really bad idea for him and he has been -- you know, especially with Finland joining NATO?
Marie: Yeah.
All sorts of unintended consequences no question about it.
And a reinvigorated NATO.
You know, the west coming together as never before.
But you know, there are other -- other countries are not supportive.
They're waiting on the sidelines to see what's going to happen next.
And I think there are authoritarian states that are watching very keenly whether Russia will be successful.
Because if Russia is successful, then, you know, perhaps they can do the same things and if Russia is successful in Ukraine, Russia will certainly keep on going.
So I think the stakes are very, very high.
And it will affect, you know, not only global security, it will affect the global economy and it will affect our freedoms because security and freedoms always go together.
Walter: your memoirs which you published a year ago are out in paperback a new edition and a great after words which I loved reading last night.
But you talked about something that interested me which was you call it sigh ops -- psy-0.
Ps what does Putin do when he threatens nuke lower weapons, for example?
Explain what we have to be aware of that?
Marie: Yeah, yeah.
So when Putin talks about using nuclear weapons, I mean, obviously we need to pay attention all the time.
Because you never want to get a nuclear weapons question wrong.
But he is trying to scare us.
He's trying to scare the Ukrainians but mostly trying to scare the west and the United States.
Trying to intimidate us into not supporting Ukraine.
And here's what I would say.
If we fall for that, if we become intimidated, he'll do it again.
And other countries will, too.
They'll realize that they can intimidate the west just by the threat of nuclear warfare.
We need to stand for our principles.
We need to stand for our values.
We need to stand for our interests.
And I think, you know, one of the things that I've seen in Putin over time is that he's a bully.
And he's the head of a big country so he can push little countries around.
But he understands force.
He understands strength.
And if we stand up to him, I think he'll understand that language.
And back in the fall, when there was a lot of loose talk about using nuclear weapons, there were some, you know, behind closed door conversations, diplomatic conversations with the Russians as well as with other countries that this was not a good idea.
Jake Sullivan said very publicly that it would be catastrophic for Russia if Russia used nuclear weapons.
And while the talk hasn't completely abated, it has significantly died down.
And so I think that's an example of how Russia the bully has to be dealt with.
Walter: you say that this fight in Ukraine is part of something larger.
Which is why it's so important for us to pay attention.
And that larger thing is the fight against authoritarianism.
And breaking the rules of international order.
Versus the order that we've had for the -- past so many decades.
Tell me, are you worried that authoritarianism is on the rise here?
Or do you actually see some glimmers of hope that this spring, we're seeing the pushback of some of these authoritarian regimes including the success that the Ukrainians have had?
Marie: Yeah.
Well, just to -- the question down to Ukraine, I'm very optimistic about Ukraine.
And I'm optimistic because of the people in Ukraine.
You know, I first started working there 20 years ago.
And there was no civil society to speak of.
People, you know, waited for leadership to tell them what to do.
That is emphatically not the case.
That -- in Ukraine, every man, woman and child is mobilized and not mobilized because, you know, itself leader, Zelensky, or a mayor has told them that they need to do something.
They look around and see what needs to be done and they go and they do it.
And so, you know, they are fighting for, you know, for their families, for their country, for their future.
And that future is a European future where the rule of law is supreme.
They've been trying to do this for many, many years.
And I think this is the latest manifestation in the war against Russia.
And when finally we've been talking a lot about war and then the peace, but when that peace comes to Ukraine, I think it is going to be a European future.
Because the Ukrainians are not fighting for the country they had before.
That had so many challenges with corruption and rule of law issues.
They're fighting for the future.
Walter: ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, thank you so much for joining us.
Marie: Thank you.
Christiane: Of course, that's what we hear from Ukrainians as well.
The abortion pill Mifepristone the epicenter of reproductive rights and opponents say it is dangerous and suing the government to get it banned.
But data shows that Viagra is actually more lethal than abortion medication.
And the fight could soon be headed all the way to the supreme court.
Meanwhile, women are being forced to make impossible choices in some cases.
Elizabeth Cohen spoke with one who decided to get sterilized rather than risk getting pregnant.
>> I had my tubes taken out last week.
This is one.
>> Karen Neal's 25 years old opted six months ago to be sterilized.
Danny Marieti, also 25, had a picnic to celebrate her sterilization last July complete with commemorative cookies.
Moriya Marsh also had her tubes removed as a 28th birthday present to herself in January.
All three have known for a long time a they don't want children.
And afro V. wade was overturned last year they got sterilized.
>> And I knew that the only way I could really protect myself is to go ahead and get the surgery.
>> Moriya an admissions officer at -- has a neuromuscular disease that can make pregnancy risky.
She said the ongoing legal battle over Mifepristone makes her more grateful she was sterilized the legal challenge to this drug one against two used, could bar the use for abortion in the future.
>> It makes me happy I made the decisions I made because it validated my thought process which was they're just going to come for any access to care that a woman can make on her own.
>> Dr. Leah Talletum, an obstetrician gynecologist in Austin, Texas, hears this frequently from patients.
>> If medical abortions are not accessible what if their reproductive rights are restricted constitutional right?
>> She said as abortion rights are getting chipped away... >> I have definitely seen an increase in the request for sterilizations.
I see about three times the consults for sterilization as I used to.
>> Women like Moriah, Dani, and Kera.
>> Find somebody who is covered by your insurance -- >> Are securing their choice as some options for choosing a life without children are being taken away.
>> Elizabeth Cohen with a window into some women there.
And finally tonight, a piece of history to the highest bidder.
This Hebrew bible sold for $38.1 million.
It's one of the steepest prices ever for a book or document sold at auction.
Dating back to around the year 900, it is the oldest most complete Hebrew bible known to exist.
Alfred Moses, the former U.S. ambassador to Romania, purchased the Codex Sassoon on display at the museum of Tel Aviv.
That's it for our program tonight and to find out what's coming up on this show every night sign up for our newsletter at pbs.org/amanpour.
Thanks for watching and goodbye from New York.