Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour and Company. Here’s what’s coming up.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court orders the release of the country’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, after he was detained on corruption charges. The
former Pakistani ambassador to the United States unpacks this crisis surrounding a major American ally.
Also, ahead —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LADY ANNE GLENCONNER, FORMER LADY-IN-WAITING FOR PRINCESS MARGARET AND, AUTHOR, “WHATEVER NEXT?”: And I remember hearing her come. The roar of
people is pouring with rain. And then, around the corner came this girl in coat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: — the remarkable life of Queen Elizabeth’s maid of honor, Lady Anne Glenconner tells me about having a front row seat for two coronations.
And after years of domestic abuse how she is now living her best life at 90.
Then, how trade and economic ties are key to resetting U.S.-China relations. Walter Isaacson speaks to Ambassador Katherine Tai who is
breaking ground as the first Asian-American to serve as U.S. trade representative.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
And we begin with chaos in Pakistan where police say nearly 1,000 people have been arrested this week in the Punjab Province. Across the country,
mass protests have descended into violent clashes. The spark the lit this fire, the country’s former prime minister and cricket star, Imran Khan,
dramatically bundled into a vehicle and driven away by security forces earlier, then arrested and indicted on corruption charges, all of which he
denies. And today, the Supreme Court ordered Khan’s release, saying the arrest was illegal.
The incident brings to a head the yearlong political standoff with the country’s powerful military since Khan was ousted as leader last April. And
all of this comes amid a major economic crisis, rising terrorism, and less than a year after the devastating floods that engulfed the country.
Strategically placed between Afghanistan, China, and India, a key ally of the United States and a nuclear power, how does Pakistan emerge from all of
this? I put that question to the former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani. We spoke just before news of Khan’s release.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ambassador Haqqani, welcome back to our program.
HUSAIN HAQQANI, FORMER PAKISTANI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Pleasure being here, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, I guess my first question to you is, does Imran Khan, did Imran Khan really needed to be arrested in a situation where there is so
many interlocking crises in Pakistan?
HAQQANI: From my point of view, nobody in Pakistan who has been treated this way among the political class deserved to be arrested. But this is
unfortunately the way of Pakistan. Imran Khan cheered on when Benazir Bhutto was arrested, he cheered on when Nawaz Sharif was arrested. And now,
it’s his turn apparently.
The reason why he had to be arrested was because he wasn’t playing by the unwritten rule of Pakistani politics. When the military wants you out, you
step down and you wait your turn for the next election. He didn’t want to do that. He was attacking military officers by name. He was also telling
his young supporters, of which there are many, to actually engage in violence, and that violence has manifested immediately after his arrest.
So, all of these factors are contributed to the decision.
Lastly, there is a long tradition in Pakistan of charging former prime ministers with corruption because they are often the — because there’s
often is some corruption. And in this particular case, there are some valid cases. Any other politician would have accepted that, gone to prison for a
few days, gone to court and got out. Imran Khan decided that he wanted a revolution. Now, we will find out if he really can be Pakistan’s Khamenei.
AMANPOUR: Whoa. Pakistan’s Khamenei? Let me just stop you right there because that is a serious commentary that you are basically saying that an
Imran Khan “revolution” or an Imran Khan leadership is one that puts the nation further into an Islamic republic? Is that what you’re saying?
HAQQANI: That is absolutely the case. Look at every video that he has ever released since he was removed from office, he has used voices from the
Quran, he has gone to the extent of implying that it is a battle not between two political groups, but it is a battle between right and wrong,
it is a battle between good and evil. And those who do not support him will be punished by God, both in this world and the hereafter.
Look, I do not agree. You know that I have a 30-year history of opposing military intervention in Pakistan’s politics and demanding civilian
supremacy and democracy. But in case of Imran Khan, I must qualify by saying that he has opposed democracy by supporting the military in the
past, he rose to power with the support of the military and his real alliance with the military is that the military did not support him when
the vote of no confidence was brought against him in parliament.
And so, he is rallying his troops in the name of religion and of course, it’s not going to be a Khamenei like revolution because there won’t be a
revolution. We will soon find out whether the Pakistani military can assert itself more likely scenario if the chaos really increases, is Pakistan
going Egypt’s way, where everything falls apart for a little while and then, the pieces have to be picked up by the one institution that has kept
Pakistan together all of these years even though its meddling is what has made things worse in the past.
AMANPOUR: Wow. It really is a circular logic that keeps coming back to the military. So, essentially what you’re saying is that no matter what,
because the military, as you said, helped propel Imran Khan to power, no matter what, the military is going to be the ruler of Pakistani in the
front or in the back, by the side door or by the trap door.
HAQQANI: Well, the only way to break out of that would be national reconciliation among the politicians. When Benazir Bhutto came back to
Pakistan in 2007, she came with the message of national reconciliation. She reconciled with her main rival, Nawaz Sharif. The two of them agreed, we
will always come to power only through elections. We will respect each other. We will not try to undermine each other midterm and we will not work
with the intelligence services to undermine each other.
The one person who remained out of that arrangement was Imran Khan who said, this is an agreement between two groups of crooks. Well, guess what?
Now, Imran Khan, unfortunately, is being called a crook and his followers are not accepting that because Benazir Bhutto’s followers never thought she
was crooked. Nawaz Sharif’s followers never believe that the cases against him were legitimate.
And now, we are seeing this. But the twist is that Imran Khan’s supporters were supporters of General Musharraf before. They have usually been used,
the military supporting their man. And this time, they are very annoyed and they have engaged in a kind of violence that we never saw in support of the
other major political parties now.
Right now, Imran Khan is popular, but the question is, does that popularity reach the point where he and his supporters can overwhelm everybody else
and not play by any rules?
AMANPOUR: So, you were ambassador to the United States and you obviously – – you’ve basically been in the middle of some of the most, you know, tense and stressful relations from 9/11 on and you’ve written quite a lot about
the relationships. Where — given the U.S. has a strategic interest and the West does too, given where Pakistan is situated and its history, where does
this all leads for the — let’s just say for relations with the U.S.?
HAQQANI: Well, the United States has tried to back away from Pakistan, especially in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the
American attitude is that, we did everything for Pakistan on the assumption that Pakistan will help us in Afghanistan, it did not, it ended up helping
the Taliban. Now, we will let Pakistan find its way before we will reengage in a serious way.
So, aid, for example, which was in the billions of dollars when I was ambassador from 2008 to 2011 is now down to a trickle, it’s not even a
couple of hundred million dollars. And so, America has backed away from Pakistan. That doesn’t mean that America doesn’t have interest in Pakistan.
And eventually, the U.S. would like stability in Pakistan.
Ironically, on this particular issue, all of Pakistan’s friends and the United States, in particular, have a shared interest, China, the United
States, all of the Arab countries that have close ties with Pakistan, they would like stability to return to Pakistan. And while everybody will object
to Pakistan not following its own constitution and working according to its own democratic principles, which are unique because Pakistan is a hybrid
democracy, it’s not a full democracy, it never has been, they certainly would think that chaos is the worth option.
And so, if there is some semi authoritarian move to curb chaos and to stop anarchy, I think most people will hold their noses and accept that, at
least for the short-term. It’s not ideal, it’s not what I would like to happen, but that is what I think is the most likely scenario.
AMANPOUR: Going back to Imran Khan himself, you know, he obviously came to political power, as you know better than I do, with a political party
dedicated to fighting corruption. He said he was the lone person in the political and public sphere in Pakistan trying to fight corruption. And
now, it’s all coming back to bite him and he is, as you say, a victim of the perennial political games and tactics that have played out in your
country.
He also, though, has blamed the United States for his first ejection from power, and either he or Pakistan, in general, has tilted very, very far
down the road towards China. Give us a sense of the strategic importance of that now very divergent shift.
HAQQANI: Pakistan’s real problem is neither China nor the United States, it’s India. The entire Pakistani elite, of which Imran Khan is a part,
believes that the real threat to Pakistan comes from India. So, in that context, because the United States has drawn closer to India, most
Pakistanis think that they would be better off with China, which has its own problems with India.
In the end, Pakistan’s biggest export market is the United States. United States is where Pakistan’s high-quality, high-end military equipment comes
from. And the United States has been Pakistan’s traditional partner. The Pakistani military would like good relations with the United States, so
would most Pakistani politicians.
Imran Khan is slightly a bit of an outlier. Although, recently, he has backed away from his claims about an American conspiracy against him and
has started saying that maybe the conspiracy was indigenous and maybe the Americans were just fooled into accepting it, which is a half deposition,
and he has also started a major lobbying effort in Washington D.C. through hiring of several lobbyist on behalf of his party. So, he has been changing
that position. In the end, Pakistan needs both the United States and China and needs to have their support instead of going into anyone’s camp.
Imran Khan, because of his personality — look, he’s a celebrity, and most celebrity politicians, whether Donald Trump or somebody else, they have a
problem of not being able to make a distinction between what they say publicly to get applause and what should be policy, even on corruption.
Patronage is an integral part of democracy, it’s not ideal thing, but patronage politics takes place everywhere, and that is what has got Imran
Khan into trouble. He engaged in pictured in patronage politics, he created a foundation that benefit his wife and her best friend and he did so by
driving resources from the state towards that — through a real estate magnate.
And that is what, in the past, has been the reason for disqualification from politics, of Nawaz Sharif of others. And therefore, Imran Khan’s
rhetoric and his actions are not going to be able to match. Even on the United States, he may say that he wants Pakistan to be completely
independent of the United States, but Pakistan has compulsions which brought Pakistan close to the U.S. and those compulsions remain.
AMANPOUR: OK. It’s — again, it just does seem like an endless story that we’re talking about in Pakistan. And one of the constants is the economic
crisis. People there are suffering very, very deeply still. Just some statistics, food and transport prices are up 50 percent compared to last
year. The rupee fell to a record low against the dollar after Imran was arrested. The IMF bailout has stalled since November. And a crush of people
waiting for food just this March left 13 people dead.
Is there is any way out of this economic crisis while the politics are so polarized and so much in their own crises?
HAQQANI: Pakistan badly needs national reconciliation. Pakistan needs the politicians to come together. And instead of seen each other as enemies,
they need to see each other as rivals within a system.
Look, the economic crisis is partly because of decisions made by Imran Khan. The rupee had started falling even when he was in office, it just
escalated after he was removed from office. The IMF package had already been agreed upon. He decided to rummage (ph) on it just before he was
ousted, so that the new government would get into trouble.
His supporters have a slogan, and they’ve been using it more and more recently, either Imran Khan or nothing. Now, that attitude, essentially, is
the reason why the government, however hobbled and flawed and weak it might be, is unable to complete things like a deal with the IMF, which should
have been easy to make given that there was already a track record.
So, whoever has the upper hand in the next few months will have to deal with the economic crisis. Even if Imran Khan can get out of everything,
which I don’t think he will, and come back into office, he will have to deal with these problems, have to deal with the IMF, get some kind of a
loan delay, a loan repayment rescheduling with China, work with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to continue to assist Pakistan
economically, and then, rebuild the economy.
But to do that, they have to make sure that this time there is not another spoiler who just put the country in an economic tizzy and makes it
impossible — political tizzy and makes it impossible to make important economic decisions.
AMANPOUR: It’s tizzy indeed. Husain Haqqani, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
HAQQANI: Always a pleasure talking with you, Christiane.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Five days after the coronation here in the U.K., we reflect on the pomp and pageantry of the monarchy and the trials and tribulations of
many in the aristocracy. Lady Anne Glenconner was one of Queen Elizabeth’s maids of honor when she was crowned in 1953. She was Princess Margaret’s
lady-in-waiting for over 30 years.
And last weekend, she had a front row seat to royal history as the crown was placed on the head of King Charles III. Lady Glenconner has led a
colorful and very privileged life, but also one filled with tragedy and abuse.
In her 90s now, she has become a popular writer, sharing all that she’s experienced and learned in her latest book, “Whatever Next?,” which
followed “The New York Times” bestselling “Lady in Waiting.” She came into the studio to share her extraordinary story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Lady Glenconner, welcome to the program.
LADY ANNE GLENCONNER, FORMER LADY-IN-WAITING FOR PRINCESS MARGARET AND, AUTHOR, “WHATEVER NEXT?”: Well, thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, how did the coronation of King Charles III compare with that of Queen Elizabeth II’s 70 years between them?
GLENCONNER: Well, it was difficult because there were certain things that were different. I mean, I missed the tiaras. I missed, you know, the
(INAUDIBLE) who looked so wonderful. Because when the queen was crowned, they crowned themselves and they put up their arms, which they had long
white gloves on and they look like swans taking off.
But on the other hand, there were wonderful people from the common world (ph) where national dress. And I, luckily, bag roller (ph) a good seat when
I got in, so that I could see, where I was standing, the pillar of where I was standing was just opposite me.
AMANPOUR: What’s your most vivid memory of being the queen’s lady-in- waiting and carrying her train?
GLENCONNER: Well, I suppose we were waiting, four of us, two of the grounders maid’s warner (ph), went into the procession. Four of us, less
ground (ph), daughters of earl’s we were, were waiting for her at the door. And I remember hearing her come. The roar of people is pouring with rain.
And then, around the corner came this girl in coat. And it came and two pages opened the door.
We were the first people to see her in her coronation dress. She looked so wonderful. I mean, she was so beautiful. Wonderful skin, sparkling eyes and
all of her jewelry. And there she was with her back to us and the train was rippling over our hands, and she hadn’t said anything to us up until that
moment. And then, she looked just around and she said, ready, girls? And off we went.
AMANPOUR: And this time, you had a very good seat. You write that you actually sat next to the former U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, but
you didn’t know who you were sitting next to, right?
GLENCONNER: No. The thing was that one or two people have names on their seats, but the rest didn’t. So, it was just luck really. And I wanted to
get as good a seat as I could and I was very early into the abbey. I arrived before anything was open and luckily, I was outside, a very nice
policeman, produced a chair for me on the pavement while I waited.
And then, they took me through security. So, I was in the abbey, one of the first, and I saw — actually, he said he was wrong, but — dress as
ambassador, but — and I thought, well, in America, I sit next to him. I never met him, didn’t know him. And he was wonderful. I mean, we got on
very well. He’s a very good guy.
AMANPOUR: So, you guided him through all the procession.
GLENCONNER: I did, I did. And he kept on saying, what are they doing now? And I felt this faint joy during the coronation. And when I got — the
archbishop —
AMANPOUR: The queen’s coronation, you felt faint —
GLENCONNER: Yes, the queen’s.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GLENCONNER: Yes. And anyway, the archbishop produced a flask of brandy from somewhere. He offers the queen. I can’t remember how many glasses, but
you can’t expect the queen to swig. Anyway, she said, no. And so, I think you will have, you know, a drop, which I did, which completely extended
(ph) me. So, I tell this to John Kerry, he was absolutely amazed.
AMANPOUR: And this time, you took in some fortifications of your own.
GLENCONNER: Yes. I took a small bottle of apple juice and some sweets to suck. I thought they might take the apple juice away, you know, like being
in an airplane where we went through security, but luckily, I was allowed to keep it.
AMANPOUR: Did you feel that this was — of course, it was slimmed down, we understand, there were many less guests than for the queen’s coronation, it
took an hour less than the queen’s did, and the king was very conscious that, you know, it’s 70 years later, there’s a much more diverse, you know,
Britain and that, you know, it needs to be modernize, it needs to be made more relevant today?
GLENCONNER: Yes, exactly. And I think he did. I mean, what I noticed, for instance, the choir, where there were girls singing. Well, the way they
were all boys. You know, and there were — there are things — I mean, Black Rod who saved the day when I felt faint and so (INAUDIBLE), it was a
lady taking —
AMANPOUR: And female bishops took part?
GLENCONNER: And the female bishops.
AMANPOUR: And multifaith leaders?
GLENCONNER: Yes. And that lovely —
AMANPOUR: The gospel choir?
GLENCONNER: The gospel choir. And they — I mean, they sort of, you know, moving to music. I mean, that would never have happened, you know, at the
queen’s coronation. It was all much more formal. And of course, it — I think the king did a great job in modernizing it because everybody there
had a reason, a real reason to be there.
There were lot of friends, obviously, I was one of them. But he also had, you know, people from these charities and watching. I had a lovely seat
because I could also watch people coming in. And then, suddenly, four men arrived in feather cloaks. I don’t know whether — they were maoris, I
think.
AMANPOUR: Maoris, yes, from New Zealand, of course.
GLENCONNER: Yes. And there — and then, a lady came in the most enormous pink ball gown covered in diamonds. I think she was the wife of somebody
from the Middle East. But she had more — she had a breastplate of diamonds on. And so, it was such fun seeing them all come in, you know.
AMANPOUR: What do you make of the kerfuffle, the constant kerfuffle over Prince Harry?
GLENCONNER: Well, I’m so glad that he came. I used to know him as a little boy because the nanny who used to look after my children went to look after
Prince William and Harry when they were small. So, I’ve always seen him. And he was such a charming little boy.
I’m so glad he came. I’m really glad. I’m a write, as you know. And in my book, so I always — I write above forgiveness. It’s so important. And it’s
not until you can forgive that you will ever move forward. And I just hope so much that all happen.
AMANPOUR: Well, look, you lead me right into your book. The two that have really essentially put your aristocratic and personal life out there was a
“Lady in Waiting,” and now, “Whatever Next?” And it’s quite unusual that somebody of your status would be so frank about everything that went on,
even behind the bedroom door. What made you, firstly, want to write the first book, “Lady in Waiting”?
GLENCONNER: Well, I didn’t really think of writing a book. I was horrified. I happen to be sitting next to a very nice young man who is in
the publishing world and I’ve always so riveted on with my stories, which I like to do. And he suddenly said, oh, what about writing a book? And I
said, of course I can’t write a book, I’m 87. I’ve never written anything.
So, he said, well, what about dictating it. And I said, that’s what I did. I sat in my sitting room and it all just came rushing out. I mean, somebody
said, did you get writer’s block, and I said, no, no, no, I got writer’s diarrhea. I simply couldn’t stop.
And anyway, there we were. And I wrote about a very — one most interesting chapters actually was I wrote about the coronation. And I am the only
person who’s written about the coronation, the queen’s coronation, who was actually there. And that, I think, has interested people.
AMANPOUR: I mean, you’ve had so many experiences. But let’s just take your marriage to Lord Collin Glenconner.
GLENCONNER: Lord Glenconner.
AMANPOUR: Lord Glenconner. You don’t say Colin?
GLENCONNER: No.
AMANPOUR: No. Just Lord Glenconner.
GLENCONNER: It’s all very difficult with titles.
AMANPOUR: It’s all very difficult. But what did you call him?
GLENCONNER: Well, I call him Colin. But, I mean, he was charismatic. He was extraordinary and lots of ways but not easy to live with.
AMANPOUR: I mean, more than not easy. You write about some pretty fraught situations.
GLENCONNER: Well, the — see the thing was that when I wrote —
AMANPOUR: You wrote about abuse?
GLENCONNER: — “Lady in Waiting,” I didn’t like to write about, you know, my first book. And then, it was very partly Queen Camilla who has done so
much for abuse, you know, with charities and encouraging people to speak up. And then, I had a talk with my children, because I felt I couldn’t
write it without, and they were very supportive and we had a very therapeutic talk about what Colin sometimes had done to them and, you know.
And so, I did, and I’ve had the most extraordinary response. I’ve had some very sad letters actually from people.
AMANPOUR: I bet you have, because it’s touched a nerve with so many millions of women around the world who have experienced domestic abuse.
GLENCONNER: Yes. And the thing is that people don’t — they are ashamed of it and they don’t talk about it. Because I wrote about it, and luckily, who
I am and I have — they’re amazed and thrilled and so, so many have written said, you know, you’ve really helped me.
AMANPOUR: What was the worst thing about be married to Lord Glenconner?
GLENCONNER: Well, I think the thing was that he was so unpredictable. You never knew — threading on eggshells the whole time. And then, he suddenly
— he simply couldn’t control himself. And the rage is what’s terrifying, you know.
AMANPOUR: At one point you write and it’s very clear, you write that you were experiencing one of these, you know, rage full outbursts when you
didn’t up and open a door quickly enough. And in your book, you write that you started to tear up. And your great friend, who you called ma’am all the
time, Princess Margaret.
GLENCONNER: I know, she’s wonderful.
AMANPOUR: What did she say?
GLENCONNER: She said to me, stop crying. There’s no point. So, more or less, man up.
AMANPOUR: She wanted you to suppress those feelings, and as they say in England, keep calm and carry on?
GLENCONNER: Well, that’s what — how we were brought up. I mean, I did go, very early on, when I just, you know, thought I couldn’t deal with Colin.
And I went back to my mother and my mother said, you married him, you go straight back. And I did for 54 years.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you this? One of the great stories, I mean, it’s quite an odd story, but maybe it’s a normal story, I don’t know in your circles,
but on your honeymoon, what did he do? Take you to a brothel?
GLENCONNER: Well, I didn’t think that was a usual thing. I mean, all my friends were obviously horrified when I told them and so was I because I
thought he was taking me out to dinner at The Ritz. He said he got a surprise. So, I dressed up in my best silk dress, you know, and I said, you
know, where are we going? He said, you know, I’m not telling you, it’s a surprise. And I thought, well, we’re bound to go to The Ritz. And then, I
was horrified when we got into the taxi, because I knew vaguely where The Ritz was and off we drove to the outskirts of Paris.
And we were taken into this brothel where, luckily, there were two wingback chairs. I sat as far back. And on the bed, in front of us, were these two
people making love. Absolutely disgusting actually. I mean, I was horrified.
AMANPOUR: What was the point?
GLENCONNER: Well, he thought it would — I don’t know. Well, because I was a virgin. Because in those days, we were all virgins and then we got
married, because there’s no contraception, you know. And you basically bought up and, you know, horrified.
AMANPOUR: So, he was trying to — this is a practical lesson?
GLENCONNER: Yes, that’s what he thought. But, I mean, actually, it was very putting off. But I can laugh about it now. But at the time, it was
absolutely awful. And he was in another wingback chair and I sort of thought, I’m not going to look and see what he’s doing. And then they kept
on saying, would I like to join in? And said — being very polite, I said, well, it’s frightfully kind of you, but no thank you. Such relief when they
finished. I mean, it’s a room I can’t tell you. Well, that was the beginning of my honeymoon.
AMANPOUR: Oh, lordy. And look, let’s fast forward to a tragedy — several tragedies.
GLENCONNER: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Your — two of your children, two of your sons died.
GLENCONNER: Well, and sadly, Henry of AIDS, which, of course, we didn’t know how it was called. And then, my darling, Charlie, was a drug addict.
And although his life turned around and he got married, in fact, they both had sons. I’ve two wonderful grandsons. I mean, that is lovely, so lucky.
But I knew that they were dying.
And then, my third son, our third son, Christopher, on his (INAUDIBLE) in Belize, had this ghastly motorbike accident. And he was in a coma for five
months. And I just don’t know how I got through those months because I knew the others were dying, and I was just determined not to lose Christopher.
And we did all sorts of things like nursing him on the floor so that I could sit behind him, so that he could lean against me, feel my heart. It
was just like giving birth to somebody all over again. And we had tapes and we sang to him, we read to him. And because of what I did with him, I’ve
had quite a lot of people writing to me whose children who are in comas or young people, and I try to give them advice.
AMANPOUR: Your books have reached out in a way that you may not have expected, because it is what you experience with your children and
particularly the death of Henry from AIDS, when nobody really talked about that. And now, you have a very passionate and gratefully and committed gay
community, certainly in the United States.
GLENCONNER: I have. I think partly that it was so shaming, AIDS, in those days. Nobody talked about it. And you’re sitting in A&E and a lot of people
in there. Well, by the time — I looked around after about 10 minutes, they were gone because Henry was covered in Kaposi, they knew — you could tell
what — and they all left, and I was left alone with him.
You know, and he was so — well, I sat on the floor, actually, had his head on my lap. And they’d all gone.
AMANPOUR: And we remember all very, very well one of the most forward leaning actions of Princess Diana, the princess, was when she went and sat
by the bedside, held hands with the AIDS patients.
GLENCONNER: Well, of course —
AMANPOUR: And your son was in the same hospital.
GLENCONNER: Well — and before that, I mean, Princess Margaret had done a lot. There’s a place called the Lighthouse in London. And Princess Margaret
used to go there. And she wasn’t touchy-feely like that, but she was amusing. She made them laugh. And she did a lot of work before actually.
But anyway, Diana came and she talked a lot of the young men and then, she said to the nurse, is anybody who is too ill to come out? And then, they
said, there is somebody, and that was Henry. And she went in and he said, oh, we got something in common. She looked rather surprised. And then, he
said, well, my nanny went to look after William and Harry.
But she — what was absolutely marvelous, you know, something I’ve always treasured, she wrote me the nicest letter and she said to me and, you must
be so proud of Henry, because what he’d done was that he come out. And I said to him, darling, if you come out and tell people, you’re going to be
victimized. People are going to be frightened of you, and they were. But he wanted to help people. And I thought it was so nice of her to say that, you
know.
AMANPOUR: Do you think, because all of this is detailed in that may mega Netflix series called “The Crown,” do you think that is an accurate
portrayal? What do you think of “The Crown”?
GLENCONNER: Well, I think it’s perfectly awful. I don’t look at it. I mean, it’s — well, the sad thing was, it started off rather well. I think
people in England, they perhaps take it with a pinch of salt, but I think probably people in America think it’s completely true. I didn’t —
AMANPOUR: I want to just read one thing, one of the first lessons I was taught, this is what you write, was that women were not as important as
men. Daughters could not inherit titles or estates, life would’ve been so different if I’ve been able to inherit.
GLENCONNER: Yes, I would’ve loved to inherited Holkham. It’s a wonderful estate. That was sort of wonderful, huge (INAUDIBLE) right by the sea, you
now. And my father was so disappointed that I wasn’t a boy, well, they all were, and they treated me rather like a boy. I mean, I —
AMANPOUR: Well, how do you think your life would’ve been different?
GLENCONNER: I probably wouldn’t have married Colin, because I would’ve married somebody that would’ve probably help me more in running a big
estate like that.
AMANPOUR: You would’ve been more equal?
GLENCONNER: Exactly, more equal. And I think being the eldest and being been such a disappointment because I wasn’t a boy I — it’s sort of manned
me up a bit, you know.
AMANPOUR: And what do you think about your own life and hopes and dreams?
GLENCONNER: Well, I’ve just never had such a good time in my life. I mean, I always think Princess Margaret and my husband would be absolutely amazed
by what I’ve done. Because having been in the shadows, invisible all my life with Colin and with Princess Margaret, I’m now what I call come out
with a bang. And I’m just having a wonderful time.
AMANPOUR: Lady Glenconner, thank you so much.
GLENCONNER: Well, thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, China’s new foreign minister has called for stabilizing relations with the United States, it comes amid the possibility of a
meeting to reset economic ties between the two countries later this month.
Ambassador Katherine Tai serves as the U.S. trade representative, a child of Chinese immigrants, she’s breaking barriers in that role and she’s
joining Walter Isaacson to discuss the Biden Administration’s approach to trade, and how her heritage influences her work.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And Ambassador Katherine Tai, welcome to the show.
AMBASSADOR KATHERINE TAI, U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE: Thank you so much.
ISAACSON: The big news this week is reports that you will be meeting in Detroit with the Chinese commerce minister. It would be, if that happens,
the highest-ranking meeting for the U.S. in about a year with Chinese counterparts. I know that’s not been confirmed, but what would be the
significance of that meeting, if it happens?
TAI: Well, I am hosting the AIPAC ministers responsible for trade meeting at the end of this month. And as you may know, the United States is one of
the 21 member economies of AIPAC, and we are the host for this year, 2023.
I’m really looking forward to hosting this meeting in Detroit to show off the history of Detroit as a center of American innovation. I think probably
the most significant aspect of a meeting, should it happen, is to provide us with an opportunity to reconnect with one of my interlocutors in
Beijing, to check in since the administration transition in Beijing as President Xi Jinping has taken his unprecedented third term there.
So, I think in my expectation, it will be an important reconnection, a bit of a level sets in terms of reestablish communication channels and
relationships.
ISAACSON: Do you think that it’s time for a reset or a leveling of this relationship? It’s been very confrontational. And you said in one of your
talks that we don’t really want to decouple from China, we can’t do that.
TAI: We have a lot of challenges with China. As someone on the economic team, let me just focus on the economic relationship. The U.S.-China
relationship is one of profound consequence in the global economy. We are the world’s two largest economies. How we relate to each other has grave
implications, serious implications, not just for us, the U.S. economy, our workers and our businesses, the Chinese economy, it’s workers and
businesses, but for the entire world.
And that is the reason why it is so important for us to take an extremely responsible, deliberative approach that is focused on being strategic,
being effective in addressing the significant challenges that we do have in this relationship.
So, I think that it’s not confrontational that we are looking for. However, many of the conversations that we need to have are going to be difficult.
ISAACSON: Which ones are going to be the most difficult?
TAI: I think that fundamentally, in terms of the U.S. approach to trade. We are working on rebalancing in many different ways. When I took on this
job and President Biden asked me to join his cabinet, he asked me to bring a new approach to trade that the Biden administration would advance what he
specifically asked for to be a worker centered trade policy. And that reflects a recognition that the trade policies that we have pursued across
administrations over the past decades, the trade policies that have been prioritized worldwide have really hit some significant limits.
We are seeing for ourselves what happens when you prioritize trade liberalization, the maximization of efficiency at the expense of investing
in your workers.
ISAACSON: Wait, wait. So, you’re saying the past 20 years of trade liberalization have actually been bad for the American worker and we have
to change that, you, Jake Sullivan, President Biden, are changing our trade policy?
TAI: Well, we’ve got to change our approach and we are looking for different trade outcomes. We are looking for outcomes that are more
inclusive. We are advancing approaches and processes that are more inclusive also.
And when we say we’re going to put workers at the center, that is a recognition that U.S. trade policy has, for too long, not had workers at
its center and had placed workers at the periphery. This is needed, not just for us, but I think that it is a globalization trend that we are
trying to advance with our partners, which is to say that, in a world where you have maximized and you have incentivized cost efficiency at the expense
of everything else, we see for ourselves widening inequality, economically, not just here in the United States, but in economies around the world. So,
we need more inclusive outcomes.
At the same time, we’ve all just gone through, and we’re still going through, economic disruptions that have come from the pandemic and
demonstrated how fragile our global supply chains are. We’ve done a lot of diagnoses in terms of the vulnerabilities in our supply chains, but for
those of us working new trade, it is very, very clear that the incentives that we have put into the global trading system have failed to provide for
resilience in the global economy, and that is something we badly need.
ISAACSON: You talk about COVID disrupting the supply chains. Well, today is the day that they lift the federal emergency on COVID. How will that
change trade and what type of snarling of trade was caused by COVID? What are you going to do about that?
TAI: Sure. So, in the early days of COVID, if it isn’t too painful to think back to March of 2020, when we and a lot of the other economies
around the world went into lockdown. At that time, the entire world needed the same things at the same time. We did not have enough supply for the
demand. So, make more supply.
But what we discovered was so much of what we needed has been concentrated in one economy, and that is the Chinese economy. And the Chinese economy
was the first one to lockdown because of COVID. So, they were not going to the factories to manufacture, and very little was coming in — coming out
of — or being produced there.
I was working for the U.S. Congress at the time. Members of Congress and their staffs went from being the representatives in Washington to being
their supply chain representatives to try to find whatever supply there might be around the world and to procure it and obtained it for their
constituents back at home.
I think for us, those painful lessons have to inform how we approach trade policy going forward, to ensure that the next crisis that we encounter,
whether it’s an extreme climate event, whether it’s another epidemic or a pandemic, or a natural disaster or increasingly because the geopolitical
tensions, that we have built into the global economic system shock absorption. And alternative pathways, plans B and C, to allow us to pivot
and to adapt to the crisis situation.
ISAACSON: When you were testifying in front of a House Committee a few weeks ago you got into a conversation with Congresswoman Steel, a
Republican of California who is a Korean-American heritage. And in some ways, it was Republican versus a Democrat, but two Asian-American women
debating how trade policies could be. But I was also struck that there were some consensuses that’s being formed on trade policy between Democrats and
Republicans, unlike on other issues.
TAI: That’s right. Although, you know, in trade policy, something very interesting, and I’ve seen this happen in the competition policy where the
anti-monopoly folks, the antitrust people are working. We see both of these areas two centers that are forming. So, you know, in our politics, usually,
there’s a center and then there are the fringes. And in trade, for instance, something that you followed, the traditional center has been, you
know, free trade Republicans and the pro-business, you know, new Democrats.
What we see is that the progressives on the left and the populist on the rights are meeting in a new center. One that is pro worker and pro
competition that is trying to take on the oversized corporate power, looking to rebalance, right, the equities within our system, and that gives
me a huge amount of room to move on a bipartisan basis.
So, on this too, I have a lot of hope that there is a way for us to advance trade policy that is well supported here at home that allows us to lead
with confidence around the world but also allows us to show to the American people that we are investing in them and we are not selling out their
futures through our trade policy.
ISAACSON: The Biden administration hasn’t really pursued a comprehensive free trade agreement that would help us on things like batteries, supply
parts, and we’re very dependent, not just on batteries, but the enhanced lithium and — that’s been refined in China. How come we don’t have a
broader free trade agreement on things like that? And is it going to hurt our EV, our electric vehicle industry?
TAI: I think the reason why we’re not doing free trade agreements the way that we’ve traditionally done them right now, those types of negotiations,
is precisely because when you leave an agency like the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, and you are working with all of the experts and
all of the specific areas and the engineers around all the cogs and the wheels inside of a trade agreement, you recognize that a traditional free
trade agreement that is broadly liberalizing, like we have negotiated in the past, is not actually a very good supply chain creating framework.
ISAACSON: Wait, wait. Why is that?
TAI: Yes. Because more often than not, they are designed to be leaky. Free trade agreements between countries, between two countries or three or more,
are meant to facilitates integration between those countries. And there are areas where you see very successful examples.
However, the preferences that are created through those agreements are not airtight. They are designed to be weighted in favor of overall
liberalization. So, every single one of our free trade agreements does create benefits for what we would call free riders, other countries not a
part of that agreement.
And the concern that we have right now is that part of that aggressively liberalizing weighted in favor of liberalization type of framework has led
us to the point where when you are chasing the lowest cost, that production has shown that it ends up cooling in only certain places around the world,
and sometimes only one place.
ISAACSON: But during this period, when we’re walking away from what you call broad base, free trade agreements, China is doing the opposite. China
has created major alliances and free trade agreements and — throughout the Pacific region, and actually, throughout the world.
And you talked about the Indo-Pacific economic framework that we’re still talking about, we’re not even close, we’re not even — there’s not even
much of a substance there. We’re not near signing an agreement. Are we going to lose out to China if we let them do major free trade agreements
and we don’t?
TAI: No. And we can’t and we won’t. And I think that your characterization of the Indo-Pacific economic framework, while I hear it quite often,
reflects a major misunderstanding of what it is that we’re doing. Our vision for the Indo-Pacific economic framework is that it is a negotiating
form. We are negotiating important types of rules and important approaches.
At the same time, we see this as a framework that is going to endure overtime. This is not a one and done. If you look at a lot of the trade
agreements that have been done, certainly ones we’ve done, and have been done around the world, you invest all of this political capital to get this
one agreement done and then you move on, and you don’t look back.
Trade agreements take too long to negotiate. They are not participatory enough. And right now, what we need are agile systems, agile approaches to
cooperating with our partners and our allies to adapt to all of the changes that are happening in the global economy. And I would argue that our
failure to innovate the way that we trade and the way the negotiate is more dangerous to our ability to survive and to thrive than the web of what they
call the noodle bowl of trade agreements that have been existing in the Asia-Pacific for a very long time.
ISAACSON: Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, just signed legislation saying that the Chinese could not buy land in Florida, unless they were U.S.
citizens or permanent residents. Let me read you something he said. He said, we don’t want the Chinese communist party in the Sunshine State. We
want to maintain this as a free state of Florida.
There’s been similar legislation in Texas, and even something introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. What do you say to that?
TAI: So, I was aware of the legislation pending and introduces in Texas, but not in Florida, which sounds like it’s gotten much further along. What
I would say to this is, like so many of our challenges with China, our challenges with the governments and its policies. The challenge is not with
the Chinese people, it is not a problem with Chineseness (ph) or people of Chinese heritage.
And so, here in the United States, because I am a member of the Asian American, Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander community, it’s something that I
think about quite a lot, but certainly, because our AA and NHPI communities are an integral part of the American economy, the American polity of
America, it is even more incumbent on us to ensure that when we take on the challenges that we see from our relating to the Chinese government that we
exercise a very high degree of discipline into finding what the challenge is that we’re facing.
Only by exercising that discipline do we have the opportunity to fashion policy solutions that will be tailored to addressing that challenge. If we
are lazy or sloppy in identifying the problem, the harm that we stand to do to America and our fellow Americans is significant and unacceptable.
ISAACSON: Ambassador Katherine Tai, thanks so much for joining us.
TAI: Thank you very much for having me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And finally, the Russian army is turning to relics of the past to reequip its beleaguered forces in Ukraine. Tanks not used since the Cold
War are being pressed back into service. A sign of just how desperate Russia is becoming to keep up its fight on the battlefield in Ukraine.
Correspondent, Clare Sebastian, visits the Imperial War Museum for this report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN DELANEY, SENIOR CURATOR, IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM: What a missile will do is it’ll fly over the tank then down in a 90-degree straight into the top
of the turret, which is less well defended.
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): This scenario has played out hundreds of times over the past 14 months, Ukraine using western
weapons to devastating effect. Russia, according to one recent estimate, has lost up to half its operational tank fleet in this war.
Now, western officials say Russia is dusting of much older models to replace them.
DELANEY: This gun was used on the SU-100 tank destroyer in 1944. So, it’s the Second World War gun.
SEBASTIAN (voiceover): Including the T-55. First built in the 1940s. This one now housed at the Imperial War Museum outside Cambridge.
Satellite imagery for a storage facility in Russia’s far east showing dozens of tanks have been removed in the last year. This image showing the
T-55 at that same facility. Video that first surfaced in March also showing a trainload on the move, reported somewhere in Russia. The Russian ministry
of defense hasn’t confirmed their deployment. But in recent weeks, well connected Russian bloggers have begun showing T-55s in Russian occupied
territory in Ukraine.
DELANEY: So many of these were manufactured, over 100,000 altogether, and the parts — the basic mechanical parts are all interchangeable. Soi, there
will be vast stockpiles of these.
SEBASTIAN (voiceover): The T-55 was essential piece of the Soviet Union’s Cold War arsenal, helping crush democratic uprisings in Eastern Europe.
Hungary in 1956. The Prague Spring 12 years later.
But by the time Iraq used them in the Gulf War in the early ’90s —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We out took all total of 14 T-55 tanks.
SEBASTIAN (voiceover): — they were already outclassed by U.S. M1 Abrams and British Challengers. Earlier versions of the tanks NATO countries are
now supplying to Ukraine.
TREVOR TAYLOR, PROFESSIONAL FELLOW IN DEFENCE, RUSI: I think faced with western weapons, the Russians must expect very heavy casualties if they
expect to move forward using that type of system.
SEBASTIAN (voiceover): Experts say, behind the official propaganda, Russia cannot build new weapons quick enough.
SEBASTIAN (on camera): Well, western sanctions primarily targeting Russia’s access to higher tech parts for weapons have made it much harder
for them to manufacture more modern equipment. Older, simpler tanks like this, thousands of them just sitting in storage provide an alternative.
But this against, say, a Leopard 2 or a Challenger, what happens?
DELANEY: If it’s a one-on-one tank engagement over a reasonable distance, this will lose every time. But in woodied (ph) or closer built
environments, this is adequate.
SEBASTIAN (voiceover): It’s also simpler to maintain and train on the newest systems, an advantage for Russia’s mobilized troops.
DELANEY: Dig a pit, sit the tank in the pit so you can also see the turrets and then, that can be used to defend the front line against the
counterattack.
SEBASTIAN (voiceover): Russia is now digging in with everything it has, as Ukraine gets ready for what maybe it’s biggest counteroffensive yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Clare Sebastian ending our program tonight.
If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online at Facebook,
Twitter and Instagram. Thanks for watching and goodbye from London.