Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Welcome to “Amanpour and Company”. Here’s what’s coming up.
As Britain prepares to say farewell to Queen Elizabeth II, I speak to the Prime Minister, Mia Mottley of Barbados, which voted remove the monarch as
head of just state last year. And.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOST REVEREND STEPHEN COTTRELL, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Maybe her last great gift to our nation is she’s brought us together.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, shares his reflections on faith ahead of offering a prayer at the queen’s funeral on Monday. Then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Russia is leaving death behind everywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Zelenskyy pushes forward as Putin admits even allied China has concerns about the Ukraine war. We get insight from former Pentagon
official and Russia expert, Evelyn Farkas. Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER KIM, EVANGELICAL PASTOR: Benefiting, blessing, loving our neighbors need to include concerns about the issue of our environment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Divine intervention, Evangelical Pastor Walter Kim tells Michel Martin why the church must help the most vulnerable victims of climate
change.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour. Outside the Houses of Parliament in London, where behind me Queen Elizabeth II lies in
state.
Now, the incredible queues of people make up a steady stream of humanity. At least five miles long, at this time, filing by to pay their respects.
Meantime, the palace says it is preparing for what’s been called one of the biggest ceremonial events since World War II when hundreds of heads of
state and dignitaries gather here for the queen’s state funeral Monday.
My first guest will be offering one of the prayers at the funeral. He is the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, the second most senior archbishop
in the country. And he will lead — well, he did lead the formal 70th jubilee at prayers at St. Paul’s Cathedral this summer. And he’s formally
also, done some jigsaw puzzles with her majesty. So, he’s seen her in every possible light. Now, as he gets ready for the special day on Monday, I
spoke with him about his memories of the queen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Archbishop Stephen Cottrell, thank you so much for joining us.
MOST REVEREND STEPHEN COTTRELL, ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Good to be with you. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So, I’m standing here way above Westminster. Behind me, we can see where the queen is lying ins state. And all around, in very organized
lines, a sea of humanity. Going to visit and pay their last respects. And I know that you’ve been talking to some of them in line. What have they been
saying to you?
COTTRELL: It’s been incredibly moving. I mean, I’m the Archbishop of York, which is in the north of England but I’m down here staying at Lambeth
Palace because I’ve got quite an involvement in all that’s happening in the life of our nation over these days. But of course, the queue is right
outside my front door. So, I’ve been taking opportunities as they’ve come along just to go and chat with people.
And, you know, there’s people, obviously, from all over the United Kingdom, but also from the Commonwealth and indeed from all over the world, you
know, Americans, Germans, Spaniards. And I think it’s because her majesty, the queen, touched the lives of the world through, you know, the huge
influence she’s had, not just in our nation but across the world.
And it’s a very human instinct to want to give thanks and pay respects to someone who’s made a difference in your life. And of course, she has made a
difference in the life of our nation and in the life of our world.
AMANPOUR: If I was to ask you to sum it up, if you can in a few words, what has been the difference that she has made?
COTTRELL: Well, I think — certainly here in the United Kingdom, her late majesty, Queen Elizabeth, has helped the monarchy to reimagine itself in a
way. Not just rule but as service. And as I’ve said several times over the last few weeks — last few days, her service is also shaped by influence
from her profound Christian faith.
So, she sees her role as representing and serving the nation, not ruling the nation. And we’re a constitutional monarchy.
And that has been a new thing and a blessing for us. That at the center of our system is somebody who is above party politics. I think longevity does
help. She served this nation through its darkest hours during the blitz, through all the many changes of the post-war period. And that’s like, I
guess, why her impact is such across the world.
AMANPOUR: You’re absolutely right. It’s incredible to think that as a teenager, even before becoming queen, she did serve the nation as a
mechanic, if you like, in the auxiliary territorial. And she gave a speech to people in 1942, the children. So, from the youngest age, you’re so
right, she has been serving.
So, I want to know from you, would you say that what you’re going to do on the day of the funeral is almost like service rendered, service repaid?
Because you’re going to give a prayer on the funeral day.
COTTRELL: Yes. Well, I mean, in a way, the — you know, death and a funeral, it’s a great leveler. So, it will be the most astonishing grand
funeral that I’ve, certainly, ever attended and most of us will ever have seen. But her late majesty lived and died in the Christian faith and in the
Christian hope.
And at death, we are commending her to God and giving thanks for life. We’re actually doing what happens at every Christian funeral. OK. Maybe
televised around the world, it may be much grander. But actually, it is the funeral service. And in the end, that’s where we all are. We all are
placing ourselves in the hands of God. And yes, it’s a great privilege and honor for me to have a part in that.
So, when you preached in her presence, as I did on a couple of occasions, she really didn’t want people to speak about her. She wanted the preacher
to speak about the Christian faith and the hope of the gospel, which is what this service will be about.
And I remember — obviously, I wasn’t alive, but I’ve seen the footage of her coronation. And for me the most striking thing about the coronation
service — well, one of the most striking things, was that she resolutely walked past the throne on which she would sit in order first to kneel at
the altar. And what I saw in that was that she gave her allegiance to God before she expected anyone to give their allegiance to her. And that’s how
she lived her life.
AMANPOUR: So, that is really interesting, the imagery that you’ve just conjured up. That she also knelt to a higher being. And even in her, you
know, many times she spoke about her faith, but one of the most memorable was during her Christmas address, 2014, when she talked about what it meant
to her. Here is what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUEEN ELIZABETH II, QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Christ’s example has taught me to seek to respect and value all people or whatever faith or
none.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there we’ve heard her from her own mouth describe what her faith meant to her. But she was also somebody who welcomed other faiths.
And we’ve seen all the other major faiths and others, and people who have no faith, but certainly the other big faiths really reaching out and
condoling and sending sympathies as well, and how much she meant to each and every one of those different faiths. Tell us a little bit about that.
COTTRELL: Yes. Well — I mean, I was out this morning speaking with people in the queue as part of — we’ve got a chaplain see team working in Central
London, well, across London. And I was with a Sikh pastor, there was a rabbi, an imam. It was a multi-faith team. And I was happy to work
alongside them.
The thing about the Christian faith is, the Christian faith at its very heart requires us to love God and love our neighbor. And therefore, it’s
impossible to live the Christian life to the full without also loving our neighbors of other faith traditions. And I think the queen absolutely
understood this.
AMANPOUR: And as a monarch, she made many firsts in terms of stepping into the places of worship of some of these other faiths. I just want to go back
to something you wrote after she passed last week. You said that her gift to engage with everyone whom she met and the ability to make them feel at
ease was a remarkable skill.
So, we’ve talked a little bit about that. But I want to ask you about how you, you know, interacted with her. Because you said you met a couple of
times. At one point you completed a jigsaw puzzle. You watch television. And she remembered that the next time that you met. Tell me a little bit
about her interaction on a personal level with yourself.
COTTRELL: Yes. Well, of course, the first time I met her properly, of course, I was like many people, very nervous, you know, borderline
terrified. It’s the queen.
And I think that was her, you know, her experience probably because that’s how most people were with her. When you met her, you were tongue-tied and
nervous. She was very, very good at putting you at your ease.
But also, I — what I think, and I’ve been thinking this a lot as I see the huge cues outside my door here, queuing up to pay their respects. Maybe her
last great gift to our nation is she’s brought us together. So much in recent years seems to have driven us apart from one another. So much has
become polarized in our lives, in our politics. And so often we seem to define ourselves by what we’re against rather than what we’re for.
And what I see at the moment in our nation is the whole nation coming together in great thanksgiving for her life of service. Even those who,
perhaps, normally wouldn’t, perhaps, think of themselves, particularly as royalists. There’s a great love and affection for her of what she
represented and gave to us.
And so, my real prayer is that warmth that she had which brought a nation together, rooted in service, rooted in the Christian faith is something
that we will carry with us into the coming years because, you know, it is what the world really badly needs.
We need to remember that we belong to each other, that we are one human family, inhabiting one planet. And all the big challenges we face as a
human race will only be solved when we love our neighbor and recognize that my well-being is tied up with my neighbor’s well-being. And the queen, in
representing a nation, represents those values.
AMANPOUR: That’s a really important reminder, actually. I also just want to get you to end this with a little anecdote that you told in parliament
when you were gathered over the weekend to remember to send sympathies, but also to recall she had a pretty funny bone as well. You tell the story
about, “Healing her car”.
COTTRELL: Yes, well, let me finish with that story which was a glorious day. So, I was staying with her at Sandringham, preaching in the parish
church. Standing with her at the lychgate after the service where there’s hundreds of people there. They’re bringing poses of flowers.
Anyway, it’s time to go back to Sandringham for lunch. There’s the Bentley, you know, a few yards away. The driver gets into the Bentley, turns the key
in the ignition, the car doesn’t start, it makes that kind of throaty sound that cars in mid-winter make when they’re not going to start. You know, a
little bit of panic. The driver keeps a cool head. Tries the second time, again the car doesn’t start. A freeze zone of anxiety goes through the
crowd. I’m standing there thinking, there’s lots of police around. I think surely a policeman can come forward and give the queen a lift back to
Sandringham. Nothing happened. We were just standing there.
Anyway, enjoying the theater of the moment I take a step forward and make a large sign of the cross over the queen’s car, which gets a bit of a cheer
from the crowd. Anyway, after that, the driver tries the car for a third time, and the car starts. Which gets a great —
AMANPOUR: Of course, it does.
COTTRELL: — cheer from the crowd. But I can see the queen just standing next to me. And she’s absolutely poker-faced because she doesn’t — didn’t
usually give away much in public. I thought maybe I’ve overstepped the mark, that this was the wrong — anyway, she gets into the car. She drives
back to Sandringham for lunch. I follow in another car. When I arrived at Sandringham and walked in to lunch with the other assembled guests, the
queen has a beaming smile on her face and says, ah, Bishop. Bishop, thank you. You healed my car.
She thought it was fantastic and saw the fun of it. And, a couple of years later when she was coming to Chelmsford Cathedral when I was serving as a
bishop for some, sort of, grand occasion. When she arrived at the west hall and I was there to greet her, she took me to one side and said, Oh, Bishop.
Nice to see you again. I think the car is fine today. But if we have any problems, I’ll come and get you. So, you know, two years later she’s still
enjoying the joke. And, you know, —
AMANPOUR: That’s a nice joke. It’s a good one.
COTTRELL: — that was her as — that was her warmth as a person. And I think also it was that — we know, don’t we in life, keeping a good — you
know, keeping a cool head and a good sense of humor gets you a long way.
AMANPOUR: Indeed it does. Archbishop, Stephen Cottrell, thank you so much for joining us.
COTTRELL: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Our conversation just in these last few days as the archbishop was getting ready, of course, to deliver that prayer at the funeral on
Monday. Now, tributes are still pouring in from around the world. Including from countries that have actually deliberately moved away from the crown.
Barbados became the world’s newest republic when it voted to remove the queen as its head of state last year. Still, Prime Minister Mia Mottley
says, very few others have surpassed what she was able to achieve. Mottley also praised King Charles for his environmentalism. She called him a man
ahead of his time. And it’s an issue of critical importance to her own island nation. And the prime minister joins me now from Washington D.C.
Mia Mottley, welcome back to our program. Let me just ask you first to tell me what the queen meant to you and how you have felt in this last week
since she has passed.
MIA MOTTLEY, BARBADOS PRIME MINISTER: Well, thank you, first of all, Christiane, for having me. And let me use this opportunity to extend our
deepest sympathy to the people and government of the United Kingdom, and in particular to King Charles and his family, publicly again.
As you asked, the queen, for us, remained one of the major global figures of the last century. And we believe that, particularly for women, she was
able to comport herself in a way that brought dignity to all that she did and grace to all of that she did. And we see those things as important.
Over the last — in fact, I think my first interview with you was talking about the need for global, moral strategic leadership because we don’t
believe that leadership is found only in heads of government. But we believe that wherever it is found we have an example to share to the 7.5
billion people on this Earth.
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister, you also said that her reign spanned this era of empire to post independence. Your country is one of them that is taking its
independence, remaining in the Commonwealth, nonetheless, with an — as an independent republic. What is her legacy?
MOTTLEY: I think she’s had a strong legacy for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has been that group of countries, most of us were originally
British colonies, but not all. In fact, recently Togo joined Gabon. And as you know, they — the last Commonwealth heads of government meeting was in
Rwanda. And her majesty was able to ensure that this large group of countries could still come together, irrespective of the different
histories, cultures, forms of governance.
And, indeed, if you look at it, there are only 14 countries that are still part of the realm that are in the Commonwealth is, by far, the minority.
The majority of countries in the Commonwealth are in fact republics. And as I just said, some of them are not even former British colonies.
But she was able to allow her leadership to create that spirit of tolerance and that spirit of allowing us to embrace the best values for us to go
forward and being able to transition into modern, progressive countries. There’s no doubt that we were all scarred in our colonial history.
But while we go forward, we must always remember that we don’t forget, that we have to work best together to make sure that we can use the bridges to
each other and that spirit of tolerance to drive investment, to drive the best values, to create a minimum for our people. And to share best
practices with each other in circumstances where we don’t have the resources to do it all on our own. And she gave credibility to that
leadership for that body, for the majority over the last few decades.
AMANPOUR: I just want to play a little snippet of what Baroness Patricia Scotland told me a couple of days ago. She — as of course you know, is the
secretary-general of the Commonwealth Organization. This is what she told me about the queen’s particular role in the regard that you’ve just been
describing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATRICIA SCOTLAND, SECRETARY-GENERAL, COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS: It was right back in 1953, shortly after this new concept of Commonwealth have
been created that the queen said, this has got nothing to do with empire. She said this is a totally new conception built on the finest qualities of
man, peace, harmony. And this was going to be a partnership between nation and races.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Prime Minister, do you think —
MOTTLEY: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: — that the queen and time has lived up to that promise?
MOTTLEY: I think largely so. I mean, I think that when you recognize what the Commonwealth has meant for most of us in terms of creating those
opportunities to supplement what we cannot do at the national level and to allow us to do so across oceans, across races, and across cultural
diversity is a tremendous achievement. And it constitutes what, a third of the world’s population? How many other bodies do we have outside of the
United Nations that cuts across as diverse a group of people and cross developed and developing countries?
And I think that the queen’s ability to anchor the Commonwealth has been tremendous. And that’s why Barbados, in spite of becoming a republic, has
said that we will continue to play a strong role in the Commonwealth of Nations because we believe in it.
AMANPOUR: So, this is, you know, gathering quite a lot of steam now, certainly in the Caribbean region. We’ve already heard from the Prime
Minister of Antigua and Barbuda that they’re going to have a referendum.
But what I’m fascinated by, the Antiguan prime minister said, this is not an act of hostility but a final step to complete the circle of
independents. Explain that because I think — as I was told by Baroness Scotland, a lot of people are confusing remaining in the Commonwealth to
remaining with the queen as head of state. The two are not —
MOTTLEY: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — necessarily the same.
MOTTLEY: Exactly. I think what we have to understand first and foremost, and I put it as bluntly as this. You would not contemplate that the
president of the United States of America would be a Brazilian that had no nationality relationship to United States of America.
Countries must have the freedom to establish their own head of state. And for their kids to be able to believe that they can grow up and aspire to be
that head of state. And that is the final link of decolonization that we believed to be critical. The one that we took before it was to delink from
the judicial community of period (ph) council and to make the Caribbean Court of Justice our final court of appeal.
These are all acts that we do to complete the circle of independence. But our determination to serve in the Commonwealth is not as a nation that is
still colonized in any way, but as a community of sovereign nations, agreeing to cooperate with each other in the same way that we do in the
United Nations.
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister, about King Charles III, you have called him a man ahead of time, particularly on the environment. So, you are in
Washington trying to deal with some kind of mitigation for your country, and presumably others around you in the Caribbean.
The latest IPCC, the intergovernmental, you know, panel on climate change of the U.N. has basically talked about and it’s completely, you know,
important to use, citing colonialism as having exacerbated the vulnerability of formerly colonized people. That’s the report describing
what it is.
For instance, you know, all the resources, Britain for instance, became so powerful on the industrial revolution and all sorts of resources taken and
plundered from the Commonwealth. And yet, now you’re paying an inordinate price for it, and have virtually no carbon footprint. How do you reconcile
with that and go forward on this issue?
MOTTLEY: Well, that’s why you’ve heard me say that regrettably the industrial revolution was fueled by our blood, sweat, and tears in the
Caribbean and other regions. And regrettably, that same industrial revolution now has caused a stock of greenhouse gases to be so depleted in
a way that we are now equally again paying the price. And it’s a form of double jeopardy for us.
And I really do hope that we can get the message across, not just to governments, but to ordinary citizens. Because governments will move when
ordinary citizens say, enough is enough. And we saw this with the George Floyd murder and the black lives matter, with people all over the world
expressing their disgust about the manner in which persons were being treated in a denigrating way as a form of racism.
And we say today, you can’t have the 20 countries producing 80 percent of the greenhouse gases. And don’t be deflected in believing that China and
India are at the front end of it. Because while they’re contributing to the current flow, the major problem has been as a result of the stock coming
from the industrial revolution. And that’s what that report is really saying to you.
So, when we call for climate justice. When we call for adaptation funds to be put there so that we can adapt to a new reality. Because whether we like
it or not, even if we don’t reach 1.5, this summer has shown from heat waves to the floods to the fires to the storms that are in the region, even
as we speak now, that we are already being negatively affected in ways that regrettably cannot be easily reversed.
And secondly, when we call for reparations, we don’t call for it as emotional argument. When the slaves were emancipated in 1834, the British
parliament gave the slaves 20 million pounds. And in 1838, between 1834 and 1838, they got the benefit of another 25 million pounds and free labor and
that apprenticeship system. When we speak about Haiti and France, we speak about it from the point of view that there was an extraction of customs
duties for more than a century.
And these are issues that have depleted our capacity to bring ordinary development as expressed in the sustainable development goals to our
people. But it has also crowded up the space that we need in order to do the infrastructural and other development in order to protect our people
from the worst excesses of the climate crisis. And you have a direct causal link between what happened in colonialism and what is happening with the
climate crisis. And we don’t want to have —
AMANPOUR: In the meantime —
MOTTLEY: — adversarial discussions — yes. But we just want to be able to have justice.
AMANPOUR: Right. Well, here’s the thing. You know, you’ve called Prince — now, King Charles, but certainly as Prince Charles very much ahead of his
time on this issue. Of course, he doesn’t have the legislative ability.
And the current new prime minister here, Liz Truss, has already put into office a man, as you probably know his name, Jacob Rees-Mogg as minister of
energy. And he is very, very skeptical about governments need to even address climate action. So — I mean, do you see —
MOTTLEY: No.
AMANPOUR: — any hope if it’s even — go ahead.
MOTTLEY: I trust and pray that the United Kingdom government will not be defined by one cabinet minister. And that the excellent work which has been
done towards allowing it to get closer to a greener more just world. And their citizens are paying the price for it now with what is happening with
the Ukraine war and the inflationary increases on the price of energy.
But let me also go further. The reality is that King Charles himself — and I invite you, Christiane, to go back to his Commonwealth heads of
government speech. It was perhaps one of the most brilliant speeches I’ve heard at a Commonwealth conference opening.
And King Charles said then that as he reflected on what was happening in Canada with the indigenous Indians there, and we saw Pope Francis go there
at the end of July. That he could not help but reflect on the whole institution of slavery and the call for reparations. And King Charles said
then, and I noticed that the British press has not picked it up yet in spite of three months having on instead that this was a conversation whose
time has come.
Now, you’ve correctly said that he has no relationship to the executive in terms of those decisions, and therefore, policy decisions and financial
decisions are not his. But in a world where global, moral strategic leadership matters, I think that he can play that role.
It is significant to me that one of his last public acts before acceding to the crown — to the throne, would have been the editing of “The Voice”
newspaper in London which, as you know, is a leading black newspaper and was celebrating its 40th anniversary. And they had enough confidence in his
leadership to invite him to edit that paper. And he asked me to do a piece, which I did with him, and this came out — what, the beginning of
September.
So, that I pray and hope that that channel that he has chartered, certainly in the course of the last year, where I’ve heard him directly in Barbados
speak to the horrific nature of the institution of slavery. Two, speak to the fact that this is an institution whose time has — conversation, sorry,
whose time has come at the middle of June. And now again with the editing of “The Voice” newspaper.
Those three acts in less than 12 months tell me that this is a gentleman who is prepared to build on a strong, moral foundation for us to have
equity. And that we can begin to have the conversations and the substantive, I hope, benefits to reverse centuries of colonialism that have
reinforced underdevelopment. And it is further being compromised, you know, as we said by the climate crisis —
AMANPOUR: Right.
MOTTLEY: — which makes it difficult for us to do the right thing.
AMANPOUR: Thank you so much for your insight and reflections.
MOTTLEY: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And pointing out such important issues. Prime minister Mia Mottley, thank you.
And as the prime minister mentioned, of course, all of this is being played out to an extent because of the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis. Now,
the United Nations is sending a team of investigators to a mass burial site which has been discovered around the newly liberated city of Izium.
President Zelenskyy saying that Russia leaves death everywhere.
Opposition to Moscow is appearing to becoming now internally as well. While the president is also facing mounting criticism from some of his major
allies, for instance, the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has just told him, “Now, is not the time for war.” And Putin admits that China’s Xi
has voiced concerns and questions about the disaster unfolding in Ukraine. Evelyn Farkas is a former Pentagon official, and she’s joining me now from
Washington.
Evelyn, welcome back to the program. I guess the first thing I want to ask you is, how important or what sort of strikes you about the change in tone
that’s being directed towards Putin right now, inside and outside?
EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MCCAIN INSTITUTE: Yes. Christiane, it’s really
interesting. Inside, it’s not surprising. Of course, it’s the nationalist voices, the people who are egging Putin to wage more war and wage and it
even more brutally than he has so far. Those are the voices you’re hearing mostly, although you are hearing so far more moderate voices.
And there’s been a steady uptick in killings. Killings of people who are formally, you know, included somewhere in the — not the inner circle, but
the outer circle of Putin’s world, Lukoil executives and some other regional leaders, they are being jailed or killed daily. So, there are
voices, but they’re being silenced. And so, far, you know, not causing any major problem for him.
But these external voices, he really does rely on China and India to buy as oil, the oil that he can’t sell know to Europe. Of course, he can still
sell a lot of gas to Europe, they haven’t quite solved the problem. But these are, you know, countries that he relies on for important support. He
was certainly probably hoping you can get China to give him some military assistance. Although, I would have imagined that wasn’t likely because,
again, China doesn’t want to get to our crosshairs.
But nevertheless, he’s looking very weak on the international stage, which doesn’t help him domestically where he’s also under assault.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you think? I mean, everybody tries to figure out what will be his next move. Publicly, he has already said that, you know,
the plan does not need to be changed for our special military operation in Ukraine. This is after saying to both Xi and Modi that he acknowledges
their concerns, and will, you know, seek to try do something about it. Then he goes back and says, nothing is going to change.
You know him in terms of you’ve studied him, you know and you’ve seen what he’s done in the past. Do you think that one might expect that he might try
to move towards some kind of negotiation now or not, or just doubled?
FARKAS: I think, Christiane, that he is probably aware of the trouble that he’s facing at the moment. But my guess is, and again, this is from having
studied him, watched him, worked with his government, that he is probably going to try to stick it through without calling for a full mobilization,
try to hang in there until the winter when the lines will literally harden and then, see if he can make a play for time, buildup his strength over the
winter.
He will always say that he wants to negotiate, but at the end of the day, you know, it’s only going to be on his terms and he knows full well that
the Ukrainians, you know, having the military advantage right now, are not in the mood to negotiate.
AMANPOUR: So, on his own terms, OK, but sometimes the battlefield dictates and we’ve seen what we’ve seen now in the northeastern part of Ukraine,
which is being liberated at quite a fast pace. I mean, that, obviously, that has to be consolidated and held.
The Biden administration has announced several more hundred millions of military aid, but they need longer range missiles, say the Ukrainians, they
need aircraft, they need the kind of — the stuff that they actually need to hold onto these territory. Do you see the U.S. and NATO providing more
of these systems that they’re calling for now? If not, why not?
FARKAS: Right. I do see the U.S. and NATO providing more equipment, whether they provide exactly what the Ukrainians are asking for, because
they’re asking for some of the longer range, so-called attack on missiles that the U.S. has not been willing to provide the Russians because of fear
that the Russians will target far into — or into Russian — sorry, that the Ukrainians will target into Russian territory. I think that fear is
misplaced, I think, our administration, the U.S. administration should provide the weapons Ukrainians need to win as soon as possible.
Because, at the end of the, the only way Vladimir Putin is going to give up on his attempt to control Ukraine is if he’s the defeated militarily. If he
doesn’t have a military to do it. And that’s the only saving, you know, possibility for Georgia and Moldova, would be next. And frankly, he would
threaten NATO next. So, it’s in all of our interest to stop this madness now.
AMANPOUR: And the issue of aircraft has come up over and over again. I mean, I just saw, you know, a really interesting op-ed in the “New York
Times” saying, the U.S. is about to decommission a couple of dozen of the F — whatever they are, F-16’s or so, instead of turning them into molten
metal, they should be sent to Ukraine.
Why shouldn’t Ukraine get aircraft at this point to use over its own territory, or, again, this issue of a no-fly zone?
FARKAS: I mean, look, Christiane, we’ve had debates over various types of aircraft and various types of artillery and the ranges, you know, the
bottom line is, we need to look at what our objective is when it comes to helping Ukraine, which is, frankly, as I’ve said, I don’t want to stop
downed alarmist, but it could end up in a global war because if Russia isn’t stopped, they will try to weaken NATO. If they try to weaken NATO by
essentially infringing upon the sovereignty of a NATO ally, that means the U.S. is at war with Russia. We have to avoid that at all costs.
So, I don’t think we should be putting restrictions on the type of machinery, the type of equipment we’re providing the Ukrainians in order
for them to win. They just have to win. And really, they need to win as much as possible before the winter, because it will get harder after the
winter. The ground freezes, the dynamics are different, Putin will have time to regroup.
Right now, the Russian military is in no condition, frankly, to withstand even as Ukrainian force, which is, as you mentioned, you know, attenuated,
strong out now over a longer line and much smaller. They’re agile thought, they have our support, they have the intelligence, they can move around,
they can take more territory. But they need our help.
And most importantly, I think in the south as well, because the ports are still blocked, Christiane. The advances have been made have mostly been in
the north, but we need to help the Ukrainians get the ports unblocked, that’s the best thing we can do for the world, actually.
AMANPOUR: We’ll see. We’ll continue to follow this dramatic story. Thank you so much, Evelyn Farkas.
Now, in a year that has seen climate disasters across the world, our next guest, he says that action is a biblical mandate. Walter Kim is the
president of the National Association of Evangelicals. And it’s recently released a new report detailing why climate change is also a religious
issue. And he’s joining Michel Martin to discuss it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christian. Dr. Kim, thank you so much for talking with us.
WALTER KIM, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS: Michel, thanks for inviting me on to this program.
MARTIN: You (INAUDIBLE) called the National Association of Evangelicals. And in that capacity, you are leading a discussion around a report that the
association just issued recently describing efforts to combat climate change as a biblical mandate. Talk a little bit, if you would, about how
this report came to be.
DR. KIM: It was certainly an essential part of what we mean by the engagement of evangelicals with the concerns that pressed upon society as a
whole and our world as a whole. It’s not a novel work. In fact, 1970, the NAE had a resolution on ecology, kind of looking at the impacts that
pollution had on our ecological system. So, this is not a new topic. And this work loving the least of these is, in fact, a second edition of a work
that came out in 2011.
And so, despite the ways in which climate has been discussed and often very stark political terms, we wanted to recover that that send that it really
is foundationally an expression of our faith, our stewardship of creation that God had given to us with a particular angle of the disproportionate
impacts that climate change has on communities that are struggling with poverty. And so, it’s not just a matter of stewardship, it’s also a matter
of solidarity with those who are most vulnerable.
MARTIN: Well, it’s interesting because this very issue is in the news as we are speaking now. I mean, obviously can’t help but notice that it
arrives just as, in the United States, a significant new source of funding to address climate change has just been adopted after, you know, literally
years of arguing about it. But that — it seems like that could be coincidental, also.
So, was there some eureka moment for you where you just said, this is something we have to address, or what was it?
DR. KIM: Yes. You know, there is an issue of coincidence and the timing of the release of this documents with Inflation Reduction Act. But the issue
has really stemmed back to the work that many evangelical organizations are doing globally. Working in some of the most vulnerable places where the
impacts of climate change are deeply felt.
So, this past summer, my family had a chance to visit some of the work of World Relief, which is the humanitarian arm of the NAE, in Malawi, Africa.
And I was talking to someone who was deeply tied to the agricultural life of Malawi. And over the 20 years as he worked near Lake Malawi, he said
that the hunger season is longer now and we’re deeply concerned.
Because of the change in the rain patterns, the crops are diminished in quality, and they are coming at different times of the year. And it’s
producing real strings (ph). It’s not just economic inconvenience or something that deals with the bottom line of agriculture, it’s actually a
matter of subsistence, of vitality, of life. And we are seeing this happen again and again and again, even within America, the impacts of pollution on
the developing lungs of little children. This becomes a critical issue of concern. And it’s not just a humanitarian issue, for us, it’s a deeply
theological issue.
MARTIN: I have to — I mean, look, it’s not a secret that this report comes as a surprise to some, because the face of evangelicalism in the
United States in this moment, and indeed in some — and also, at some parts of the world, is that white conservatives who are deeply skeptical about
climate change. In a Pew Research survey conducted in January, white evangelicals with the religious group least likely to agree that human
activity contributes to climate change.
And, you know, President Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, was skeptical of climate change, expressed that skepticism and that, you know, white
evangelicals were among the groups that supported him most strongly. So, I think some people will be surprised to hear not only that this report
exists, that then, you’re calling upon your co-religionists to embrace this as a biblical charge. So, can you explain that disconnect?
DR. KIM: Yes. You’re right, Michel, the Pew study noted 54 percent of white evangelicals question the human impacts on climate change. But the
flip side of that is nearly 50 percent actually do affirm it. And so, there is within — even the white evangelical segment — a diversity of opinions.
I would which to expand what we understand by evangelicalism so much, you know, time and energy has been devoted to certain political dimensions of
evangelical faith and its expression. But when we think about the movement of evangelicalism, this transformational work of Jesus Christ and the lives
of people, globally, it is an incredibly diverse movement. And even within America, there is a rapidly shifting demographic of those within African-
American churches, Asian-American church, Hispanic church, who theologically would very much align with evangelical beliefs.
And so, I think it’s really important to know that even in these other expressions of evangelicalism, there is a very strong concern and
commitment to the impacts of climate change. So, I think we are at an inflection point where even the movement of evangelicalism is shifting, is
changing. And I would wish to affirm that this document is coming at a point that is in fact indicative of an expressive of the concerns of many
evangelicals, particularly evangelicals of color, who are witnessing the impacts of climate change in urban centers and in their congregations.
MARTIN: So, is it your hope with this report that you will convert, if I may use that term, people who don’t agree with this perspective or is it
your hope that you will energize the people who are not getting as much attention but who do believe that climate change is an urgent crisis, and
as you put it, in sort of a biblical bandy, is that the idea?
DR. KIM: Yes. I think there’s a distribution on a bell curve. You know, on one edge, this document may not be moving fast enough, it may not be strong
enough, it may not be stark enough in its expression of concerns. And on the other side of the bell curve, there are folks that may be incredibly
skeptical and no amount of biblical argumentation or scientific evidence would really move the needle with them.
But there are literally millions of people who are in this kind of movable middle. They are folks that are looking for, is there a biblical mandate
for this issue? Is this a legitimate expression of our faith? And they are also asking, is there an accessible way for us to enter into the scientific
discussion from people that we can trust that are part of our community that don’t seem to have an agenda?
And for those who are looking for information to help them to persuade, you will find that in this document. For those who are looking for information
for their own consideration, we want to invite them into this discussion. We don’t want to bludgeon people into this discussion. Because we think the
urgency of the issue requires that convincing of as many people as possible in a manner that winds them, not bludgeoning them to a certain position.
And I think this is expressive of the way of Christ.
MARTIN: What do you want people to do as a result of receiving this report? What do you want to happen?
DR. KIM: Yes. I would love for people to have a more expansive views of the scope of their faith. And it’s not nearly about personal
transformation, which I think evangelicalism is very, very strong on this notion of coming to Jesus in a personal way. But there is a public
dimension and responsibility to our faith, kind of like a civic expression of faith. And this is an issue that I think is incredibly important because
it has profound impacts, again, on the most vulnerable. The people that Jesus would call us to care for, the least among these.
And by making our kind of spiritual formation and mission in the world to include the public dimensions of faith, we are joining together with
literally millions of Christians around the world, our global brothers and sisters who have incorporated this as a part of their faith because it’s
not a luxury. Dealing with deforestation, the impacts of pollution, for many around the world is not a luxury.
MARTIN: White evangelical Christians have been so identified with conservative political actors in the last couple decades. The priorities
have not been care for the poor. The priorities certainly have not been addressing climate change. The priorities have not been offering care to
the least of these around the world. And so, I think the question would be, you know, what convinces you that that is possible?
You know, it’s not a secret. We live in an angry time. And some of the people who have been at the forefront of the kind of anger in our politics
have been prominent evangelical Christians.
DR. KIM: If you go to local communities, local churches, evangelical churches really have been at the forefront of soup kitchens, of providing
trauma care, of engaging in racial reconciliation. Now, that may be hard to believe given the public nature of the discourse at times. But it is also
the case, that globally, evangelicalism has been foundational in the formation of educational institutions, of physicians who, at great
sacrifice, to their own well-being will enter into spaces of conflict.
Look at what’s happening in Ukraine, and I assure you that evangelical institutions and churches are right at the forefront of providing care for
the refugee crisis that is unfolding there. And I wish to add to that kind of work, the recognition that benefiting, blessing, loving our neighbors
needs to include a concern about the issue of our environment. It’s an aspect of our stewardship, just generally. But specifically, it’s an
expression of our solidarity in serving those who are most vulnerable. So, I want this to be a part of things in addition to the soup kitchens.
MARTIN: Tell me what this looks like. A year from now, if you are having the impact you hope to have, what does that look like?
DR. KIM: Yes. It can look like the personal choices that we make with our treatment of waste as an aspect of our disciple ship. It could look like
churches making choices that are more green in order to think about their energy or renewable energy. It could be taking the form of advocacy in
terms of making choices to include within the public discourse, the importance of renewable energy. The impacts of pollutants in the
environment and in the water that has this profound detrimental impact on those who are vulnerable.
Again, children, in particular. We — in order to have this kind of comprehensive ethic of life, need to understand that those who are
suffering from the impacts of pollution are really needing advocates. And again, this should be a part of our discipleship.
MARTIN: You know, Dr. Kim, it’s not — I don’t want to argue the kind of meanness is limited to one side of the political aisle, right, that, you
know, certainly people on the political left have been unwelcoming, dismissive of people who don’t agree with them. I think — you know, we’ve
seen examples of that. But it just seems in recent years there’s been a sort of belligerence on the part of — a belligerence, a tone, a
dismissive, a kind of a demeaning posture toward people who don’t agree with them that people have come to associate with people on the political
right, especially people who are connected to the evangelical movement. I just, you know, wonder, does that concern you?
DR. KIM: Yes. Michel, I am deeply concerned, as are many, about that belligerence in our society, the coarsening of our discourse and the way in
which we present to other people, as you’ve, you know, described it. Not just wrong but evil, or idiots. Evangelicals could be — must be concerned,
not simply about the principles of their faith, but the posture of their faith. And the belligerent ways in which evangelicals at times can enter
into public discourse, I would say, is not reflective of the way of Christ.
There are prophetic moments in which we need to, as people of faith, say strong things about the injustices that exist in our society, but the
coarsening of our discourse, this general belligerence, whether it comes from evangelical leaders or other segments of society, is just profoundly
not just unhelpful but wrong.
With the issue of climate change and its impact on those who are vulnerable, it is too important for us to have this conversation relegated
into this space of belligerence and demonization. The deep desire is that evangelicals would not be a source of that belligerence, but a source of
the solution to address that belligerence and frame a different way forward with people that have deep disagreements over substantial issues of
incredible importance and complexity. We have to find a way.
And I hope Christians and evangelicals, in particular, would lead in a way that demonstrates it’s not just about the principle, it’s also about the
posture.
MARTIN: Are you willing to, though, make common cause with people with whom you disagree in other contexts in order to advance climate change as a
priority? Because this is really where the rubber meets the road, isn’t it? I mean, I think our understanding of the evangelical movement in a
political context, at least in the last couple years in this country, decades even, has been focused on abortion and same-sex relationships, OK?
And in opposition to both.
And, you know, many people have said that that — the basket of issues needs to be broader, but that’s what people say. Are you willing to say
that climate change is a sufficient magnitude and weight and causes suffering, as we’ve said, around the world, to the degree that it needs to
be higher on that basket of priorities? Are you willing to say that?
DR. KIM: Yes. At the NAE, we have this kind of guiding document called “For the Health of the Nation.” And in that, it includes eight areas —
it’s not comprehensive in that it covers every single concern that evangelicals could have with expression of their faith, but it covers eight
areas of civic life and civic engagement for the health of the nation.
And it includes stewardship of creation, it includes racial justice, it includes human rights, in addition to issues relating to sanctity of life
or religious liberties. It’s an expression and an indication of a comprehensive application of a gospel fate, of a good news fate. So, the
NAE actually has been involved in all the major refugee resettlement issues, whether it’s the Afghan refugee crisis or the Ukrainian refugee
crisis.
We have been, you know, hard at work at thinking and leading in the areas of immigration reform. We’ve also been really seeking to address the issue
of racial justice and reconciliation. In fact, that is a major initiative at the NAE.
So, we believe that following Jesus is not a partisan issue and it’s not even an issue easily reduced to any one topic, it’s expansive. And there
are millions of evangelicals who look for, longed for, and in fact, are living this kind of comprehensive faith, even if those who dominate the
public discourse are often aligned in more narrow ways.
MARTIN: Dr. Walter Kim, thank you so much for talking with us.
DR. KIM: Thank you, Michel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: An issue also very much at top of mind with the queen and the king.
And finally then, as we remember the queen’s famously poker face nature, we also remember some of her more ruckus moments. These were almost always at
the racetrack, where excitement in victory would overcome her. And then, of course, there was her dry (INAUDIBLE), with fellow nonagenarian, Sir
Attenborough, when they were both filming a special on preserving trees at Buckingham Palace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, BROADCASTER AND NATURALIST: There will be all kinds of different trees during here in those 50 years maybe.
QUEEN ELIZABETH II: It might use to be, yes. I wouldn’t be here though.
ATTENBOROUGH: I was going to say, the sundial neatly planted in the shade.
QUEEN ELIZABETH II: Isn’t it good, yes.
ATTENBOROUGH: Yes.
QUEEN ELIZABETH II: Had we thought of that? That it was planted in the shade? It wasn’t in the shade originally, I’m sure. But maybe we could move
it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And yes, indeed, the palace did move the sundial into the sun.
And that is it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.