Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” And here’s what’s coming up.
President Trump takes to the U.N. to blast Iran, calling it a corrupt regime. I speak with the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani.
Plus, can the Europeans save the nuclear deal that the Trump administration wants to destroy? The E.U.’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini
tells me they are trying as hard as they can.
Also, ahead, New Zealand’s prime minister made history by bringing her newborn into the U.N. chamber. Jacinda Ardern, one of the coalitions of
new young global leaders. We talk motherhood, her progressive agenda and climate change.
And comedian Tracey Ullman tells our Hari Srinivasan why she’s having the time of her life in personating all kinds of leaders her variety show from
Angela Merkel to Theresa May.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in New York, where world leaders are in the midst of their annual get together at the
United Nations.
President Trump’s speech was eagerly awaited. Although, his opening lines didn’t go down quite as he expected.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our
country. America’s — so true. Didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And with that, Trump embarked on a hard line address, which was long on sovereignty and protectionism, offering foreign aid only to
friends, saying that he rejects globalism in favor of a doctrine of patriotism.
Last year, it was North Korea, this year Iran is drawing his greatest fire. After pulling the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump is now
saying that he’s confident their leaders will want to talk to him just like Kim Jong-un did.
But when I sat down with the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, he painted a different picture and he tells me that Iran does not want to meet with
the United States at this point.
Mr. President, welcome to the program.
HASSAN ROUHANI, IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: Can I start by asking you, the president of the United States has tweeted this morning saying that despite repeated requests, I think he
means your requests, he has no plans to meet you. Maybe sometime in the future. And he thinks maybe you’re a lovely man. That’s what he says in
the tweet. What do you make that have? Have you requested a meeting with President Trump?
ROUHANI (through translator): Not this year nor year. We have never made such a request for a meeting with the president of the United States. Of
course, last year, from American officials, we received eights requests for a meeting. And I did not see that as being an appropriate meeting, as I do
not see it as being appropriate now.
And a meeting must take place at a time when that meeting can serve a purpose, can be beneficial, can serve the benefits of both countries. But
under the current conditions, when it comes to a meeting and dialogue, I do not see it as beneficial nor appropriate. But you should ask him who made
such requests.
AMANPOUR: We will try to ask. But before I go on to the substance of the policy and the Iran negotiations with nuclear deal, President Trump likes
to reach out to other leaders. He did it last year with leader Kim Jong- un. He called him rocket man and he threatened to destroy North Korea if there was nuclear activity from North Korea.
And then now, he’s calling him a good man and shaking his hand and meeting him. In this tweet he said, “Maybe, I’m sure, you are a lovely man.” How
do you respond to that? Do you think he’s a lovely man? How do you respond to those kinds of person-to-person reach out?
ROUHANI (through translator): In any way, for me what is of importance that the leaders of the two countries are seeking mutual interests and have
a dialogue and take subsequent steps, which ultimately can lead to the undoing of the knots that have existed and the difficulties that have
existed in the relationships between the two countries during the last four decades. Everything else is just playing with words and will not get us to
any solutions or any destinations.
AMANPOUR: So, what will bring you back to negotiating with the United States? I’m saying that because the U.S. says that we need to renegotiate,
we need to open the Iran nuclear deal known as the JCPOA. That Mr. Trump, Mr. Pompeo, others have said, “We do want to negotiate with the Iranian,
but Iran has to change its behavior.” What do you say to that?
ROUHANI (through translator): Well, you see, after many years of negotiation and dialogue, a consensus was reached, an agreement was reached
between the seven countries. And it was agreed upon by the leadership of those seven countries involved, subsequent to which in the United Nations
Security Council, it was approved under formal resolution 2231.
So, no one has the right to unilaterally exit such an agreement without just cause and cannot violate a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Therefore, the United States government deviated on a path during the past few months and it must return from that deviated path to the previous
point, to the point of departure.
And there will be the point where we can talk about as to whether this agreement is being implemented well. This is not the time to talk about
anything else, to hold a dialogue about anything else prior to the proper and precise implementation of the previous agreement that was reached.
AMANPOUR: Do you believe that the United States is after regime change to overthrow the government, the system in Iran? I ask you because just
before as you arrived here in the U.S., two of President Trump’s closest advisers said two different things. Rudolph Giuliani said that whether
it’s in two days, two months, two years, the regime in Iran will be overthrown. And then Nikki Haley, the U.N. ambassador, said, “We are not
in the business of regime change.” Do you think the sanctions and President Trump’s policy is aimed at regime change in your country?
ROUHANI (through translator): Perhaps many in the United States during the past had such wishes. To be dealing with a regime in Iran that would be
completely beholden to the United States as there was the case prior to the Islamic revolution. But such an objective was never be reached and it will
never be reached until such time that the Iranian government rises from the will of the people in result of the ballot box and the vote of the people
through which process their leadership and the representatives are chosen, that means that the people are governing and are in charge.
And no power and no government can stand in front of and face down a nation, and the Iranian government is not separate from the people. So,
overthrowing that government means overthrowing the will of the people of Iran.
And this shows a great mistake in their calculus, just as this mistake, unfortunately, has been repeated over and over again in the past by the
United States government.
AMANPOUR: Well, could I ask you this then, because you were brought before parliament in Iran when the president pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal,
when President Trump did, and when sanctions started to be re-imposed. The parliament called you, it’s only the second time in history that they’ve
called a president to question you about it.
And you said, “Beware that sabotage leads to destruction, painting a bleak picture of people’s lives will lead to further darkness.” But you said,
more important than that is that, “Many people have lost faith in the future of the Islamic republic and are in doubt about its power.” You were
talking about the Iranian people. And I’m interested in that because earlier this year there were demonstrations across Iran, bigger even than
the so-called Green Revolution, wider, more people, longer.
The people are saying they’re not happy. Do you accept that? They’re not happy with the government. They’re not happy with the way it’s being run.
ROUHANI (through translator): I will start from the last statement that you made, which wasn’t quite precise. You said that demonstrations longer
than we witnessed in the past. You do know that last year the entire length of those demonstrations were five days, whereas as the previous ones
you touched upon lasted about seven months.
So, five days to seven months is not exactly equal, the number of people who were participating in these protests, it’s very clear how many of them
there were. And you do know that after five days of these protests, they were followed by three days of constant marches, pro-government and in
support of the government. So — in many cities across Iran.
So, this even that you touched upon shows the strength of the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Now, for example, if in the United States of
America, in five or 10 cities, hundreds or a few thousand people demonstrate, this shows the will of the people of the United States of
America.
The truth is that, one year and some months ago, 41 million people went to the ballot boxes to cast their votes during the election. So, this is very
clear and it shows whether people do have faith in the system or not and they do certainly feel they have a right to choose their leadership.
AMANPOUR: What is the pressure on you and on the people of Iran with these sanctions, with the fact that oil revenue and exports are now plummeting
because of sanctions, because certain European companies have had to pull out and the rial has dropped? And the supreme leader has said it was a
mistake, he — I think he said he regret sending yourself and he mentioned the foreign minister, Javad Zarif, to negotiate with the United States.
How much pressure is there on you and will you remain within the nuclear deal from your perspective?
ROUHANI (through translator): The issue of the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement, until such time that our interests are secured, delivered within
the framework of this agreement, we will remain within that framework.
But if we do see that the five remaining countries in the agreement are not living up to their commitments, then we will have new conditions and new
frame works. Iran does not believe that it should unilaterally stay in a multilateral agreement. All of the sides who were signatories to this
agreement have responsibilities upon which they must deliver.
And the only party that, thus far, has committed egregious mistakes by exiting this agreement unilaterally and without cause is the United States
of America. But certainly, the sanctions will bring pressure upon the people.
Sanctions mean breaking the normal cycle of economic trade between firms and countries. And the United States of America, with all of its power, is
seeking to disrupt these cycles of trade and economic activity. So, in the long-term, the United States will not be able to continue these pressures
and these pressures will not in the long-term bring America closer to her objectives.
One thing is clear, that pressure is upon the shoulders of the people, the people who seek to make ends meet, to — will be in a position to have to
pay more for the same. So, the sanctions of the United States of America have only one effect and that is pressure upon the daily lives of the
normal people in our nation, and this represents animosity and enmity from the United States of America targeting the people of Iran.
And this is — then we say therefore, that this is not a regime of sanctions that is targeting the Iranian government or system, it is
targeting the people of Iran. And this is something that the Americans, unfortunately, only believe in. They say not only will we target the
people with sanctions and bring hardship to their daily lives but we’re also supporters of the same people.
So, this shows a disconnect between what they are saying and what they believe the people of Iran do not believe these to be realities, they see
the realities in their daily lives. And the realities clearly show that a country that wishes to deal with us or a firm that wishes to invest in an
infrastructure project in our country, build roads, build railroads, develop port facilities.
The Americans come in they bring pressure upon that firm or that entity in order to stop that project. So, they are against progress in Iran, they
are against advancement for Iran. So, this does not benefit the United States of America, it does not benefit Iran nor the region. History will
judge that the United States of America, at this juncture, made a big mistake.
AMANPOUR: Do you have faith — do you believe that the European governments and all the other signatories to this deal are trying very hard
to save it and trying also different mechanisms to save the deal? Do you have faith that they can do that and that you can stay in the deal?
ROUHANI (through translator): Thus far, the European countries, as well as China and Russia, when it comes to only expressing their political will and
aims, they have been quite resolute in making those announcements, which consisted of them saying that we wish to safeguard the JCPOA.
But in reality, in a tangible fashion, are our expectations have not been met. What the Europeans announce, what they say today, if they can put it
into practice, of course the JCPOA will remain as such and we will be able to, without the presence of the United States of America, continue with
this agreement.
AMANPOUR: President Rouhani, thank you very much for joining me.
ROUHANI (through translator): I thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: So, for the moment, Iran will stick with the nuclear deal, but for how long? U.S. pressure is forcing European and other companies to
leave Iran, as we talked about. The country is bracing for a harsh new round of U.S. oil sanctions starting in November.
Federica Mogherini is the European negotiator trying to keep it all together. And just before the presidents of Iran and America spoke at the
U.N. today, I asked her whether she thought the nuclear deal would survive.
Federica Mogherini, welcome back to the program.
FEDERICA MOGHERINI, E.U. HIGH REPRESENTATIVE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: You have a very public role of trying to save the JCPOA, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal.
This time last year, you told me at the United Nations that the entire international community and as Europeans, we will make sure this deal stays
and it sticks. How are you feeling about that today?
MOGHERINI: Well, so far, I cannot say so good. But so far, it is holding. Iran is still complying with its nuclear related commitments. The IAEA
just came out with another report, the 12th report, saying Iran is complying with its commitments. And we are putting in place measures that
are making sure that Iran can continue to benefit from the economic relations it has with — legitimate economic relations it has with the rest
of the world.
AMANPOUR: Well, that is the point, isn’t it? Because President Trump not only pulled the United States out but has put secondary sanctions on you
all, on Europeans and others who do business with Iran. And the president of Iran has said, “That we only give the Europeans and the signatories a
certain amount of time to make sure that this deal still benefits us. Otherwise, we pull out.
Already, their oil is plummeting and they are going to have major sanctions come early November. Boeing has pulled out, German firms have pulled out,
all the major benefits, as you say, that were due to go to Iran seem to be fraying very, very seriously at the edges. So, what can you actually do?
MOGHERINI: We are putting in place mechanisms together with the Europeans but also with the Russians, with the Chinese, with others in the world,
from all over the world, to create the channels to keep trade with Iran that would guarantee that trades can continue regardless of the secondary
sanctions that the United States have put.
AMANPOUR: So, that means avoid paying the Iran Central Bank or whatever or the government and figure out all sorts of mechanisms around?
MOGHERINI: We are working the technical details. Member states are working the technical details. But yes, we’re putting in place mechanisms
to guarantee that trade can continue.
AMANPOUR: OK. You have a huge amount of faith in your power to somehow convince European business and others that they won’t be hurt by U.S.
secondary sanctions. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it right? People actually think their business lies with the United States if there’s a
competition between the United States and Iran.
MOGHERINI: I’m not saying it’s easy. And the confidence I have has a limit because it is indeed a difficult environment in which we’re
operating. But I’m convinced of the value of what we’ve done and I’m convinced because I see the results.
And what I’m saying is that the United States cannot think of imposing its own policy decisions on sovereign countries and organizations. So, the
Europeans have the legitimate right to decide with whom to do business and trade. And this is what we are doing. Not only the Europeans but also the
rest of the world.
AMANPOUR: But I keep having to come back to this. So far, they’re choosing the U.S. Boeing has pulled out, Total has pulled out, a lot of,
you know, German companies who are the major business with Iran right now are pulling out.
MOGHERINI: Yes. That’s some trend that we are seeing and we are working on trying to guarantee that those that want to continue to invest in
legitimate trade and investments in Iran and with Iran can do it.
AMANPOUR: This time last year, President Trump shocked world leaders by his rhetoric regarding North Korea. Little rocket man, fire and fury, we
will destroy North Korea, et cetera, et cetera. And then, you saw the meeting and this all almost lovey-dovey, if I could say that, they’re
exchanging letters, they say nice things about each other.
Do you think that’s going to happen here? Are you worried or are you anticipating President Trump launching a broadside against Iran from the
podium of the Security Council or the General Assembly?
MOGHERINI: I cannot predict what President Trump will say in the context of United Nations General Assembly or elsewhere. Again, here for us,
Europeans what counts is actions, policies, facts.
AMANPOUR: President Trump and his administration insists that Iran’s global behavior has to change, that wherever they go on this nuclear deal
has to be tied with ballistic missiles and operations in Syria and in the Persian Gulf area and all of that. Is there any movement from Iran on
those issues to your satisfaction?
MOGHERINI: Believe me, the toughest discussions I have with Zarif are about Syria or Yemen or the regional dynamics. That’s clear.
AMANPOUR: That’s the Iranian foreign minister?
MOGHERINI: That’s the Iranian foreign minister. The point is, we spent 12 years negotiating Iran nuclear issues and that prevented us from talking
about all the rest because the focus was and the urgency was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Preserving that nuclear agreement allows us to build on it and address the other issues with an open channel of dialogue, that we need to use more
together, together with the United States, hopefully. Not having the nuclear deal in place would not put us in a better position to discuss with
Iran the rest that we need to address.
And indeed, we have started to discuss with Iran just recently, the last couple of months, the situation in Yemen, the situation in Syria. And I
believe we are better positioned with the agreement to discuss and address and achieve some results on these issues than without.
AMANPOUR: You have spoken, over and again, about security, about making sure, you know, you maintain the global security and so far as you can.
And some have said that maybe you shouldn’t be using just that as your paradigm. For instance, Eli Lake of Bloomberg, “If Federica Mogherini
didn’t exist, the world’s autocrats would be trying to invent her. As the European Union’s high representative of forieng affairs, she’s a tireless
advocate for engaging rogue states. In Mogherini’s world, diplomacy with dictators should not aim to transition these countries to open societies
but rather to prevent conflicts at all costs.”
MOGHERINI: And the question is?
AMANPOUR: The question is, do they have a point? Is there, for instance, a stronger way you could, either then or now, be engaging Iran on human
rights as well as, for instance, nonproliferation?
MOGHERINI: You know, we are the only ones in the world engaging with Iran on human rights. You know, we are the only ones having human rights
dialogue at every time we meet with Iran. Engaging is not being soft. You can be very strong and talk. But do you have better alternatives than
talking in times of conflict and crisis and (INAUDIBLE) around the world? Is there a better way than diplomacy and dialogue? Is it war the
alternative? Is that the military option the alternative that works? Isn’t it more dangerous? Haven’t we gone that way enough to see the
consequences of that?
I will always refuse the idea that dialogue and diplomacy is being soft. You can be talking and very clear and very strong and very tough. What’s
the alternative?
AMANPOUR: All around you, whether it’s your own home country of Italy, whether it’s Hungary, whatever it is, France, Britain, everywhere, there’s
a rise of populism and nationalism. Into this mix comes Steve Bannon, who’s President Trump’s consiglieri for winning. He’s got Matteo Salvini,
he got the Hungarian prime minister, he’s got the Polish leaders, he’s everybody onboard into what’s called “The Movement,” which he’s trying to
gum up the works in the upcoming parliamentary elections for the E.U. parliament.
And they believe they can get anywhere from 17 to 20 to 30 percent block in the parliament. How much of a threat is that to the workings of the
European Union in terms of the kind of policies that you are trying to make work?
MOGHERINI: I wouldn’t call it a populous movement. I think we have to call things with their name, it’s a far right extreme right political
movement, parties, traditional parties, that have very little of unconventional and very traditional extreme right positions. Not only
Europe but elsewhere in the world as well.
And they have a different political agenda on certain issues. On foreign policy, we still continue to act as one, with one voice and with a
coordinated action. And this is point of strength we still have.
AMANPOUR: Are you concerned — because democracy is a great part of foreign policy. Are you concerned with the rise as the illiberal
democracy, as the Hungarians openly call it, in Europe?
MOGHERINI: In Europe, elsewhere in the world, it’s something that personally worries me. In particular, the fact that — and, again, I
stress not so much in Europe but elsewhere in the world, the idea that values are not so relevant, that you can build solutions against others.
And I think this is a very fragile way of building solutions. You might find the exit strategy for a couple of weeks but then you go back to the
situation of conflict or attention.
And this idea that the world is in the hands of strong men sitting around the table and deciding by themselves over the heads of the people, I simply
think that doesn’t work. This belongs to a different kind of era that is the past. And I don’t think this is fit for this century.
I don’t think this is what the people of the world think and want to see. The idea that human rights, that women’s rights, that all of youth and
society is nothing relevant and that only the ones that have the power count, I don’t think this is the right way to solve the problems of the
world.
AMANPOUR: Federica Mogherli, thank you for joining us.
MOGHERINI: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So, she was talking there about an old-style world, of power in the hands of men. One prime minister turning more heads than most at the
U.N. is New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern. She is passionate about climate, refugees and progressive policies. But she’s only the second leader in
modern times to have a baby while also being head of government.
So, when she showed up for her first general assembly with her 3-month-old daughter, Neve Te, it went viral. When I sat down with her today, Jacinda
Ardern told me why she hopes moves like these will help normalize the work place.
Prime Minister, welcome to the program.
JACINDA ARDERN, PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND: Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: Do you ever imagine that the perfectly normal act of a woman giving birth would be so incredibly viral all over the world and everybody
just wants to talk to you about that?
ARDERN: No, no. Because obviously — you know, obviously, this is the norm for women who enter into motherhood. But I have to accept and I had
to accept that when it comes to world leaders, it was real. And so, whilst I hope there will be a day when it isn’t worthy of coming, currently it is.
And so, I accept that. But there will be a time.
AMANPOUR: You are the second. Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan was the first. But you’ve done something quite unprecedented that has gone viral. You
took your little baby, Neve, into the General Assembly.
ARDERN: Well, actually, I would speak again. I came down from the podium to find that she was there on the general assembly floor and there’s
actually an image that captures the moment when I see her there. And —
AMANPOUR: Where you pick her up and are hugging her?
ARDERN: Yes, yes. It was just delightful to see her there. I expected that she might be in another space. But I think probably what it speaks to
is the fact that, you know, I am still breast-feeding. I have Neve near me most of the time. It’s just — it’s not always obviously that she’s in
close proximity to me most of the time.
AMANPOUR: You talk about this openly, why, because you want to inspire working mothers, because you want to make it norm?
ARDERN: I want to normalize it. I want to normalize it. And I do think that if we want to make our work places permissive, more open, then we need
to acknowledge that there are logistical challenges come with it.
And I hope that, in part, just by being a first and being a bit more open, you know, which I accept brings vulnerability, by being a bit more open, it
might create a path for other women.
AMANPOUR: And it’s quite extraordinary that your –
1330
AMANPOUR: Challenges that come with that. And I hope that, in part, just by being a bit more open, which I accept brings vulnerability,
by being a bit more open, it might create a path for other women.
And it’s quite extraordinary that your partner has agreed to be the house husband, so to speak, to take care of your daughter, and that must be
really important as you do all your state duties, your head of government duties.
ARDERN: And what I consistently acknowledge is that I’m not doing anything special. Actually, I have a lot of assistance, I have a lot of help. The
fact that Clark has the ability to be able to juggle his career and also be our primary caregiver makes all of this possible. But what has struck me
the most is from the moment that we announced the way that we would make things work, the number of men and women who have said we did exactly the
same thing, there isn’t a lot of discussions, I think, about something that has been happening over a number of decades. And we need to normalize
that, too.
AMANPOUR: I don’t know whether you or New Zealanders, I’ve been amazed by some of the incredible sexism that you’ve received from your own media at
home about this issue. Can a mother be prime minister? Can a pregnant woman do the job? Can a new mother actually talk about climate and
refugees and trade and all the things that you’re talking about?
ARDERN: And yet, I have to say I don’t feel still that this is the environment where you’re able to openly challenge that. At least you seem
to be in any way claiming that the criticism isn’t justified or that you show any weakness. We should be open to criticism. We should be open to
be challenged in the same way all of our counterparts are. And I accept that and I encourage it. It means that we have a robust democracy.
But it becomes very tricky if you ever try and partition off what might be seen as sexist criticism. And so to be honest, I just don’t engage. I
think the best way I can rebel against those notions is just being a competent leader and being good at my job.
AMANPOUR: And it is actually extraordinary that these thoughts and these kinds of views occur in New Zealand, which is distinguished by being the
first country in the world that gave women the right to vote.
ARDERN: And yet I would absolutely classify us as being incredibly progressively. The fact that I am the third female Prime Minister. I
never ever grew up as a young woman believing that my gender would stand in the way of me being able to do anything that I wanted.
And I credit New Zealand for that. I credit the environment. I credit those women who went before me. And to credit New Zealanders as well for
the fact that they did welcome the fact that I had a child in office. The positivity far outweighed any negativity and so I’m deeply proud of where
we are as a nation.
AMANPOUR: What is the leadership rule book for you because people think that to be a prime minister, you have to be this way, this way, this way.
But are you trying to sort of open up the leadership rulebook? And if so, how?
ARDERN: I do think it’s time for us to reconsider whether or not we’re meeting the expectations of the public and their expectations particularly
of that new generation of voters. At least I like to call that collaborative. They’re wanting us to be constructive. And yet probably
the old playbook when it comes to politics is that you succeed if you’re seen as pretty ruthless. There’s a lot of ego in politics.
Measures of success are pretty basic. They’re mostly aligned with economic markers. I am determined to do things differently. I do think you can be
both strong and compassionate. I do think success is not just about economics but about your social indicators of success. And on those
missions, we are looking to be world leading where producers here are wellbeing budget. We’re using indicators across cultural, social, economic
and environmental. And if we succeed, we will be amongst the first in the world. That to me is the kind of governance we need.
AMANPOUR: I hear that you’re taking part in a lot of climate talk and discussion and trying to move that ball forward. I spoke to Governor Jerry
Brown a week or so ago who also is doing his carbon neutral program which I think you are signed up to. He said that unless we really get our act
together, there’s going to be the kind of climate damage, the kind of migration and refugees that make what’s happening now in Europe look like a
tea party, that it’s going to be so bad. And he said that a lot of countries are not stepping up to the plate despite the Paris Climate
Accord.
ARDERN: And we will have an obligation. There is no ability to opt out from the effects of climate change. We feel that acutely in the Pacific.
We are near the Pacific and I know this is not hypothetical. This is reality already. But we’ve just come from the Pacific island forum
a matter of weeks ago and been discussing issues of regional security.
In that forum, Pacific Island Nations identified climate change as being the biggest threat we face, the biggest threat that we face. But the
message that came through really strongly for me as well was that we cannot give up. It cannot be the sentiment that it’s solely about now adaptation,
that we still have a responsibility to try and ensure that wherever in the world an individual is living, that they have the option of being able to
preserve their culture, their language, their place, their land and simply conceding that sea also rising and that they will be inundated as not the
position that they want us to fight. They want us to fight to try and reverse what we’re seeing.
AMANPOUR: I mean you are definitely counter current if you like. Europe is clamping down. Certainly, the United States is clamping down. They’ve
got a very very low bar for allowing refugees and the lowest in U.S. history right now under the Trump administration. I wonder you’re
progressively the — you’re among the new band of young leaders including President Macron, Justin Trudeau and others who see the world as it is
today.
President Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. He’s putting a very low bar on refugees allowed into the United States. And
also he just gave a talk on drug interdiction and the drug war which you have said that you’re not going to sign up to. What are the issues you
have with the current administration’s policies?
ARDERN: You know I think actually when you pull back, there is a common theme actually that underlies the political responses that we’re seeing, be
it the U.K., be it the United States. There seems so much the population of growing insecurity. Globalization has fundamentally changed the
experiences of workers across the world.
And we have to challenge ourselves and say did we respond adequately to that? Did we give that financial security that voters were asking for?
Did we respond to those needs? And in the last part, the answer has been no. I think we’re seeing the consequences of that. My response though is
to say New Zealand, well we can either respond by feeding some of that fear, exacerbating that fear, actually saying we can do things differently.
And the response doesn’t have to be isolationism. It can be open. It can be as a trading nation continuing to take a multilayer approach and that is
the approach that we take.
AMANPOUR: And a lot of Americans have suddenly become sensitized to where New Zealand is, not just because of you and your profile —
ARDERN: We’re not actually on every map.
AMANPOUR: Seriously?
ARDERN: No. It’s actually a real problem. We’ve had a campaign around it. There are maps where we are missing.
AMANPOUR: No.
ARDERN: It’s actually true.
AMANPOUR: Well, I’m sure Peter Thiel can singlehandedly put New Zealand back on the map and all these billionaires who look at New Zealand as a
doomsday refuge for themselves. Is that something you welcome? I mean do you want all these rich internationals to buy up tracts of land?
ARDERN: I mean I’ve heard of this and whatever reason that investors are interested in New Zealand, we are a country that welcomes overseas
investment into our productive economy. We want it to be of genuine benefit to New Zealand. We want to grow jobs off the back of that
investment. We’ve taken a particular view when it comes to simply pitching residential housing and that’s simply because we have a housing crisis.
AMANPOUR: So what is the view? What have you done?
ARDERN: We’ve said no to offshore when someone has no long-term interest in residing in New Zealand and making a home and a base there.
AMANPOUR: And I guess just finally, you had a forum with your predecessors of woman, Helen Clark Prime Minister. And she was talking and you were
talking about the three stages of feminism and there was suffrage in the vote and empowerment in running for office and all the rest of it. The
next one, she says, the current one is protecting against abuse, the abuse of women which we see all over the place. The United States is in the
middle of a Me Too Movement. You’ve got all these allegations of the Supreme Court nominee, et cetera.
How does one right those scales? How does one make that balance and protect women in what seemed a very dangerous world for women?
ARDERN: And I think this has probably been something that within the New Zealand context that we’ve been very live to for some time. We have
horrific rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence. Our reporting rate has been as low as nine percent for abuse. We know that
domestically we have a significant path to travel to improve those numbers and status for women.
For me, though, that next wave though is actually about basic security for women. And underpinned by a very simple notion of respect,
respect in the workplace, respect in the home. Every woman has the right to feel safe in their day-to-day lives. And what can be more basic than
that? Underpayment as well, for me financial security, the ability for women to have the opportunity to support her family, keep it independent
and refuse an abusive situation or relationship, the ability to move to leave based on that financial security.
So working on the fact that we have overrepresentation of women in low-paid work, we have gender pay issues. These are all intertwined and we have to
take all of it on.
AMANPOUR: It’s a big job. Prime Minister Ardern, thank you.
ARDERN: It’s a big job.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
Big job indeed but I wonder why the Prime Minister Ardern will become a subject for our next guest, comedian Tracey Ullman. She is the first and
only British woman to have her own TV sketch shows in both the U.K. and the United States. In her latest series, she takes a look at the women shaping
our world today from Angela Merkel to Theresa May to Melania Trump.
The comedian says that she looks for empathy in her characters taking a particular interest in their actions behind the scenes as well. And our
Hari Sreenivasan sat down with Tracey Ullman to talk about “The Tracey Ullman Show.”
HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Right. So you’ve got season three coming. It’s a sketch show. If someone has not watched season one or two, what are
these about?
TRACEY ULLMAN, COMEDIAN: My first shows originate in England. I was asked by the BBC after 30 years would I like to do a television show in England.
I think my goodness I didn’t think I was on the radar of the BBC anymore. And the BBC was now run by a woman, Charlotte Moore, who is doing an
incredible job and the executive of comedy department was Myfanwy Moore. And when I had been at the BBC 30 years ago, it was five men in bowties
talking about the wall.
SREENIVASAN: Benny Hill?
ULLMAN: That was ITV.
SREENIVASAN: Sorry.
ULLMAN: Yes. Well, girls running around in bikinis. It was pretty bad. I started the show three years ago and I thought, wow, England is now this
buzzing global hub, multinational melting pots are going here, the food is great now and we want to take on this country again and all the things.
But kept international and could sell it to HBO. And then we entered Brexit and everything changed and the psychology changed and then that
became interesting.
So this is my third year. The first two was sort of flow and I would do like one of the characters (INAUDIBLE) is portraying Angela Merkel, the
German chancellor and I couldn’t really do sketches about her, shoot them in September and put them out in January because so much has happened. So
this season, we filmed some things earlier and hoped they would remain pertinent. And then two days before transmission or a day before
transmission, we’d run in and we have a standing set for 10 Downing Street.
So I could be panicking about Brexit. And it was lovely. It was exciting. So I didn’t mind if the professor did not like because the new cycle is so
fast.
SREENIVASAN: Right. Let’s take a look at a clip from Angela Merkel. You’re playing Angela Merkel here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We will train you. I have to take you through some everyday situations and all you must do is not always the eyes. Begin.
The phone rings, you pick it up. You hear a teenage boy whose voice is breaking. You realize it is Theresa May. Try harder. You’re a
chancellor, not a gift.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. All righty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: OK. First of all, can we say amazing work on the makeup? The idea is uncanny how good these folks are able to make you look. How
long does that take?
ULLMAN: Not long. Because we’re on a television show and if any makeup takes more than an hour and a half, I just can’t do it. It never gets
through my days. So we have a genius makeup artist called Floris Schuller a Dutch sculptor and he gives me — it’s brilliant. It’s sort of made with
gelatin now. Years ago, I still work with latex masks. It was like talking through a kitchen sponge.
Two men put them on in the morning. It doesn’t take more than an hour and a half. And then I am Angela Merkel for I don’t know how long and maybe
through lunchtime is when we’ll change but I have to be quick. That keeps the spontaneity and the energy going. But I am Angela Merkel for hours and
I talk to people —
SREENIVASAN: You stay in character?
ULLMAN: Yes, yes, absolutely. Yes. My lovely guru who I imagine. all my charters of politicians are off duty. I don’t want to see the (INAUDIBLE)
because it’s how they are behind the scenes that interest me.
SREENIVASAN: So how do you model the mannerisms? What do you study about someone to make it convincing? Teach me if I want to figure
out how to imitate someone. Is it their walk? Is it —
ULLMAN: Yes. Her walk is both — particularly her shoulders and she moves her arms but only from here. So only from here. And it was another Bush,
I think George W. hugged her from behind years ago, Angela Merkel. She went — it was like a physical reaction. She’s the only girl in the room,
you know, and you’ve got Berlusconi in there and all the guys. The hope for her is secretly she’s very, very sexy, so she’s a sex bomb, sex bomb,
giving off the sex mask. I admire her enormously and I hope she knows I exist.
SREENIVASAN: What is it about politics that you find intriguing enough to put the time and effort into these characters?
ULLMAN: Well, I try and cover a broad spectrum of society in the shows I’m doing. I found that women politicians like Angela Merkel, like Theresa
May, I’m similar age to them. I look for the empathy and the poignancy and sadness in people too. So I mean Theresa May is having a horrible time.
She’s got to handle Brexit. I think as a fair weather prime minister, she probably would have had a nice run but these eating school boards have
messed it all up.
And now I’ve got to fix what the boys have messed up, Phillip. That’s how I see it.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. There’s a clip from Brexit and people jumping ships. Let’s take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you a Ramoner (ph) who’s scared about life after Brexit? Wouldn’t you be forced to keep hours at passport control while the
rest of the EU walks by laughing at you? Well, you should be you big British aegis. But don’t worry, Paddy Passports can help. The deadline
for Brexit is fast approaching. So join the 160,000 Brits who have already applied for an Irish passport, presumably one that says “I’m still European
so don’t [bleep] hate me.” Our dedicated team will troll through your ancestry and find some kind of Irish relative who qualifies you. Sure,
everyone is a bit Irish, aren’t we?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Paddy Passports help me remember that my own mother was from Dublin. The next time you see me playing Mrs. Brown, it will be
the [bleep] other one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: Actually, that’s just one of my favorite characters. What about the relationship that you portray between Theresa May and Donald
Trump?
ULLMAN: Well, she gets home with Facetime and have a talk with him and I think they’re standing by with a lot to discuss. I think that we’re all
terribly puzzled by Trump at first, Merkel too but now they’re getting used to it and they’re figuring out how to play it. Macron’s figuring out how
to play it. She isn’t going to be so offended when it is — well, she’s in great shape for somebody who’s at her 64 and a French grandmother, of
course, I am. I play her in the first year. That was interesting to play Brigitte Macron.
SREENIVASAN: Is taking on the president of the United States too easy these days?
ULLMAN: Yes, it is too easy. It becomes habitual and I spend more time in London. I come here and it’s like people are under siege and obsessed. I
get to break it up a little more by doing something varied on my show. By just Trump or just talking about Trump, I would go out of my mind.
SREENIVASAN: I hope you take this the right way but what’s the secret to staying in the business this long? I mean it’s remarkable. There’s not
that many comedians, male or female that have had the rung that your career has had.
ULLMAN: Pretty great. I think I was married for 30 years to a producer. Sadly, my husband passed away five years ago and he taught me so much about
controlling the rights in the shows, distribution and he really do the business stuff and let me do the creative stuff. And we worked together as
sort of we thought in this desi lieu.
I have big gaps between working, I’ve had to take time off for children and I’m not obsessed with working all the time. I just get to do what I want
to do when I do it since I come up with — and I still do this multi- character thing. The credits on my show are me on my mother’s windowsill when I was six doing “The Tracey Ullman Show.” And I’m still doing it. In
fact, I’ve made a bit of money out of it and I make a living out of it. But yes, longevity in the business.
SREENIVASAN: You said before that that window show for your mom started after your father had passed away that this was a way for you and her to
deal with grief. Tell me about that.
ULLMAN: Well, we love to laugh at my family. We have a very down-to-earth sort of London working-class humor. Yes, it cheered her up, made her laugh
but not just funny, just making fun of things, sad things. I used to impersonate the spinster that lived opposite us, Annie Cox, who
never had gotten married because her fiance had been killed in the First World War and she wore rubber boots.
And to be her, I could be her for my mom. You want to break their hearts, too, and impersonate everyone in my village. And, of course, it’s a way to
deal with the sadness and grief and I’m doing it again really. My husband died five years ago. I came back to the BBC, did the show and I’m doing it
all again as an adult woman.
SREENIVASAN: So who did you look up to? Who gave you some confidence to say “You go ahead, you keep doing this funny stuff”?
ULLMAN: There are always wonderful actors like Maggie Smith and Patricia Haze and Judy Dench but they were trained and they did Shakespeare. And,
my lord, and I wasn’t that girl. I have this neither here nor there London accents. And I had seen Gilda Radner on television and bits of Carol
Burnett isn’t so much about England. (INAUDIBLE) was around in the ’50s. I thought wow. We were a bit behind them all in England but then we’re
caught up now. But I’ve always had this great admiration for the way that they could thrive on American television.
SREENIVASAN: Should there be anything that is off limits for comedy? We’re in a national conversation right now and what’s too far, whether it’s
about political critique or whether it’s about political correctness.
ULLMAN: It only goes too far when it’s not based in good energy and observation, it becomes angry and partisan and just cruel, and then it’s
not funny to me.
SREENIVASAN: Are you intentional or is it just to entertain when it comes to thinking about what it is that you’re writing? I mean at this point, if
somebody looks at the sketch of Trump, clearly she’s part of the resistance, this is her way of pushing back.
ULLMAN: No, I don’t think people see me that way. I think I’ve been very fair. I mean I do a BBC one show right now that goes out prime time with
all generations, all sorts of aged people watching it but I think we try and keep the show very fair because I said I’m sick of all that tribalism
and you know.
SREENIVASAN: Can you really avoid it? Not that you have to be a member of it but —
ULLMAN: No.
SREENIVASAN: — when you look at Instagram or Twitter or whatever, maybe your people around you shield you from it but it is pretty bad.
ULLMAN: I did a sketch about that on one of the shows of my daughter. I don’t partake in Twitter. My daughter does. She shared with me some
things that have been said about me online on Twitter for the show and some of them are obviously fantastic. “I’ve always loved her. She’s so much
fun. She’s crazy like my cousin.”
And then one man would consistently write things as severe as like “I hope she gets cancer tomorrow. I hate her. Why doesn’t she die of aids? I
would have had sex with her in the ’80s and now she’s just” — and you go, whoa, that’s like it’s massively out of proportion so I wrote a sketch
about that.
SREENIVASAN: You’d like to push that guy in the light.
ULLMAN: Yes, exactly. We wrote a sketch about going to find him and imagine if you looked at my face. What’s the matter with you? My daughter
went, that’s a massive overreaction, which is what she would say in private. We had fun doing that and that was my take on that viciousness.
It reminds me of school. There was always some kid that would sit in the bits and go, “Look at them, they’re fat and stupid.” And now they’ve got a
voice. So we’ve always done it, it’s just a different form.
AMANPOUR: And you have been watching AMANPOUR. But I’m now going to hand you over to Wolf Blitzer for some breaking news on disgraced comedian Bill
Cosby’s sentencing.
MARK GERAGOS, LEGAL ANALYST, CNN: A little bit less but my guess is 30 months which is about half what the prosecution is asking for. There’s no
way he’s going to get straight probation and there’s also no way he’s going to get 5 or 10 years. The judge signaled that when he did not remand him,
meaning put him into jail after the verdict. That’s normally what happens.
So the judge obviously was struggling with the idea what do you do with somebody who’s this age who’s got some infirmities. And so I think he’s
going to lean towards leniency if you will, but he’s going to send him to state prison. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.
WOLF BLITZER, REPORTER, CNN: Should he have expressed remorse? Should he have testified? Should he have brought witnesses in to make the case that
he’s done humanitarian deeds, other good deeds in his life?
GERAGOS: Well, this is the problem. You’re talking about somebody who is maintaining their innocence. So this is the conundrum when you’re a
criminal defendant. If you maintain your innocence, it’s very hard to express remorse or contrition in any way that’s meaningful because you’re
saying basically, “I have been wrongfully convicted.” When you’re saying I’ve been wrongfully convicted, that’s tough.
Now the second part of your question I think is very spot on. There probably should have been a little bit and I hate to second-guess anybody
and maybe they made some kind of a strategic decision but you do want to highlight that this is somebody who has led a good life at least at some
point and has got good works. So I don’t know strategically if they figured the die was already cast or if they figured look, this judge
is already telegraphing that he’s not going to give the prosecution what they want. Why are you going to open it up to this idea of he’s done all
these good things and let the prosecution counter with the fact, well, yes but look at what he’s done to all of these women? So I understand the
strategic thinking by not going there.
BLITZER: What do you think? Are we going to react Mark speculating maybe 30 months, two and half years in jail? The prosecution wanted at least
five years, maybe as much as 10 years. What do you think?
AREVA MARTIN, LEGAL ANALYST, CNN: Yes. I think given the gravity of this case, there’s no way that he gets home confinement which is what his team
was arguing for. I agree with Mark that he is going to serve some prison time and is probably going to be anywhere from two to six years. I think
it’s significant. This judge know that this is is the first case of this nature that’s being — where there’s been a conviction of a celebrity in
this Me Too era.
We saw what happened to the judge in the Brock Turner case in California. I’m sure this judge doesn’t want a repeat of that given the tons of women,
the 60 plus women, that have come forward, the voice that women all over this country have found as it relates to this Me Too movement. I don’t see
a judge sending Bill Cosby home. I don’t see a judge sending Bill Cosby to county jail. This is a very serious case. He’s already been deemed a
violent sexual predator and Bill Cosby is going to go to jail as many women around this country believe that he should.
BLITZER: Mark, Areva made an important point. Presumably, they will file the defense and appeal. Any chance that pending appeal he might be out of
jail?
GERAGOS: Look, normally that’s — the odds are dramatically against it. The only hesitation I would have is that clearly here the judge is
struggling to some degree because he did not remand him after conviction. I cannot emphasize enough, virtually, every case that you see where there’s
a felony conviction of these kinds of charges, pending sentencing, bail is revoked and the defendant is remanded, put into custody.
So that tells me that he’s got some hesitation. I don’t know if the hesitation is about — they’ve got a pretty good issue on what’s called the
other crimes evidence, the defense does. So he may be struggling with that. Pennsylvania is kind of lags behind some other jurisdictions,
notably California, with the level of judicial scrutiny that has been given to that area of the law. Pennsylvania is probably 10 years behind where
California was or is right now.
And when Areva mentions Judge Persky, I know judges aren’t supposed to think about that. But Judge Persky in the Brock Turner case was the first
judge ever recalled, and I believe 80 years in California, and that was all because he had made a decision to give that young man a probationary
sentence. And judges have to think about that. One of the dirty little secrets of the criminal justice system is that judges are humans, too.
BLITZER: A couple hours ago, Areva, as you know the judge in this case, Steven O’Neill, ruled that Bill Cosby will be deemed a sexually violent
predator for the rest of his life. Tell our viewers what that means.
MARTIN: Well, it means that he will be on a sex offender registry. It also means he has lifetime counseling that he has to submit to and
community alerts. So when he goes into the community, the community will be alerted that a violent sexual predator is in their community.
I think it also has another importance in this case because this is a legal determination by this judge. There are pending defamation actions against
Bill Cosby in courts around this country. There are seven women in Massachusetts that have a pending defamation action. There are some
defamation actions pending in California.
So the question becomes will that legal determination made by Judge O’Neill be used against Cosby in those defamation actions by those plaintiffs’
attorney. Will they be able to leverage that determination to gain an advantage perhaps in getting those cases settled? Or and actually being
successful in the trial if those cases do proceed the two trials. So the judge’s determination today has serious ramifications for Bill Cosby in
terms of how he lives out the rest of his life but also how he handles the civil actions that are pending against him.
BLITZER: We’re going to have extensive live coverage of the decision by this judge. That’s coming up. Momentarily we’re told whether or not that
Bill Cosby goes to jail for 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years. The defense says he shouldn’t go to jail at all. He is now deemed a sexually
violent predator.
AMANPOUR:
That’s it for our program tonight.
Thanks for watching Amanpour and Company on PBS and join us again tomorrow.
END