♪♪
>> Hello, everyone, and welcome
to "Amanpour & Co."
Here's what's coming up.
[ Birds chirping ]
In a world paralyzed by
coronavirus, clearer skies and
animals roaming free, we
celebrate Earth Day at 50 with
legendary broadcaster and
pioneering naturalist
Sir David Attenborough.
And...
>> We have one chance to
defeat climate change, and it is
right now.
>> The presidential candidate
who put the climate front and
center of his campaign,
Washington governor Jay Inslee
joins me as he tackles
these twin emergencies.
Then...
>> Trying to divide
society rather than trying to
find common answers is one of
the steps towards
authoritarianism.
>> Nationalism on the rise as
the pandemic takes over.
Former U.S. Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright on long-term
implications for the world
order.
And finally, reimagining our
world after COVID.
♪♪
>> "Amanpour & Co." is made
possible by...
Additional support provided
by these funders
and by contributions to your PBS
station from viewers like you.
>> Welcome to the program,
everyone.
I'm Christiane Amanpour working
from home in London.
Coronavirus continues to
ravage the globe, endangering
our health and our economies.
But another crisis has been
threatening our planet long
before COVID-19 appeared, and
that is the climate emergency.
And today is Earth Day.
While it usually brings people
around the world together, on
its 50th anniversary today
lockdown means that it is being
celebrated in silence, but its
message is more important than
ever.
With economies frozen,
pollution is plummeting, our
skies and waterways are clearer,
and our air is cleaner.
The World Meteorological
Organization says the pandemic
will reduce carbon emissions by
6 percent this year.
It's the sharpest drop since
World War II.
But even that is not enough to
reverse the dangerous effect of
carbon emissions.
So, how do we turn this
opportunity into a lasting
change?
Of course, there's no one
better to talk about the wonders
of our planet than the
world-renowned naturalist and
the world's leading
conservationist,
Sir David Attenborough, who is
joining us live via Skype from
home.
Welcome to the program,
Sir David.
And I just wonder what you
think of kind of being inside,
unable to go outside and
celebrate Earth Day, and all the
changes that our planet's seen,
certainly since you were born.
>> Yes, indeed.
I mean, the world has been
transformed.
And I've been extraordinarily
lucky in that I've been filming
the natural world since the
1950s.
And so, I've got video
documentation of how it looked
to me when I was in my early
30s.
And it was a different world
altogether.
I could see things that nobody
else had filmed before,
certainly.
I could travel into places
where hardly anybody had ever
been before.
It was a marvelous, pristine
world, and it was rich.
And yet, of course, it was
still being depleted.
Had I been there 50 years
before that, I would have seen
even a greater thing.
But now what I realize, of
course, looking back now, is how
the world has become poisoned
and depleted and is wrecked,
really, from many points of
view, and that there are dangers
on the horizon.
>> Let me ask you before I go
back, because you're right.
You know, in your life span -- I
mean, you're 93 years old.
That's a well-known fact.
I'm not being indiscreet.
And, as you say, you have seen
the massive transformations.
But I led into this, and surely
you, obviously, have been on top
of it as well -- by talking
about the incredible blue skies,
the lack of carbon and pollution
in our air, the cleaner waters
right now -- we have seen
animals roaming around as if it
was still a natural world in
highways and streets of urban
centers.
Do you -- I mean, do you think,
"Wow, look at what could happen
if we put our minds to it"?
>> Yes, very much so.
And particularly in this
glorious weather.
Of course, I'm locked in, as we
say, so I don't get out even
though I'm close to one of the
loveliest parks in
Greater London, Richmond Park.
I can't go there.
I'm supposed to stay at home,
which is what I'm doing.
But the skies are so blue,
the birdsong is so loud, and I
can hear it over because there
are no airplanes.
I mean, I live quite close to
London Airport,
and normally I wouldn't be able
to talk for longer than 90
seconds or so before a drone of
an airplane came by.
Now it's an event to see an
airplane in the sky,
and I can hear the birdsong.
So, it's -- and, but also,
the air is purer.
And when you hear reports of
fish coming back into the Venice
canals and so on, you realize
the world is actually changing.
And being that change is being
forced upon us, the question is,
are we going to be strong enough
to keep these changes and do
what's needed to retain these
improvements in the years to
come when we have got over this
particular hump and problem?
>> It's been suggested that
a simple message -- stay home,
stay safe during this
coronavirus -- has worked.
People are doing that.
They're obeying it.
Do naturalists, climate
activists, people who care, need
to come up with a simple message
that will be equally powerful,
once we get out of this, for the
climate?
>> Yes, we do.
But you can't have a more
powerful message than we have
now, because you didn't actually
make mention of the second half
of it.
Of course the government is
saying stay in.
Because if you don't, there is a
risk of a deadly disease.
That's a pretty big threat.
And when the government says --
or whoever it is -- says that
threat has disappeared, will we
have the strength of the mind
then to say, "Okay, well, we
won't use the highways as much
as we did.
We will stay at home if we can"?
I think that one of
the changes that may well happen
in the coming years is that
actually people have discovered
that you can work in this day
and age with all our various
devices.
You can work very well
from home, and there is no need
to have to endure that dreadful
journey packed into like
sardines in tins, going into the
middle of the city.
Maybe there will be a shift in
the way we work.
Now, if that happens, that's
because people prefer it that
way.
But will they prefer to say,
"Oh, well, we'll give up
our overseas holidays.
We've no need to travel as much
because we want to reduce the
amount of noise in the
atmosphere and in the skies or,
indeed, the carbon dioxide that
we are wasting on traffic, on
transport that we don't need"?
That's the question.
Will we do it?
Do we care enough to do things
that we don't enjoy as obvious
improvements?
>> Hmm.
So, you know, you say,
"Will we care enough?"
and that we're facing a health
crisis right now.
That's true.
But of course, the climate
crisis is an existential crisis
for our species, as you have
said and many others have said.
And I found it really
interesting that today, on
Earth Day, Ipsos MORI, which is
a very, very reputable poll,
says two-thirds of the British
people believe that climate
change is as serious as
coronavirus, and the majority
want climate prioritized in the
economic recovery.
And I know that you have -- you
know, you have moved from being
just an observer and a lover of
nature to somebody who uses your
incredible voice and your
platform more as an activist and
telling people and warning them
about what's ahead.
I wonder what you think of the
younger generation, people who
are saying this about what
should happen in the future.
>> The heartening thing about
what you just described is that
young people, who are going to
inherit this earth, young people
have made it absolutely clear
how vigorously and vehemently
they feel about what is
happening to the planet.
And it is that, as in any
democratic society, our leaders
and our politicians to take that
seriously.
Before, 20 years ago, I don't
think the politicians did take
it seriously.
I thought they thought, "Oh,
well, you know, it's 20, 30, 40
years ahead, and we've got
urgent things to do tomorrow and
next week."
They didn't really take it
seriously.
But young people now are
insisting that they take it
seriously, and that has been the
major change, I think, in public
mood over the past few months.
>> What do you make of
Greta Thunberg?
I know that you have talked to
her, you have talked about her.
And she's been quite incredible
in terms of moving the dial.
>> She is incredibly well
informed.
She's also extremely modest.
I mean, she says over and over
again, "I'm not saying these
things.
It is science that's saying
these things.
And if we believe in science,
if we believe in knowledge, if
we believe in wisdom, we must
take notice of what they are
saying.
It's not me.
I'm in my teens.
I'm young.
But I do know, though I may not
know the facts about ecological
sophistications, but what I do
know is that the world is going
to be for me to live in for the
next 50 years or so."
And that's pretty powerful.
>> Let me just read a couple of
stats, because you started by
saying the world has changed a
huge amount since you were born,
since you were a young man.
You were young in the 1930s
when 66 percent of the world was
wilderness, and carbon dioxide
levels were only about 310 parts
per million.
When you started
your first "Blue Planet" in the
late '90s, wilderness was down
to 47 percent.
And now it is 25 percent,
barely 25 percent of our world.
So, in your lifetime, it's gone
from 66 percent wilderness to
25 percent.
And it's gone from, I don't
know, at that time, it must have
been about two billion on the
planet.
Now, it's, you know, seven-plus
billion on the planet.
And a lot of this disease, many
are saying, reputable
doctors are saying, is partly
because of overpopulation and
overfarming of these animals.
What do you say to that?
>> Well, it is not so much
overpopulation as dense
population.
The density of the population.
And epidemics are not new.
You know, there was the
Black Death a few centuries ago.
There was the Great Plague in
the 17th century,
in which people were dying in
huge numbers in the
conurbations, in the big --
well, I suppose they weren't
conurbations then, but they
were dense cities.
Certainly, London was a city in
which was -- there were over --
density of population was huge
and people were dying in great
numbers.
So, it's not new.
And anybody who knows anything
about keeping animals -- farmers
will know perfectly well, and
anybody else who looks after
living creatures -- if you keep
them in great densities, the
transmission of disease, once it
starts, goes like wildfire and
very difficult to control.
Well, we are living in huge
densities.
Homo sapiens has
increased in numbers, as you've
just said, over three times as
many as when I was making my
first programs.
It's extraordinary.
So, it is not surprising that,
in fact, we are getting the
comeuppance from that
point of view.
But it's not nature --
It's not nature having revenge
or anything like that.
It is a basic fact of life that
if you have huge densities of
population, you will get
diseases spread very swiftly in
them.
>> One of the -- well, your
latest film, "A Life On Our
Planet," was meant to have
premiered last week ahead of
Earth Day.
Because of this crisis, that
has been delayed.
What were you saying in that
documentary?
What were you saying about your
experience and how you've, you
know, watched these developments
and what legacy you want to
leave?
>> The filmmakers who suggested
it, pointed out to me that
actually I've had a film record,
I've been making films in the
wild, since the 1950s, early
1950s.
And before that, I have plenty
of memories of running in the
English countryside and looking
at birds and collecting fossils
and being aware of the natural
world.
And so, I had seen that change.
But I daresay I wouldn't have
recognized that change, and
we're not very good at
recognizing slow changes unless
it had, in fact, been recorded
on film.
And it's when I now
look at those films of lakes
covered in wildfowl of various
sorts and another that I
suddenly realize, "Yeah, that's
gone.
That's changed."
And it's that record which has
made it so vivid to me as to
what has been going on in my
lifetime.
>> And now, while
you're in lockdown, you are also
taking part in a BBC experiment
whereby a lot of you are
teaching young kids, and you
have decided to teach geography
for a while.
What are you telling the kids?
Why have you decided to jump
into this fray?
What's it like being an online
teacher?
>> Well, I can't pretend that
we're making special lessons, in
that sense.
But only this very afternoon,
I've been recording an
introduction in sound to
some of the films which I have
made in the past and which will
be brought out and be shown
again because they have a very
precise educational message in
them.
And so, I'm introducing them,
saying, "Look at this.
Look at the oceans.
Let's look at the ocean.
They covered two-thirds of the
world.
And they have creatures in
them that vary from this, that,
and the other.
And let me show you some of the
things that goes on and the way
it's all interconnected.
And then we will show sequences
from "Blue Planet" or, indeed,
other series which I have done
in the past.
And we are -- those are being
edited by people who are
specialists in learning by
television in order to convey
the messages that will be
helpful.
My commentary won't be changed.
Only my introductions will
be added.
>> I just want to end by saying
you do have some solutions and
you have talked about these --
make large no-fishing zones to
give stocks a chance to recover.
Reduce land farming by half --
humanity must eat less meat, you
believe -- and phase out fossil
fuels.
Of course, that's a huge
endeavor that, you know,
the world is trying to get to.
But I also just wonder, you're
93.
You say you can't go out even
to the park which is right
outside your door.
What is it like experiencing
this at this point?
>> Well, I'm embarrassingly
lucky.
I have a reasonably large
garden.
And I've walked -- but I've
walked 'round it more in the
past three weeks, I suppose, or
a month than I
have for years.
Because I've now walked it
closely, different plants of
which I'm particularly fond, the
way in which they are actually
developing.
Has that arum, big arum --
has that developed that
great spike yet?
So, every day I go 'round
hoping that I'm going to see
that particular change.
And of course, the weather's
been so lovely, the birds have
been so beautiful, that it's
such a consolation.
It's interesting, isn't it,
that doctors, the medical
profession, know very well now
that an appreciation of the
natural world and contact with
the natural world actually
brings huge benefits, huge
benefits in our peaces of mind
and our peace of mind.
Huge benefits in terms of --
of our happiness and our
relationship with the natural
world.
>> Well, boy, you have brought
that to such a massive global
audience, and we are all happy
at your films.
Thank you so much,
Sir David Attenborough, for
joining us on Earth Day at 50.
And up next, we will talk to
Governor Jay Inslee of
Washington State about how he's
managing these twin emergencies,
coronavirus and the climate.
But first, here's correspondent
Paula Newton with a closer look
at that animal kingdom and that
natural world that Sir David has
just talked about.
They are loving our lockdown.
[ Horns honking ]
>> Horns.
Engines.
[ Train whistle blows ]
Train whistles.
[ Indistinct talking ]
People out and about.
The background sounds of
everyday life gone quiet.
With coronavirus
shelter-in-place orders around
the globe,
it is turning the tables on
human norms.
Animals are filling up the
empty spaces.
From wild deer traipsing
through the streets of Japan, to
lions lounging across the
streets usually traversed by
cars in Kruger National Park, to
herds of goats in Wales
helping themselves to
neighborhood bushes and flower
beds.
The animal kingdom is, for now,
reclaiming spaces normally
occupied by people.
[ Birds chirping ]
And no, it's not your
imagination --
birds do sound louder,
a phenomenon that some experts
say comes in part from birds
being less stressed by human
sounds,
causing them to congregate in
larger numbers and more easily
communicate with each other.
[ Birds chirping ]
>> [ Speaking native language ]
>> The birds are more relaxed.
They are not trying to get away
from cars, from the crowds of
people, even the heart of the
city itself.
>> And in Thailand, researchers
say there's a baby boom as sea
turtle nests are at a 20-year
high thanks to the absence of
people walking in the sand where
these endangered species lay
their eggs.
But some animals are noticing
the void left by their human
counterparts.
Monkeys like these, used to
tourists feeding them on a daily
basis, swarm over a little bit
of food left behind.
And for the great apes and
giraffes and other wildlife used
to putting on a daily show in
their zoological homes, some
workers say they're now playing
the part of tourist to alleviate
signs of sadness they notice
from the animals, who still move
like clockwork each day to the
very spot they used to interact
with spectators who are no
longer coming to the parks.
But as spring blooms in much of
the Northern Hemisphere, the
quieter, gentler atmosphere may
be beneficial if only for a
short time.
Bears are waking from
hibernation a bit more free to
explore.
Newborn ducklings, baby
elephants and the like, emerging
into the world at a time when
the Earth is vibrating just a
little bit less and turning just
a little more slowly.
>> It's really a beautiful
reminder of what could be.
And we turn now to the
United States, which together
with China are the world's
biggest polluters.
Let's not forget that Earth Day
began in the United States 50
years ago after a major oil
spill off California.
Back then, it was not riven by
partisan politics like it is
today.
Indeed, Republican president
Richard Nixon created the EPA,
the Environmental Protection
Agency.
50 years later,
Democrat Jay Inslee ran for
president with climate at the
heart of his campaign.
And as the current governor of
Washington State, he saw the
first cases of coronavirus
appear in America.
And the governor is joining me
right now from Olympia in
Washington.
Governor Inslee, welcome to the
program.
I just want to ask you,
you know, on this climate day, I
want to start with the climate
because you were really out
there running for president on a
climate platform.
Just your observations on this
50th anniversary, how far we
have come, how far we have to
go.
>> Well, listen, I know these
are hard times but there is
big things to celebrate today.
We can celebrate that not even
COVID-19 can steal the voice of
David Attenborough.
He is an international
treasure.
And I'm so delighted to know --
I thought I was maybe
hallucinating that the birds are
so much louder now.
That's now been confirmed by
David Attenborough.
It's actually good news.
We have good news that we
continue to have tremendous
achievements in building a
clean-energy economy.
And I think this Earth Day is a
day to celebrate the potential
of restarting our international
economy by building a
clean-energy economy that can
put millions of people to work,
cause massive reinvestment,
which our economy is going to
need so desperately as we come
out of this pandemic.
At the same time, we're
building a new economy that
cannot destroy the planet.
And I believe we're going to be
able to do that.
I believe the United States is
going to regain its leadership
position in the international
community.
We've got a great candidate,
Joe Biden, to do that.
So, I think there's a lot to
celebrate.
And I want to give a shout-out
to the guy who started this, who
is a Washingtonian.
His name is Denis Hayes, a good
friend of mine, with
Senator Gaylord Nelson.
And he is still around and a
vigorous advocate for these
measures.
And we are making progress in
our state, where we have a plan
to decarbonize our economy,
and I'm very proud of the work
we are doing.
>> Let me just ask you, do you
remember where you were
April 22, 1970, when the first
Earth Day happened?
>> I was on my favorite planet,
somewhere on Earth, and that's
as much as I remember, to be
honest with you.
But I was fairly early to this
endeavor.
I got started in this effort in
1972 when I studied
environmental issues, and I went
to Stockholm, Sweden, and I
studied -- we did a research
project comparing the energy
policies of Stockholm to
Seattle, Washington, and we went
to the very first United Nations
conference on the environment in
Stockholm in 1972.
And so I've been at this for a
long time,
and the lessons I learned way,
way back 49 years ago were still
the ones we're working on today,
which is you can embrace new
technologies and you can reduce
the impact on the environment
while still maintaining a really
high quality of life.
Those lessons have been good
for 49 years.
And every year, we improve our
ability to do that.
We just need the will to do
that.
And I can tell you from the
United States, I think that is
growing dramatically on this
50th anniversary.
It certainly is in my state,
where we have passed the best
energy efficiency laws in the
United States and the most
aggressive decarbonization laws
for energy electrical grid and
some really good policies on
transportation.
So, what's happening in my
state, I'm very happy about.
We've got more work to do.
So, I look at today, with all of
our challenges, that it is a day
for celebration.
>> So, let me just quickly ask
you because it is also political
now.
In the introduction, I
mentioned that it's a
hyperpartisan issue and that
the first EPA creator was a
Republican president.
And during the last, you know,
decades, the world, you all did
manage to cure the ozone layer,
cure the hole in the ozone layer
by a very simple, sustained
appeal to get rid of CFCs.
If you could do it then, what
is the problem now?
>> Well, it is a great
conundrum and a bit of a
mystery.
You know, the first head of the
Environmental Protection Agency
was a Washingtonian,
Bill Ruckelshaus, who worked for
Richard Nixon in that regard.
So, we have had good Republican
leadership in decades gone by,
and, unfortunately, it has
disappeared.
It's a great void.
And we're looking for the day
again when this becomes a
bipartisan effort.
But while we are waiting, and
we cannot wait for the
evolutionary process to
evolve -- the Republican Party
to produce some leaders --
we have to act.
And frankly, that means by
electing people who will act in
the presidential race here in
the United States this next
year.
I think we will have the
greatest contrast of someone who
has ignored science, who has
been deceiving or trying to
deceive Americans about the
science of climate change, and
has been an abysmal failure
trying the protect the health of
Americans.
But we have another candidate
who has introduced the first
bill on climate change in the
United States Senate.
It was either 1986 or 1988, and
most importantly, was very
successful in helping rebuild
our economy, after the last
collapse, in the Recovery Act,
and Joe Biden led the effort
that built $90 billion worth of
infrastructure and created
3.3 million jobs in America.
And I think we are going to
have a really great race, and I
believe the person who is an
optimist is going to win that,
and that is when American
leadership will begin to be
restored.
>> Okay, so you have endorsed
Joe Biden clearly enough
for all the reasons that you
have just laid out and more,
probably.
But what I want to ask you is
this, because, clearly, the
United States, like the rest of
the world, is in a deep economic
hole right now because of
coronavirus, the halting of the
global economy, and, as always,
the poorest and the most
vulnerable are going to be the
biggest losers.
At the moment, while all these,
you know, disaster relief bills,
for want of a better word, go
through Congress, we also see
the White House and the
president trying to bail out
fossil-fuel companies and all
the rest of it
and also conduct a major --
undercover -- under cover of
coronavirus -- assault on EPA
regulations and clean air and
water and mercury and all those
things are happening right now.
How is that going to be
reversed,
and do you think you can get
what the U.N.
secretary-general's calling
for -- proper resources, you
know, into the recovery bills
for the climate?
>> Well, we should be as
ambitious and insistent with the
United States Congress as
possible.
And the reason is, is that this
is a twofer.
Any investment in clean-energy
technology to give Americans a
shot -- including those who are
most economically challenged --
at a good job building good
technology to help provide
better health, any dollar that
we invest in this is both a
dollar to help Americans' health
and a dollar to give a boost to
the economy.
And I will tell you, I think
that the right metaphor to think
about on what we have to do to
restore, really, the
international economy and, at
least, the American economy is
the thought of what we did
to get out of the Depression.
And I think that we have to
think grandly in that scheme.
And frankly, the only thing
that got America out of the
Depression are the investments
associated with defeating
fascism.
And that investment is what got
us out of the Great Depression.
And so that level, that scale
of ambition, I believe, is
necessary, and we have -- clean
energy is not the only thing we
need in America.
We need a new transportation
infrastructure.
We need new utilities.
Our sewers and pipes are
eroding like crazy.
So, clean energy is one of the
things we do, but it is a thing
that will have the most
long-lasting impact, and it has
the greatest job-creating
opportunity.
A dollar in clean energy
creates more jobs than any other
sector of our economy.
So, we need to look at this
through a lens of long-term
health and short-term economic
gain.
This is a no-brainer.
I hope Congress will do it now,
but if the president is an
unmovable object, he will just
have to be removed from office,
and we'll get on with the
people's business in January.
>> The attorney general -- the
attorney general, Barr,
William Barr, has said that the
Justice Department is
considering legal
action against governors who are
too slow to reopen their state,
and he's prepared to act
against state and local
officials.
I mean, could you find yourself
in a bind?
We see these protests, even in
Washington State, against the
lockdown.
We know that you, last night,
made a speech in which you
described turning the dial, not
flipping a switch, in terms of
getting the economy back
together.
What do you make of this threat
from the Justice Department?
>> It's what I make of
a lot of what comes out of that
administration, which is a bunch
of baloney that won't take
place.
Look, we have seen Donald Trump
in court, at last check, I think
26 times.
So, we have been involved in
litigation with him 26 times,
and we have beat him 26 times.
So, I am confident that,
under the American system of
democracy, we reserve the rights
to the states that are not
abrogated to Congress.
This is a right that is
reserved.
And Republicans and Democrats,
governors, both are doing some
good work trying to save the
health of their citizens.
It is unfortunate that this
administration has chosen, as
they have on climate change, to
ignore science, to ignore
epidemiology, to ignore his own
physicians who had told the
president that we should not be
releasing these restrictions
right now because we're not
ready to do so.
And I have always wondered
where we will reach the bottom
with this president,
but we're getting close to it
when, after his own order said
that the conditions do not exist
to go back to normal yet, his
own guidelines, the next day he
went out and tried to get people
to ignore the laws of our
states.
So I think Republicans and
Democrat governors are united
that this is a decision -- the
people who put on these orders
are the only ones who can take
them off.
And they're going to do it
making some really hard
judgments.
And these are hard judgments.
Look, these are hard times.
People are suffering
economically.
We get that.
But we're going to make
decisions that are good for our
people.
And I think Mr. Barr can -- he
can just take
care of some other problems.
>> I see you're being
diplomatic there.
>> I'm trying to be very
diplomatic.
[ Laughs ]
>> Yeah, yeah, you were.
You were.
You hold -- you held it in.
>> Thank you.
>> But here's the thing.
The president has also pitted
the federal government against
the states,
and there's this whole
hullabaloo about who's
responsible for what.
But he's just had a
meeting with
Governor Andrew Cuomo in which
they seem to have
resolved something about federal
and state responsibilities,
different responsibilities for
the testing situation.
But, also, he said that, in
fact, there should be more
stimulus for the states.
And he also said that,
actually, that's something that
both Republicans and Democrats
support.
But this is what McConnell
said, who's the leader of the
Senate, that there would be no
bailouts for states.
Let me just play this for you.
So is there a left hand and
a right hand there that's not
quite clear about what's
happening?
Or do you believe McConnell, or
do you believe the president
when he says that there needs to
be more stimulus, more help for
the states?
>> Well, I have seen a
remarkable bipartisan approach
from the governors, Republicans
and Democrats, all whose
economies have been hammered,
and all whose people desperately
need additional services from
their states.
And Republicans and Democrat
governors both have been very
adamant with the president --
and I have been on multiple
calls with them -- that our
states are not going to be able
to provide the services that our
people need in this emergency
unless they get some emergency
help from the U.S. Congress.
So this is not a moment where
ideology should prevent us from
getting health care to our
people or housing to our people
or foodstuffs to our people.
These are basic necessities
that are jeopardized by
Mitch McConnell and the
president's apparent position
on this.
I don't understand this,
because even the Republican
governors get this.
I think this is the difference
between people who really have
responsibility for the health of
their citizens -- and those are
governors -- and Republican
senators, who want to make this
some kind of ideological
argument.
This is not a moment for
ideology about the proper role
of government.
This is an argument about
whether people are going to have
food to eat in our states.
So, I'm hopeful that the
Congress will act on this on a
bipartisan basis.
>> Can I ask you, in the last
minute or so that we have left,
about the next big challenge?
And that is the election in
November, in terms of the
procedures.
You, Washington State, is one
of only five, I believe, that
does all your elections by
mail-in, by ballot.
Do you think -- I mean, it's
clearly a model.
It's clearly the kind of reform
that may need to be enacted now
to protect the integrity or the
possibility of an election in
November.
Are you concerned?
Do you see any problems with
Republicans who have said
that -- have shown themselves to
be reluctant for this kind of
reform?
What do you think needs to
happen now?
>> Well, I would very much
encourage people across the
country to look at our
experience, to look at Oregon's
experience, with all mail-in
ballot.
It has been fantastic.
It is easy, it is safe.
And safety is very important
now.
When people have to vote, in
some sense you have to risk
your health to go vote and stand
in a line next to people,
sometimes for hours.
This system has had virtually
no fraud, no glitches.
It has been very efficient -- so
efficient, I actually paid for
stamps to get free postage out
of my emergency account last
year because it's so popular.
People really like it.
And when you do this, you get
more people who do vote because
it's so easy to vote.
So I highly recommend the
experience.
Now, what we are up against,
unfortunately -- and it's sad to
say this, but we have a lot of
people in one of our parties
that don't like more people
voting.
I don't think that's an
American approach -- or an
English approach, for that
matter.
In a democracy, we ought
to make it so that people can
vote.
They don't like that
because, when more people vote,
sometimes their candidates
don't win.
Well, that's something you got
to get over.
And so I'm really hopeful that
this can expand.
It should be the law of the
land.
I believe Congress should act
itself to create more federal
standards on voting, so we can't
have pockets where local
officials try to suppress the
vote of certain groups.
And we know that's going on in
our country, and that needs to
end.
>> Well, we will be certainly
watching that.
Governor Jay Inslee, thank you
so much.
We wish your state the best
with this corona epidemic.
And we wish you the best with
the climate as well.
Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
Wash your hands.
>> Our next guest...
[ Laughs ] I always do.
Our next guest once called the
United States the "indispensable
nation" when it comes to leading
global action,
yet President Trump has shown
no interest in this role.
As the first female U.S.
secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright spent her
career using
the power of American diplomacy
to solve international crises.
Our Walter Isaacson spoke to
her about the urgent need for a
return to that model, which she
lays out in her new book, "Hell
and Other Destinations: A
21st-Century Memoir."
>> Secretary Albright, thank
you so much for joining us.
>> It's great to be with you,
Walter.
Really looking forward to this.
>> Thank you.
This coronavirus has caused an
immune reaction, you could call
it, around the world,
and that immune reaction is to
retreat towards tribalism, to
retreat towards nationalism.
Why is that happening?
>> One of the things that I
have talked about is that there
have been two megatrends and
their downsides.
So, one megatrend has been
globalization, there's no
question.
And many of us have benefited
from that.
The downside of it is, is that
it's faceless,
and people are looking for
their identities.
And there's nothing wrong with
really wanting to know who you
are and where you come from and
all that, but if my identity
hates your identity, then it
leads to hypernationalism, and
that is very, very dangerous.
So we have seen more of that
recently due to the
facelessness, but now
exacerbated also by the fact
that we are, theoretically,
trying to fight a common enemy,
whereas we are behaving as if
viruses don't -- you know,
viruses don't understand
borders.
They are all over the place.
>> Even before this crisis, we
were seeing the rise
of authoritarian leadership from
Turkey, maybe all the way around
the globe.
Why did that happen,
and who stands out for you in
that regard?
>> Well, I think that it
happened because we have not
handled the role of technology
in our society very well.
And you and I, Walter, have
spent so much time in the past
talking about what happened to
the social contract, whether
people that are part of a
country where the government is
supposed to provide them with a
certain amount of living
standards, the government
doesn't live up to its
responsibilities, and the people
don't live up to their
responsibilities.
And so I think we have been in
an era where technology was
misunderstood, where societies
are divided by where they get
their news.
And so then you find leaders
who are -- take advantage of it,
who are opportunists, and then
create their societies according
to that.
Viktor Orbán is one of them.
Erdogan in Turkey is another,
Duterte in the Philippines.
And we have seen it in a
variety of places.
And I think that trying to
divide society rather than try
to find common answers is one
of the steps towards
authoritarianism.
>> What do you feel about
China's response to the virus,
whether they were transparent
and open enough?
>> I do think, Walter, that the
Chinese are going to have to
answer for a lot of issues to do
with where this all came from
and when they said what.
But what I'm very concerned
about now is, while we have to
look into that, we really have
to figure out how we move in the
future and what the plans are.
And given that it is true that
we're interconnected, we are
actually very dependent on the
Chinese supply chains and how we
operate together.
And I was recently asked, what
would happen if the Chinese came
up first with a vaccine?
Would we say we wouldn't deal
with it because it was Chinese?
And so I think we have to
figure out how they ultimately
take responsibility for this,
but, at the moment, I think we
need to look for paths where we
can cooperate to resolve this
crisis.
>> How did you feel about
America and the Trump
administration pulling out
funding for the WHO?
>> Well, I think it is so
counterproductive.
We can't do anything if we're
not at the table.
And by blaming the WHO and
saying that we're not going to
contribute, we are contributing
to one of the mechanisms for
dealing with the issue of the
virus.
And so it is basically
counterproductive in every
single way, lowers our
influence, and just makes it
clearer that the U.S.
is AWOL in a number of
different ways of trying to
resolve what are the really big
problems of the 21st century.
>> Is the criticism of the WHO,
which is that they were soft on
China in the very beginning,
valid?
And do you think some of the
steps that Trump has taken might
be appropriate because of that?
>> First of all, we have to
remember that the WHO is the
United Nations organization
based on support by the nation
states.
And I think that, like every
part of the U.N., I think there
are questions about it.
I have said, now, people and
institutions in their 70s need a
little refurbishing, and the
U.N. has a 75th anniversary
right now.
And I think people should look
into the governance of various
parts of it.
There are lots of questions
about how the Security Council
is operating and the
General Assembly.
And I do think that the
secretary-general is also being
questioned about what he's
doing.
So, I do think it's worth
looking at.
But the point that I wanted to
make was, if there are issues,
then by the United States
deciding that we are not going
to do our part, that we are
backing off in terms of paying
some of the -- there's the
required funding and also
voluntary funding -- we will not
have the influence that we need
to have to make changes.
And I had the -- a similar
experience when I went to the
U.N. was that the U.S.
was behind on paying some of
our peacekeeping bills, and then
Congress unilaterally decided
that we would pay less.
And so I didn't have the kind
of leverage that I needed to
push for certain kind of reform,
leaving the British, our best
friends, to deliver a line they
had been waiting
for over 200 years to say, was,
representation without taxation,
because you just don't have the
leverage.
So I think it was
counterproductive, generally --
counterproductive in terms of
what we might want from the WHO,
counterproductive in terms of
how we resolve what is a
terribly difficult problem.
>> One of the issues that
requires cooperation is fighting
global pandemics.
And, to me, it's been
surprising that this has
weakened international
organizations, this pandemic.
Do you think, coming out of
this coronavirus, we may relearn
the importance of having good
international organizations?
>> I hope so.
And I know it's a cliché to say
that every crisis is basically
an opportunity, is to really see
that the only way to resolve
this is by dealing with others.
So, one of the parts we haven't
even dealt with yet is, what is
going to happen in the
developing world as the pandemic
hits them full strength, because
they don't have the
infrastructure to deal with it
or they don't have water to
drink, much less to wash their
hands in, or their living
conditions?
And so these kinds of issues
can only be solved by
partnership.
>> The coronavirus crisis has
obviously dominated the news and
international affairs.
But do you think there's
something that's important
that's being overlooked at this
time?
>> I think an awful lot is
being overlooked, frankly.
I am worried about what the
Russians are up to.
They -- We are dealing, in
Putin, with a former KGB officer
who has played a weak hand very,
very well, and especially in the
Middle East, where we haven't
paid any attention to the kinds
of things that are going on in
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia,
the whole aspect of the
Middle East.
And then what the Russians are
doing to separate us from our
allies in Europe, and their
behavior, just generally, having
launched an antisatellite
missile and various things.
I think what I'm most worried
about, though, is -- to go back
to something -- is China.
I mean, China -- I don't know
how many meetings, Walter, I
have been in with you where we
have talked about the rising
China and all the various
aspects of that.
And I think that they are, when
they -- when we're AWOL, they
know how to fill the vacuum,
and I think we have to be very
careful about that.
I'm troubled by the things that
they are doing in the South and
East China Sea, taking advantage
of the fact that we are diverted
at the moment.
And then the fact that we're
not paying to so -- paying
attention to so many other
problems in the world, and they
require attention and require
our understanding.
So, there's a lot that we're
not paying attention to.
>> From your very childhood,
leaving what was then
Czechoslovakia, spending days of
World War II in England with the
Blitz happening, and there's so
many other things that have
happened to you.
Compare this crisis and the
need for resilience to other
things you have been through.
>> I was a child during
World War II.
We were in London during the
Blitz.
And it was very clear in -- at
the time how my parents were
coping by being resilient.
And a statement that I have
said about them is that they
made the abnormal seem normal.
But resiliency was very
important.
And the similarity, Walter, at
the moment, is that they, or the
people of England, had no
control over bombs being dropped
from the sky.
They only had control over
their own behavior, their mood.
And I think we, as
ordinary citizens, don't have
control over the virus, but we
do have control over our
behavior, whether we follow the
guidelines, how we approach
this.
Do we see it as something that
has to be dealt with, and not
something that we -- that our
mood doesn't make a difference?
Resiliency.
I do think resiliency is kind
of the common theme here.
>> One of the things that
surprises me as well is that
resiliency was part of every
other crisis we faced.
It's what happened in
England during World War II.
And yet, in America, we have
polarized so much even this
coronavirus.
Even whether or not there would
be herd immunity, or even
whether or not we should keep a
lockdown on for two more weeks
becomes a partisan issue.
Why is that?
>> Well, I have been so
troubled and dispirited, even
though I'm trying to control my
mood, about the divisions that
are being created on purpose for
political reasons.
I have been -- I am a political
scientist.
And I kind of love to study how
governments operate and
decision-making.
And the American system is
endlessly fascinating.
The Constitution is fascinating.
People forget that the first
article of the Constitution is
about the power of Congress,
and only the second one is
about executive power.
But I think that what is
happening is, because we, I
think, waited too long to deal
with the virus, then you get
into blame-placing.
And that creates automatic
divisions between the federal
government and the states and
the governors, or blaming the
mayors, or -- it's a blame game
instead of a solution-finding
operation.
And it has been totally
politicized, I do think, by the
president of the United States,
which I find very, very sad.
And I have been asked whether I
think he's -- you know, doesn't
believe in America.
I think he's un-American
because he doesn't understand
our value system and
only propagates the divisions
rather than trying to figure out
how we find solutions together.
>> You have written a new book,
which is just coming out, about
your life since being secretary
of state.
And one of the many things you
write about is organizing a
group of what you could call
Madeleine and her exes, meaning
former foreign ministers who you
dealt with, to keep meeting each
year.
And I think you met a couple
years ago in Versailles.
Then you took them to
Kansas City this past year.
You went from the home of
Louis the XIV -- who said,
"L'état, c'est moi," meaning, "I
am the state, I'm in charge, I
run everything" -- to the home
of Harry Truman, who had a sense
of humility that comes from
being the president.
Is that one of the lessons you
feel we should apply today?
>> I think definitely, because
here was a person that had risen
to this incredible job through a
variety of ways, having served
in the military and had a shop,
and then he was very political.
But I think the best thing
about him was
he took responsibility.
And one of the things that we
saw there was the original sign
that said, "The buck stops
here," which he had on his desk
because he knew that being
president of the United States
ultimately meant that you --
that you had responsibility, and
that you worked with others.
So, there are all kinds of
lessons from Harry Truman.
I have to say, he was my first
American president.
We came to the United States
November 11, 1948.
And he had just been elected in
his own right.
And so I followed his life and
the way he talks and what he
did.
But his clarity and
responsibility is something that
I think stands out especially.
>> You write that, when you
read about an international
crisis, you reflexively insert
your name in place of the
current secretary of state and
think about what you might be
doing in this situation.
So, let me ask you, what would
you be doing now if you were
secretary of state?
>> Well, it does make me seem
very self-centered,
but I am interested in what the
secretary of state's role is and
how it works.
I think that I would actually
be doing much more to reach out
to those that we have to work
with, the partners, and really
try to work and do kind of a
whole-of-government, from the
perspective of the
United States because the
secretary of state, with the
national security adviser, can
set the agenda and bring in
other parts of their
governments, as well as --
meaning foreigners -- that want
us to deal with, which would be
trying to figure out how the
intelligence community works
together.
But I think that we're not
taking advantage enough of the
foreign-policy capabilities of
the State Department, because,
in fact, the State Department
has been kind of weakened in a
number of ways by the number of
people that have left or have
been asked to leave, and by the
funding of it.
So I don't know what the
current secretary is doing in
terms of trying to help the
funding, trying to, in fact,
work with others abroad.
I think he's done some travel,
but it's unclear what he's
doing.
>> You're famous for writing a
book about those pins that you
wear.
In fact, it even became a
traveling exhibition, where your
pins went on displays in museums
around the country.
What's that pin you're wearing
today?
>> My father was with the
Czechoslovak government in
exile,
and his job was to broadcast
over BBC into Czechoslovakia.
And he was on BBC all the time.
And I was a little girl,
and I listened to BBC,
and I know the following thing,
which is every broadcast opened
with the notes, the opening
notes, of Beethoven's Fifth --
♪ Dah-dah-dah-dum
And, in Morse code, that is
"victory."
And so I thought a "V" for
"victory" against the virus
would be something that is
appropriate for today and also a
reference back to my book.
>> Secretary Madeleine Albright,
thank you so much for
joining us this evening,
and stay well.
>> And you too, Walter.
Good to have this with you.
Thank you.
>> And, finally, coronavirus is
causing some major cities to
reimagine and rethink the way
they're run.
Milan is set to introduce a new
scheme to cut the number of cars
on the streets after lockdown.
35 kilometers of roads will be
transformed into cycle paths and
walking space.
The Northern Italian city has
been hit hard by the outbreak,
and it's one of Europe's most
polluted cities,
but under lockdown, air
pollution has plummeted, as
we've said,
leaving blue skies.
So let's hope it's a plan
other cities can follow as we
all strive for a cleaner,
greener future.
And that's it for our program
tonight.
Remember, you can always follow
me and the show on Twitter.
Thanks for watching
"Amanpour & Co." on PBS,
and join us again
tomorrow night.
