Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Journalists Honored for Courageous Work; Should the U.S. End Its Cuba Embargo?; Imagine a World
Aired November 27, 2014 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST (voice-over): Tonight: where lies rule and the truth seekers under attack. We focus on the unprecedented war on
journalists, from terrorism to censorship and oppression, stories of courage from the front lines.
Plus: Havana calling as pressure grows on the United States to lift its half-century embargo against Cuba.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.
As journalists, our job is to give the public an accurate picture of the world as it is, no matter the danger, and to hold those in power to account
for their actions. My beleaguered guest tonight says that he is always guided by what the late Czech dissident turned president, Vaclav Havel used
to say, that in a society where lies rule, every piece of truth becomes opposition.
But this year, more than ever, the duty to pursue that truth has put journalists in the line of fire. In danger of kidnap and execution, in
Syria and Iraq and under threat of repression and arrest from governments of all kinds around the world.
James Foley was the first journalist this year to be killed by the brutal executioners of ISIS for simply seeking the truth of the desperate
situation in Syria. In New York this week, his parents, Diane and John, received a standing ovation at the annual gala of the Committee to Protect
Journalists as they honored their son for his sacrifice.
According to the CPJ's own tally, 42 journalists have been killed this year alone. And 211 were jailed over the past year. Earlier, I spoke to two
courageous journalists, whose search for truth has led to danger and sacrifice. The Iranian, Siamak Ghaderi, has only just been released from
prison after serving four years and 60 lashes for, quote, "creating public anxiety."
His real crime? Reporting on the controversial 2009 Iranian election and exposing one of the lies of then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claimed
that Iran has no homosexuals. I also spoke to Mikhail Zygar, who, in the face of draconian laws and intimidation, and the heavy hand of the Russian state sanctioned
propaganda, is struggling every day to keep Russia's only independent television on the air.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Gentlemen, thank you both for joining me. Congratulations to both of you on winning these prestigious awards.
How difficult is it in a nutshell to work as a journalist in Russia today, as an independent journalist?
MIKHAIL ZYGAR, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, TV RAIN: The biggest challenge for Russian journalists is a financial pressure, probably authorities are trying to
affect independent journalism with.
AMANPOUR: By trying to get you off the air by putting financial burdens on?
ZYGAR: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Is that's what's happening to Doge (ph) TV, RAIN TV, your channel?
ZYGAR: Absolutely. We have no problems with any kind of official authorities. We have problem with the owner of our studio, who is -- who
has already managed to force us out. And we are now working in temporary studio and I don't know how long we'll be able to work there.
And we have a problem with a new law that bans us from having any advertising from the new year.
AMANPOUR: So this new law bans you from having advertising. It also bans many external television stations, like CNN and others.
What is that going to mean for diversity of opinion in Russia?
Doesn't it narrow the bandwidth for journalism there?
Isn't it all state run?
ZYGAR: Unfortunately it's already very narrow. And imagine that seems like if you have, for example, 10 or 15 TV channels in the United States
and all of them were just like past years, very passionate, very full of hatred, but that's just the same version of the -- of the coverage.
AMANPOUR: Let me turn to you, Siamak. Mikhail is talking about a lot of financial pressure against independent journalists in Russia.
You, though, were sent to jail.
SIAMAK GHADERI, CPJ (through translator): We do have financial pressures and financial issues in Iran as well.
But unfortunately, what they demand from us as journalists in Iran is, in a way, for us to align ourselves with the general and overall politics and
ideology and politics of the regime and the government.
AMANPOUR: Can you tell me, Siamak, what it was that got you in trouble and that got you a sentence of four years in jail -- and I think 60 or 80
lashes?
GHADERI (through translator): I also was punished for participating in the protests in the country. And I also wrote a piece about homosexuals in
Iran and that's why I was convicted to be lashed 60 times.
AMANPOUR: And what was it that you wrote about Iranian gays? Because we all remember and will play a little bit of the sound bite by President
Ahmadinejad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, FORMER IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country.
(LAUGHTER)
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): We don't have that in our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GHADERI (through translator): But of course this was a certain lie, the same agency that I was working for, IRNA, had had actually reported on the
issue of homosexuals in Iran and Mr. Ahmadinejad certainly had access to these reports.
What I wrote is that because of social pressures that you put on homosexuals, you may not see them in the real world; however, you cannot
make them disappear from the virtual world and they're active there.
AMANPOUR: Is it possible to practice honest journalism in Iran today?
GHADERI (through translator): The Iranian journalists are active and they are writing; however, they pay a price for their activities. And a big
part of journalism today actually happens behind bars and in prisons.
AMANPOUR: Mikhail, let me turn to you.
What was it that started getting you into trouble?
ZYGAR: The real reason was that we always tried to be more or less normalty (sic) channel. We never tried to become opposition one and to be
-- attack Putin --
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: So you're not the opposition, the voice of the opposition?
ZYGAR: No. We've always tried to be neutral and to give floor to representatives of all points of view and have as well pro-Putin, united
Russia party or his opponents from all of the specter (sic) --
AMANPOUR: So then why do they want to close you down?
ZYGAR: Probably we touched those topics which are not frequent on state- run TV channels.
AMANPOUR: Like?
ZYGAR: Like anti-corruption investigations performed by alty (ph) channel. We know that many people even in Kremlin think that we do very important
job for Russian civil society.
But some of them probably were infuriated by our coverage of Ukrainian revolution and, for instance, this year we are -- we happen to be the only
TV channel to work both in Kiev and Donetsk and to have journalists in both areas, in Kiev and Donetsk.
And we are criticized from both sides, from Russian side, because we are blamed to be pro-Ukrainian. And in Ukraine, we are blamed to be pro-Putin.
That means that we're doing something right, probably. But that makes our life a bit more difficult.
AMANPOUR: Can you still continue to work, especially after being here in the United States, after being awarded -- is this attention good for you?
Or does it make it more dangerous for you?
ZYGAR: First of all, Russian society's poisoned with anti-Americanism and that's a huge problem for Russia because, for instance, couple of years
ago, when we saw huge mass protest rallies in Moscow, we had a sense that the Russian civil society wants its rights, wants free election.
But now it seems like the agenda is different. Now thanks to state propaganda, people are more obsessed with some external enemy. Many people
really believe that all the problems that we have are not because of wrong policy of our government.
Our problem is because of new Cold War, because of American conspiracy. And that's why we really need to fight this perception, to fight this idea
of new Cold War and this conspiracy, because that threatens us.
AMANPOUR: What was the worst thing about being in prison?
GHADERI (through translator): In the prisons of the Islamic republic, all the rights of the individual, from this state and from the time that they
are accused until they are actually given a verdict is ignored. And this, on its own, is torture.
In the precinct of the intelligence ministry, I was held there for nine months with my eyes closed. They had wrapped something about my eyes. And
that was a very, very bad experience for me. They also shoved my head into a toilet and they beat me up. That also happened.
AMANPOUR: It's a very, very tough price that many of you pay for trying to tell the truth.
Siamak Ghaderi, thank you very much for being with us.
And Mikhail Zygar, thank you very much indeed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Another nation that faces constant criticism for oppressing the free press and any sort of political opposition is Cuba, with 19
journalists forced into exile since 2008. But is one way to encourage change and openness on that island lifting the 50-year U.S. economic
embargo? The powerful "New York Times" thinks so. And it's waging a campaign to persuade Congress.
We ask why -- next.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.
The economic blockade of Cuba by the United States is one of the longest standing sanctions regimes in the world. It began in the Cold War in 1960
and it was triggered by the rise to power of Fidel Castro, who cast his lot with the Soviet Union.
It limits travel and bans trade, but is it time to dismantle this embargo and reestablish formal relations again? An important American newspaper of
record, "The New York Times," believes so and in an unprecedented series of editorials, they've been making the case to do more and that has enraged
opponents in the U.S. Congress.
From Havana, I spoke to Ernesto Londono, who is there for the first time in 10 years, writing and researching these editorials.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Ernesto Londono, thank you so much for joining me from Havana.
ERNESTO LONDONO, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Happy to be with you.
AMANPOUR: Can you tell us why "The New York Times" has put its immense prestige to the incredible campaign to try to get American policy towards
Cuba changed?
LONDONO: Christiane, "The New York Times" has long seen the embargo as a failed policy. However, in the past, we've written about it as a policy
that was unlikely to be changed because politically it was just too complicated for American presidents.
I think we've entered a new era and I think the months ahead represent an opportunity for the Obama administration to take a pretty bold move and to
move this relationship in a direction that I think the president himself has long wanted to take it.
I think reforms in Cuba and the political landscape in the United States offer the right conditions for this relationship to move on a healthier
trajectory, for the two countries, for instance, to think about resuming formal diplomatic relations.
AMANPOUR: What's in it for the U.S.?
Why do they need to do it?
LONDONO: There's a number of things. Perhaps most importantly the United States has found itself diplomatically very isolated in the hemisphere.
Cuba keeps coming up in any number of issues that they want to engage on with countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Central America.
Every time there's a diplomatic forum, every time there's a regional effort underway, a lot of these -- a lot of these countries are telling the United
States we disagree vehemently with your policy in Cuba and Cuba becomes the thorn that stymies many things the U.S. would like to try to do.
Beyond that, if you look at the purpose of the policy we've pursued for 50 years, the purpose has been to try to undermine and bring about democratic
change in Cuba through punitive measures. We have five decades to -- of evidence that that policy does not work.
We've seen other countries start engaging with Cuba differently; most interestingly, European countries, that have started talking to Havana
about broader cooperation and in those talks they've been able to put human rights and greater personal freedoms on the table.
Those countries are cautiously optimistic that engagement rather than keeping Cuba at arm's length is the right mechanism to start bringing about
the kind of changes that the United States and its Western allies have long wanted to see here.
AMANPOUR: Ernesto, you're absolutely right; this 50-year embargo has not created regime change, which is what the United States wanted. On the
other hand, that engagement with Europe, with Canada, has also not brought Cuba actually to fundamental shift in its political or other human rights
policy.
Look, even now, Human Rights Watch is reminding everybody that it still remains a very repressive regime and you know better than I do that there
is a lot of opposition in the United States Congress, even amongst Democrats, mostly from Cuban Americans.
Let me put this little bit of a speech from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, or the outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Robert Menendez.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D), N.J.: Fidel and Raul Castro have been the only names on any ballot for over 50 years. Not one free election has been
held. Not one Cuban has been allowed to own their own company. Not one legitimate trade union has been allowed to be organized. Not one peaceful
protest has occurred without being brutally squashed (sic) by the regime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ernesto, you've heard all that before.
Is "The New York Times" saying that actually we should lift the embargo and engage without these conditions?
In other words, without Cuba stepping up to human rights norms and the like?
LONDONO: Christiane, what we're saying is that deeper engagement and mechanisms through which we can empower ordinary Cubans offer the greatest
hope for positive change in the island. The Cuban government has undertaken a number of really significant economic reforms. There is a
small and limited private sector that is cropping up.
And for the first time in a very long time, it's given Cubans an opportunity to start building livelihoods that are somewhat separate from
the state, where the state does not have absolute control over their livelihoods.
This has been a very complicated process. It's been a very fraught process. But it's also been a process that has been hindered by the
network of sanctions that the United States keeps in place.
If you were to start dialing it back, these sanctions, and if you were to start making it easier, for example, for the Cuban diaspora in the United
States to invest more easily in companies in Cuba, to help their relatives here establish businesses, I think it would only strengthen the phenomenon
we're seeing right now, whereby Cubans are able to start employing people in the private sector, are able to start forming their own businesses and
eventually become powerful in and of themselves without depending entirely on the state for their social standing, for their economic well-being.
AMANPOUR: Ernesto, you are in Cuba and I think it's the first time you've been there in at least a decade.
What are you noticing?
What is the government saying?
Does the government want this policy to end?
Is it ready to have normalized relations with the United States?
LONDONO: Christiane, I've yet to have conversations with senior Cuban officials here but conversations I've had in recent weeks indicate that
they very much want to start a new relationship with the United States. You see far less vitriolic rhetoric from the Cuban government, from the
Cuban state media toward the United States.
We've stopped seeing the kind of demonstrations in front of the U.S. diplomatic mission here. So I think they've sent an unmistakable signal
that they want to turn a new page.
The question is whether in doing so, they're also willing to offer concessions; for example, freedom of assembly, greater freedom of the
press, things of those nature -- things of that nature that I think would make this a lot easier politically for the Obama administration. So far,
we haven't really seen those overtures from the Cuban government. And I think many in the United States would welcome them.
AMANPOUR: Ernesto, we have seen what happens to U.S. politicians when they try to lighten up a little bit on Cuba. You remember the election campaign
of 2000; Al Gore was trying to toe what Bill Clinton was trying to say, which was a little bit more of a rational policy.
There was a whole debate over that young boy, Elian Gonzalez and the Clinton administration thought he should go back to Cuba. There was a
fierce firestorm. And let's face it, Al Gore lost Florida, the Cuban vote; Bush won with a much more hardline view on Cuba.
Is that still going to hamper American politicians?
LONDONO: Christiane, the politics of this remain a concern. They remain a concern for the administration. However, I would tell you there's been a
sea change when you look at the electorate in South Florida and the Cuban American electorate writ large.
I think you have the older generation that left here in the early '60s, who feel very, very strongly still and to them it's very personal that any
concessions to the Cuban regime would be untenable and unfair and unreasonable and something they can't back.
However, you start seeing a significant shift when you look at the younger generations of Cuban Americans, people who came to the United States after
living under the embargo in Cuba for years.
And people who have regular contact with the island, who sometimes, you know, come back and forth more easily, still maintain close contact with
relatives here, start seeing the potential for change here and really want their lives to straddle both countries.
Hillary Clinton, former Florida governor Charlie Crist have staked out pretty different positions on Cuba; they've both described the embargo as a
failed policy and I think both of them have studied the electorate clearly and wouldn't have taken those positions if the voting trends didn't really
reflect a very significant change.
AMANPOUR: Ernest Londono, thank you so much for joining us. Very clearly that 50-year embargo has been a failed policy and the question is, where
does America and Cuba go next? Thanks so much for joining us from Havana.
LONDONO: Thanks for having me. It was a pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now perhaps another sign that things are changing between Cuba and the United States can be better expressed in song.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Yes, the musical, "Rent," is coming to Havana, the first Broadway musical to be staged there in 50 years after U.S. produced
musicals were banned by Fidel Castro. And after a break, imagine a world where an act of charity becomes a criminal matter. More on that when we
come back.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, on this day of Thanksgiving here in the United States, where families share a traditional meal of turkey and pecan
pie, imagine a world where a charitable act, like feeding the homeless and the hungry becomes a crime.
It is, indeed, a sad commentary on our times and our priorities, and it's highlighted by the case of 90-year-old Arnold Abbott. He's a World War II
veteran in Florida, who's been handed citations by the police for setting up a soup kitchen for the needy in a public park. Authorities there say
that he's breaking a new law that says feeding centers can't be within 500 feet of residential property and violators can face up to 60 days in jail
and a $500 fine.
But this type of food distribution is proving increasingly necessary. A survey right here in New York found that one in six city residents over 1.4
million people are living in food insecure households. Simply put, they do not know where their next meal is coming from. So maybe today is the day
to give thanks for people like Arnold Abbott, who are trying their best to help them find the meals they need.
And that's it for our program tonight. We wish everyone around the world celebrating Thanksgiving a very happy day. Remember you can always see the
show at amanpour.com, and follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Thank you for watching and goodbye from New York.
END
