Return to Transcripts main page


U.S. NTSB Investigating Train Derailment in Washington; President Trump Unveils "America First" Security Strategy; Atlanta's Airport Blackout; Amtrak Train Dangling On To The Highway, Multiple Fatalities; South Africa's Ruling Party Elects New Leader; UK Parliament Debates Libya Slavery; Prince Harry Interviews Obama For BBC Radio. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired December 18, 2017 - 15:00   ET


[15:00:00] (MUSIC PLAYING)

HANNAH VAUGHAN JONES, CNN HOST: Hello and welcome. I'm Hannah Vaughan Jones, in for Hala Gorani all week. And we are following two major

breaking stories for you this hour.

Just minutes ago, President Trump outlined his new America first strategy on national security. We will get you the very latest on that.

But first, we head over to the U.S. West Coast, where we bring you breaking news out of the U.S. state of Washington. A passenger train is currently

dangling over a major highway after derailing on Monday morning, spilling onto the cars below.

Authorities say multiple people inside the train were killed. At least 77 people have been taken to hospitals locally. Here is the train conductor's

emergency call just after the crash.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amtrak 501, emergency, emergency, emergency. We are on the ground.

We are on the bridge (INAUDIBLE).


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the freeway. We need EMS. It looks like they're already starting to show up.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amtrak 501 answering, (INAUDIBLE), over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey guys, what happened?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were coming around the corner to take the bridge over I-5 there, right north into Nisqually and we went on the ground.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Are you -- is everybody OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm still figuring that out. We got cars everywhere and down onto the highway.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As soon as I know exactly where all my train is, I will let you know.


JONES: Terrifying audio there. It all happened about 80 kilometers south of Seattle near a small city called Dupont during the morning rush hour.

U.S. President Donald Trump spoke about it in just the last hour.


DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let me begin by expressing our deepest sympathies and most heartfelt prayers for the

victims of the train derailment in Washington State.

We are closely monitoring the situation and coordinating with local authorities. It is all the more reason why we must start immediately

fixing the infrastructure of the United States.


JONES: President Trump there.

The U.S. Transportation Safety Board is sending a team of 20 people to investigate the crash. We just heard from one official with the NTSB.

Take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The NTSB is launching a go team to Dupont, Washington, to investigate the derailment of Amtrak train number 501,

which occurred this morning.

Before I continue, we would like to all express our deepest condolences to the family and friends and all of those affected by this tragic accident.

The NTSB team will be led by Ted Turpin (ph), who will serve as investigator in charge. He is accompanied by NTSB staff with expertise in

the following areas: operations, mechanical, track, signals, human performance and survival factors.

Also accompanying the team are members of the NTSB's Office of Transportation Disaster Assistance or TDA and the Office of Media


This accident meets the criteria of the Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act. Our TDA specialists are already working closely with

officials at the scene locally as well as with Amtrak to assist them in their efforts to support all of those who have been affected by this


Several of our investigators on the West Coast will be arriving on scene this afternoon. The rest of our go team expects to arrive at the scene

late tonight.


JONES: So investigators are on their way. Authorities so far saying that all of the deaths in this crash were contained to the train itself. Paul

Vercammen is following the story from our Los Angeles bureau for us.

Paul, I know that the details are still very sketchy right now but talk us through what we know about the casualties, the types of injuries they may

have and the number of people on this train in the first place. That might give us some idea as to who was hurt.

PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Hannah. Well, this was the inaugural run of the 501 Cascades line going from Seattle to Portland.

From what we understand, I've heard two numbers here, between 70 and 78 people on board. That might explain what you were talking about earlier

when they said 77 were rushed to local medical centers.

I have been in touch with some of those medical centers. They say the injuries are --


VERCAMMEN: -- a range of things; a lot of fractures. You can understand this because, as you know, there are no seat belts on this train.

Also the U.S. Army has jumped in to help start treating people. Madigan (ph) Army Center, which has taken in trauma victims from overseas wars, is

not too far north to this. And they are treating at least 20 of the patients. They say about half and half; 10 are serious or so and stable

and another batch are stable and fair.

As for the fatalities, an extremely difficult number for the authorities to nail down right now. They have said multiple.

Does that mean multiple, as in three to 10?

Not sure yet. One thing though that's clear, this is fascinating. Despite these horrendous pictures, Hannah, they say there have not been any

fatalities on the freeway there. That's Interstate 5. They say no one was killed when the train went off the track and hit cars below it.

They say the fatalities were all on the train itself. So perhaps a slight bit of silver lining there. And maybe that will keep that number of

fatalities in line and lower than originally forecast -- Hannah.

JONES: If that is the case, that would be truly miraculous. Paul, thanks so much. I know you will update as soon as you get any more details about

casualties and fatalities in this horrific crash. Paul, thank you.

CNN transportation analyst Mary Schiavo is a former inspector general of the U.S. Transportation Department and joins me now.

Mary, we have seen horrific images, aerial shots as well of this derailment, audio from inside the train carriage itself.

From those initial images and sounds, what's your assessment of what happened here?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: Well, because of the position of the cars on the ground -- and there is an engine on the ground, too -- so

there was obviously an engine at both the front and rear of this train, that engine, a very heavy piece of equipment, has been spun around, is

perpendicular to the track and the number of cars off the rail, strewn about like leaves in the wind.

Speed played a factor here. There had been a lot of criticism of the starting of this train, of this line. Local officials said they did not

think the track could take a high speed train. And it's really not a high speed train. It's not like a Shinkansen or a Japanese bullet train.

But for the U.S. trains, it was faster. And that's what they wanted, was faster service. But there was a lot of criticism that there were too many

sharp curves or dramatic curves, as the one the train was attempting to negotiate when it came off the track, that they didn't think was sufficient

for a high-speed train. Amtrak said they tested it.

That is true, they did test. But how they tested, if they tested with a fully train component like here, several cars, front and end engines,

that's not known.

JONES: You say it wasn't a high-speed train by that margin of error.

But how fast are we talking here?

SCHIAVO: Seventy-nine miles an hour is what the track was rated for. But this curve, at this particular point, to me, 79 miles is very -- is a lot

of speed for that kind of a curve.

And also, it's not just the -- it's not just the curve. It's the component of the cars, where the weight is distributed.

You know, physics is a funny thing. You change one little distribution of the weight and, on a curve, the centrifugal forces go completely out of

balance. So I think that the NTSB, as soon as they get the black boxes, will have a good idea whether or not the train actually faced any

obstructions on the track or if the rails were out of line or if this is a case where the pre-inaugural run of this train, while they may have tested

it, they didn't test it sufficiently enough. And this was just too great of speed for a curve like this.

JONES: That's what's going to be so interesting, the fact that this was the inaugural run and there were potentially warnings about it in advance.

Mary, we appreciate your analysis. Thanks so much, Mary Schiavo there.

Let's bring in CNN's Rene Marsh now. Rene is in Washington, D.C., for us on the other coast.

Rene, the NTSB are on their way there. It's some hours on a flight just to get to Washington State.

What will they look for first off when they get there?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. So it's going to be a team of 20 NTSB members, which is a relatively large team. They consider this a

major incident. They will be looking for a number of things.

Once they get on the ground, they're going to first want to collect any perishable evidence. Then they will want to do interviews with passengers,

especially interviews with the crew that was on board. That will be paramount.

They will want to get the train's recorders because that will hold some detailed information, everything from the speed of the train, when the

brakes were applied, all of that critical information for them to piece this all together. They will also have a team inspecting the tracks --


MARSH: -- as well as the signals to make sure that those things were working. So once they get there, they will all fan out. Of course, not to

be forgotten, there will be a human performance team. That team will really be zeroed in on the crew.

They will be asking the crew a wide variety of questions, everything from how much sleep they got the night before, what time they showed up to work,

any medications they may be on, just a wide range of questions to get a feel as to whether there was any human element here, any human error, that

may have contributed to this.

JONES: Rene, thanks so much. Rene Marsh live for us there in Washington, D.C. Thanks for staying across the story.

We will turn to the other breaking news story we have for you this hour, a busy hour ahead indeed, saying weakness is the surest path to conflict.

Donald Trump is unveiling a new national security strategy that he says will bring about peace through strength.

The U.S. president just wrapped up a speech in Washington, his new strategy is based on his America first doctrine. Mr. Trump says it recognizes that

there's a new era of competition on the world stage.

He says the United States will seek cooperation with rivals but warns it will stand up for itself, quote, "like never before."


TRUMP: We face rogue regimes that threaten the United States and our allies. We face terrorist organizations, transnational criminal networks

and others who spread violence and evil around the globe.

We also face rival powers, Russia and China, that seek to challenge American influence, values and wealth. We will attempt to build a great

partnership with those and other countries. But in a manner that always protects our national interest.


JONES: President Trump there. Let's bring in our reporters, live on the story for you tonight. Matt Rivers is in Beijing and Nic Robertson is in


Matt, to you first. I didn't hear him specifically call out China in his speech. It's there in the doctrine, the fact that he now, having spent the

best part of a year trying to make friends with China, he very much sees them as a competitor.

How is that going to go down then in Beijing?

MATT RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, probably not that well. Certainly not well privately. Publically, we will have to wait until the sun rises

here in Beijing to get a formal reaction publically.

You're right; he didn't really call out China that much in that speech he gave. The speech is really an executive summary of this document. The

document itself, quite frankly, calls out China in a major way, in a way that goes far beyond what we saw in the last time a national security

strategy document was released.

That was in 2015 during the Obama administration. In this document, they talk about China and Russia, for that matter, contesting the U.S.

geopolitical advantages and trying to change the international order in their favor.

They go down a litany of issues when it comes to China. They have issue with China expanding their military, including challenging commercial trade

routes in the South China Sea. They talk about how China is trying to expand their political influence by investing money in infrastructure

projects around the world, including in Africa.

They reaffirmed their support for Taiwan, well, the United States under the Trump administration reaffirms the U.S. support for Taiwan. And they also,

talking about trade, they go into detail about intellectual property theft, allegedly committed by the Chinese government over the years.

This is really a strong document from the Trump administration when it comes specifically to China, calling out the Chinese government in a way

that the Obama administration didn't do really back in 2015.

JONES: Nic Robertson is in Moscow for us.

Nic, over the past couple of days, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have shared a couple of phone calls, very friendly phone calls. And

interestingly, in President Trump's speech, just in the last hour, he didn't call out what is perhaps arguably at least the biggest threat to

U.S. national security right now and that is Russia undermining American democracy.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: This has been a characteristic of his administration and the relationship, the poor

relationship that he's having with his intelligence services, who have one view and most of the key officials around him have one view about Russia's

role in this hacking and meddling in the U.S. elections last year.

Yet President Trump doesn't seem to respond to that. We saw a reflection of that today, when he talked about the role that he sees Russia and China

playing in the world in the future.

He then almost in the same breath went ahead and said, yes, but we can have great partnerships where it's in our national interest and then started

talking about the phone call that he had with President Putin this weekend, where President --


ROBERTSON: -- Putin had thanked him and thanked the CIA for providing timely information that led to the arrest of a group of terrorists under

the direction of ISIS who were going to launch an attack in St. Petersburg at the weekend.

Now President Trump said this information may have saved thousands of lives. We know this is a narrative where President Trump and President

Putin agree. They both say that this combining of working together in their own national interests, in the joint national interests, to thwart

global terrorism is a good thing.

And this is exactly what President Trump was saying here. So rather than take strong shots at Russia and some of the other areas of concern, the

cyber issues were kind of laid off way somewhere else in the speech, not aimed specifically at Russia and, really, again, reaching out with a warm

handshake in that speech with President Putin.

JONES: Fascinating stuff. My thanks to both of you gentlemen. Nic Robertson in Moscow and Matt Rivers in Beijing. Thank you.

We will continue talking about this story, about Mr. Trump's tough words on China and Russia and Pakistan and many others as well. I'm joined now by

Jamie Metzl. a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He is a former executive vice president of The Asia Society and also served on the U.S.

National Security Council during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Jamie, thank so much for joining us here on CNN this evening. So throughout that speech from President Trump, it was very much America first

and America strong. Peace through strength delivered by military might.

How does that sit?

JAMIE METZL, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Well, it's great for America to be strong. And American strength has been an underpinning of global peace, security

and stability for the past 70-plus years.

But if it's just America first and just America strong and it's not connected to what has been, for many, many decades, America's vision of a

broader sense of peace, security and stability that brings everybody in, where America supports international law, international institutions, where

American soft power sets norms for other countries to emulate, then American power is really not that meaningful.

We will become another force in a global balance of power. And we know from the 19th and early 20th centuries, where the balance of power

structure and where this overreliance on national sovereignty leads.

Unfortunately, that destination is destruction or has been destruction and war. So I hope that -- definitely it's great for America to be strong.

But America needs to play a role of envisioning a better world for everyone.

JONES: Jamie, just stand by for a second because the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has also just weighed now in on President Trump's speech and

his national security strategy. He has issued a statement. I just want to read part of it to you now.

He says, quote, "Whether the threats are rogue nations seeking nuclear weapons, terrorists plotting to attack our homeland or malicious cyber

actors seeking to damage and destabilize our critical systems and infrastructure, we must remain vigilant against those who would do harm to

our people and our way of life.

"President Trump's new national security brings to bear all elements of American power, to protect our people, generate new economic opportunities

and advance our interests and our democratic principles."

The overriding theme there, Jamie, from what Rex Tillerson has said and also from what the president said as well is that the focus of this

administration is not so much on cooperation with other nations. It's on competition with other nations.

METZL: We live in a very competitive, dangerous world. And we always have.

The question is, what is the right role for the United States in that world?

If we are just another country competing in -- and insert name of your country first -- balance of power, dog-eat-dog world, we can do that. As a

matter of fact, the United States can do that very effectively.

But the issue is, what happens to the world?

The reason we have the world as we have, the reason that we have these multi -- these international institutions and concepts of international

law, the reasons why the United States has this strong alliance system, why we have partner organizations like NATO, why we support the U.N., isn't

that we are altruists.

It's that we learned the lessons of the first two World Wars and recognized that it's only by pooling sovereignty and addressing the problem, the

scourge of nationalism, that we can build a better world for everyone.

And the United States obviously can't be played by other countries. And certainly that world isn't perfect. But by stepping away from America's

international obligation, by using this overheated rhetoric around national sovereignty, without articulating the way the world can work for everyone,

I think it's a very dangerous step that the United States is taking.

But having said that, there are some very good points in the --


METZL: -- national security strategy. It's absolutely true the United States needs to be tougher on China, needs to be tougher on Russia, needs

to do a better job of supporting its interests. But if that's taken outside of context, the proper context, that can be very dangerous, not

just for the United States but for everyone.

JONES: OK. We talked a lot about the content of the strategy of the speech as well. I'm wondering now, your reaction to the tone and the

delivery, as someone who has no doubt been an observer of national security strategy announcements over the years.

What did you make of Mr. Trump's performance?

METZL: Well, Donald Trump is a very flawed deliverer of any kind of message on U.S. national security. And when he is delivering a speech

about strategy, when, who knows what the origin of all of these tweets have been that have been very destabilizing around the world by many accounts --

I certainly believe that -- it makes it -- there's a fundamental mismatch between often some of the words -- and I don't believe that Donald Trump

wrote all or any of the national security strategy or, frankly, all or any of the speech that he just gave.

So there's the words. And there's the behavior. So if we believe what Trump has articulated, that the United States needs to be stronger by being

tougher on China and Russia, well, contrast that to the actual behavior of sucking up to Putin, of undermining the investigation of Russia's

interference in the U.S. democratic process or all of the things that he said about Xi Jinping and not advancing America's interests, not advancing

America's trade interests, not promoting international law or human rights.

If he believes, as he says, as is said in the national security strategy, that the United States has to strengthen our diplomacy and support

international institutions, then that fundamentally conflicts with what we've seen in all of the actions or many of the actions of this

administration to date and the gutting of the State Department and U.S. diplomacy.

If he believes, as he has stated, that America is leading, then we need to see evidence of that leadership and returning to the best values of the

United States, which, unfortunately, are under threat, both internationally and at home.

JONES: All right. Well, we will wait to see if there's any more substance in the 70-page I believe documents of this national security strategy.

Jamie Metzl, thanks so much for joining us here on CNN this evening. We appreciate it.

METZL: My pleasure.

Still to come, on HALA GORANI TONIGHT, after 11 hours in the dark, the power is back on at the world's busiest airport. But the nightmare is not

over for thousands of people, still trying to get on flights during what is, of course, the busy holiday season.




JONES: Now to the world's busiest airport, which is just beginning to recover from a crippling weekend power outage, an electrical fire plunged

Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson Airport --


JONES: -- into darkness for about 11 hours on Sunday. The resulting chaos grounded flights, stranded thousands of passengers and disrupted air

traffic for the entire U.S.

Flights are now resuming, now that the power is back on. But the backlog will take quite some time to untangle. Our Martin Savidge joins us now

from Hartsfield Jackson Airport.

Martin, how are things running right now?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The airport's -- I was going to say fully functional. There have been a few hiccups, electricity wise, we've

heard of. But for the most part, it is operating the way the airport used to operate before they had the power outage.

But look at this. The lines are down dramatically. That's obviously a very good sign. And the on-time departure schedule, at least for Delta

Airlines, which is the major carrier out of here, that's actually on the rise. So that all looks very good.

I should point out that does not mean that things are back to normal here, not by a long shot. They do have a lot of problems primarily because they

had so many tens of thousands of people that didn't make their flights yesterday. And then you have got on any given day, 270,000 people going

through this airport.

So they're all trying to get on airplanes today. And you can see why there is a real overcrowding situation with that because this is the peak of the

holiday travel season. So logistically, they have still got some major hurdles to overcome. But they've made it through the day. And it steadily

has been improving.

The question mark in a lot of people's minds is, how does an airport, the busiest in the world, suffer a power outage that goes on for over 11 hours?

And for the most part, many passengers report they were not only inconvenienced, they were downright frightened because they really didn't

get any sense that those that were in the airport yesterday as officials knew what they were doing or even knew what to tell the passengers where to

go or what to do next.

They truly felt they were in the dark in many, many ways -- Hannah.

JONES: And of course, another big question, coming up to Christmas time, as well, the busiest time of the year presumably for that airport, how do

they prevent it happening again?

SAVIDGE: That is a good point because the City of Atlanta has come forward and said, all right, it was an electrical fire. That's what caused

this. We did have a backup plan but, unfortunately, the fire occurred in the area where apparently the backup wires come in.

Well, that doesn't sound like a backup to anything in the minds of many experts, who look at these problems. And they also talk about, well, where

was the other backup generation power?

So yes, naturally, people are going to be skittish as they move through this major airport. You always believe that this airport would function

just fine. Then you find out that, with a fire and an electrical outage for 11 hours, it didn't function at all. And that really shocks a lot of


JONES: Martin Savidge, live for us at Hartsfield Jackson Airport in Atlanta, Martin, thank you.

Still to come on the program tonight, South Africa looks to its future. We will take you to Johannesburg and the ANC's crucial vote results.

And of course we'll have more on our top story, that terrible train derailment in Washington State. The latest details are coming up after

this break.


JONES: Returning now to our top story, a train derailment in the US state of Washington. A team of federal investigators are heading to the scene

after the train went off its tracks on Monday morning, south of Seattle, and some of its cars landing on a major highway below.

Well, authorities say multiple people inside the train were killed and 77 people are known to be taken to hospitals. The Amtrak train was on its

first journey on a new service route.

Joining me now by phone is Russ Quimby. Russ is a former railroad safety investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board. Russ, the NTSB

investigators are, as you say, on their way to the scene. From the images and the video that you've seen so far, what's your assessment of what

happened here?

RUSS QUIMBY, FORMER NTSB RAILROAD SAFETY INVESTIGATOR: I used to hate people would say things like that without getting a look at the evidence,

but just looking at the aerial views and based on my experience, this looks to me like an overspeed accident.

The track is relatively undisturbed under the derailed equipment. The lead locomotive unit, you can see the video - the pictures of it, is now down

alongside the roadway. And it's to the outside of the curve where it looks like the initial equipment is also. And that would indicate that the train

came off the curve and going too fast.

JONES: Russ, I was speaking to a guest earlier, an expert saying that the speed of the train - I think she said it was 79 miles per hour. Is that

your opinion simply too fast, especially on this curve in the track?

QUIMBY: When they say 79 miles an hour, I think that was the overall top speed of the train for a tangent or straight track. I understand there was

a 30 mile an hour speed restriction for this curve, just like on a highway where you slow down for curves. This train does the same thing. And the

train may not have slowed down apparently.

JONES: It was the inaugural run as well on this new track as well. Presumably, that's going to be a focus of this investigation going forward,

whether the track was safe, whether the train was safe, whether the speed was too much. There's a lot for them to get to grips with.

QUIMBY: They're going to look at the equipment, they're going to look at the track, they're going to look at human performance or unperformance,

this committee (ph). There will be all kinds of factors, signaling and things of that nature.

JONES: Do you think then that human error could be largely to blame for this?

QUIMBY: Well, usually, the human error is somewhere in everything, even if there's track or equipment. Usually, the human failure is somewhere.

Whether it's more just an operational failure of overspeed, in this particular case, that's what the investigation will have to find out.

JONES: Russ, we really appreciate you talking to us here on HALA GORANI TONIGHT. Russ Quimby there for the - a former investigator for the

National Transportation Safety Board. Russ, thank you.

Let's turn to some other news now. South Africa's ruling African National Congress has a new party chief.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Comrade Cyril Ramaphosa as the new president of the African National Congress.


JONES: The country's deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa, won a bitterly fought race and this puts him in a strong position to become South Africa's

next leader. Ramaphosa takes over the party leadership from the country's current embattled president, Jacob Zuma. He's been mired in corruption

scandals and many think he could be pushed out of the presidency early.

CNN's David McKenzie spent the day at the ANC party conference, joins me now live from Johannesburg. David, there were jubilant scenes when

Ramaphosa's name was called, but it was a very, very tight race.

DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was tight, Hannah. Less than 200 votes decided this monumental decision that was taken by these - just under

5,000 delegates of the ruling ANC.

And their decision is important because it does put Cyril Ramaphosa in the position of the party president. That could mean that he is the next

president of this country based on past precedent by 2019, but even possibly sooner than this.

And it was really a referendum on Jacob Zuma, the embattled outgoing ANC president who has faced countless, it seems, allegations of corruption over

the years.

[15:35:14] There was this extraordinary moment before the announcement was made when Jacob Zuma had to shuffle off the stage along with the rest of

the ANC leadership ahead of that announcement.

Now, Cyril Ramaphosa will be the leader of the party, but the other leadership that was announced has kind of split down the middle in terms of

factions. So, he might have a little bit of trouble accelerating the reforms and the combat on corruption that he wants to in the short term.

But it is a victory for a man that the markets and at least some in South Africa wanted to see. Hannah?

JONES: Both Ramaphosa and Zuma, both anti-apartheid strugglers, they're fighters there. Presumably, their relationship is - they have a long

history together on the political scene as well. But what's their personal relationship like and could that determine Zuma's future.

MCKENZIE: Well, I think it's more about where the center of power lies than the personal relationship between the two, which must be frosty on

some level because in the lead up to this vote, Cyril Ramaphosa was openly criticizing the levels of corruption and speaking about specific issues

that are linked to Jacob Zuma.

But because the power of the Liberation Party that runs this country is centered around that committee that he now leads, because you have a

president of the country and of the party that are two different people, you're always going to have the possibility of the president of the country

being pushed out.

Now, Zuma, because he is so under strain by all these possible court cases, that will give Ramaphosa and other the ammunition possibly to push him yet.

But it's too early to tell at this point.

There was a collective sigh of relief by, I think, the business community and others in South Africa, though disappointed that the possible woman

president of ANC didn't materialize, and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma certainly will be disappointed that she didn't get that top spot.

And many will point that there is only one woman in that executive group up within the ANC, which they'll certainly be disappointed about. Hannah?

JONES: David McKenzie live in Johannesburg, thank you. Well, staying with this story, and Cyril Ramaphosa is a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle

and pitched himself as a reform candidate.

A journalist, Redi Tlhabi, joins me now live from Johannesburg. Redi, good to have you on the program. Do you think that Ramaphosa's election is now

going to usher in quickly a new era in South African politics?

REDI TLHABI, JOURNALIST: I doubt that very, very much. I can tell you right now, I don't think that Cyril Ramaphosa is popping that champagne

yet. In fact, I spoke to one of his campaign advisors who said that the outcome has been a bit of a nightmare.

What do I mean by that? David has just told us that this is not an election for the presidency of the ANC. There are other officials. We

call them the top six. The deputy president, the secretary general, the treasurer, and all of that.

The best-case scenario for any winning candidate is that he or she wins together with his preferred leadership. But this time around, it really is

split down the middle.

Cyril Ramaphosa has won, but 50 percent of that committee is made up of staunch Zuma supporters, people who have protected him, people who have not

wanted him to be prosecuted for his alleged crimes.

So, they are unlikely to just step back and give Cyril Ramaphosa the control that he needs, then latitude to implement those reforms that he has

been talking about.

So, yes, he very well may have won, but I think that Cyril Ramaphosa is a very anxious man tonight.

JONES: Redi, what many international observers might be curious about is why it's assumed that the ANC leader then becomes the South African

president. Is there no opposition - or active opposition in South African politics?

TLHABI: Well, that is that the opposition. But the way our electoral system is designed is that we vote for a political party. We don't vote

directly for the president, much to our exasperation, because of that was the case, then I can tell you now, without a shadow of a doubt, that Jacob

Zuma would not have survived even the first term. He wouldn't have prevailed.

But we don't vote for an individual to be president of the country. We vote for a party. And the person that that party chooses then

automatically becomes the president of the republic.

So, this time around, it is expected that if the ANC wins the elections, which are scheduled to take place in 2019, then Cyril Ramaphosa will be the


But the irony of it, or perhaps the dysfunction of it, is that the majority of the population, the electorate, does not really have a say on who

becomes the president. It is ANC delegates made up of about 5,000 people, 5,000 people out of millions of people throughout the country.

[15:40:09] So, we don't choose the president directly. We choose the party. The party has chosen its leader. And automatically, that person

will be the president.

JONES: You talked about Jacob Zuma being very unpopular at the moment; these corruption scandals having engulfed his entire presidency. What will

be his future now? Is it assumed that he will have secured some kind of community, diplomatic immunity from prosecution if his term as president is

to be cut short?

TLHABI: Well, that is not provided for in our constitution. If the national prosecuting authority actually decides to prosecute him, there's

nothing that is party can do.

What has been happening is that these state institutions, like the prosecuting authority, have been weakened. In other words, Jacob Zuma has

appointed people who are favorable to him, who are not going ahead and prosecuting him.

But maybe the Cyril Ramaphosa era will usher in independent prosecutors who will just look at the merits of the case and just go for it.

But I must say that Jacob Zuma has really battered the soul of South Africa. It has been the most scandal-prone presidency posts 1994, which is

the year of our democracy. He has run roughshod over our constitution.

He has been found wanting. He has lost one court case often another. And I will only say that these are traits that are unbecoming of the president.

Many of us cannot wait to see the back of him.

JONES: Redi, it's always good to get your perspective on events in South Africa. Redi Tlhabi live for us there in Johannesburg. Thank you.

Now, still to come tonight, scenes like these have shocked the world and now the world is speaking out. We have the latest as Britain's parliament

debates slavery in Libya, revealed in CNN's exclusive reporting.


JONES: Awful, atrocious, treated worse than animals, some of the words used today in Britain's parliament as the issue of slave auctions in Libya

was debated.

It all came about after 265,000 people signed a petition over the issue. Here is what one lawmaker had to say.


PAUL SCULLY, BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: As I said, it was when Nima Elbagir from CNN reported in a groundbreaking report with - it was those

pictures that really brought this to home to so many people in the West.

What they actually filmed, they had heard from their contact that there were two auctions going on at the same time. Now, some people in the

Libyan government will actually tell you that, oh, no, this is only happening sporadically.

Well, on this occasion, there were two going on at the same time. And the one that they actually filmed was an overflow auction because there were so

many people to be sold.

And there's also a big buyer in town that wanted to buy people. Remember the words I'm saying, buy people as commodity, as merchandise for work on

their farms. It is atrocious.

And as I'm speaking, I'm sort of reflecting on the actual words that are being used here.


[15:45:08] JONES: Well, as you heard there from Paul Scully, all of this sparked by CNN's exclusive reporting. Here is just part of what our Nima

Elbagir discovered.



Four hundred, seven hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred. The numbers roll in. These men are sold for 1,200 Libyan pounds, $400 apiece. You are

watching an auction of human beings.


JONES: Well, I spoke about this issue a short time ago with Alistair Burt, a foreign office minister in the UK government, and I began by asking him

what the British government could actually do to stop Libyan slavery.


ALISTAIR BURT, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE MINISTER: It's quite difficult and is not just a question of pressure. Part of what we would want to do to

resolve the awful slavery that we saw so graphically illustrated by your news program is trying a variety of ways to prevent the problem occurring

by working to prevent people migrating further north, to provide support for people to divert them from their past, to provide humanitarian support.

But in addition to that, recognizing that the problem is as it is to give every support to Libyan authorities in order to encourage them to tackle

the problem on their doorstep.

The foreign secretary spoke to Prime Minister Sarraj recently. I spoke to deputy prime minister as well to encourage their enforcement authorities to

take action and we are supporting, through the UN, efforts to deal further with modern slavery, which has become a scourge of our time.

So, it's a question of finding the mechanisms to prevent the problem, but also deal with the practicalities of the horrors. And that can only be

done with physical enforcement by authorities prepared to take action in Libya against those who are running the trade.

JONES: Mr. Burt, were you aware of this human slave trade happening before CNN reported exclusively on it? Was it on the British government's radar

at all?

BURT: Modern slavery, certainly was. And we didn't have the same proof as your report was able to demonstrate. But I'm afraid, abuses of those who

have been in detention have been known for some time, but I have not seen the conditions that the film so graphically illustrated until the film came


But, certainly, abuses of those in detention have certainly been on the UK government's mind for some time and we have been supporting action to try

and deal with that.

JONES: The UK has a mixed, shall we say, history in terms of intervention in Libya in recent years. With that in mind, would that somehow mean you

are slightly more in trepidation of taking action that might upset the Libyan government in interfering in their domestic affairs?

BURT: Well, certainly, the Libyan government has got to make its own decisions. We are working very hard through UN Special Representative

Ghassan Salame on the political stability that needs to be there in Libya in order for them to take all the law enforcement action they need to

ensure that society works effectively and deal with the criminal gangs that are involved in the smuggling, the detention and now, as can be seen, the

slavery. That's a criminal action.

I don't think in any way we are constrained from working with others in the international community to give all sorts of support to the Libyan

authorities to deal with this.

No one is suggesting that external powers, like the United Kingdom, get physically involved against the wishes of the Libyan government, so we work

with them.

JONES: With that in mind then, are you confident that the Libyan government is capable of bringing the culprits of this, this slave trade to


BURT: I don't know the answer to your question. They've set up a commission to look into this. I'm sure the intention is absolutely there.

We have that from the prime minister. I have that from the deputy prime minister that I saw in Rome just a couple of weeks ago. I think the

intention is clearly there.

But no one should mistake the depth of what we're dealing with. This is a multibillion pound industry. It's reckoned that the trade of human

trafficking now is worth about 150 billion pounds a year.

These are professional, armed criminal gangs. They will not be dealt with by a stroke of the legislative pen. They would only be dealt with by

determined enforcement action.

Now, at the moment, the issue in Libya, of course, is as they still work to get an effective government together, that is much harder. But that's

where the international community has to work together.

[15:50:03] Recent work by the EU, by the African Union, by the United Nations altogether makes clear the determination that everyone has got.

But getting political stability in Libya will be a key part of this. And then, we've all got to support the law-enforcement action and the sanctions

that are prepared to be taken against those who commit such atrocities, which is part of the UN program.


JONES: Alistair Burt there, UK foreign office minister, speaking to me earlier.

Still to come on the program this evening, Prince Harry tries his hand at doing the news and he's landed a pretty big interview first time out.


JONES: Welcome back. Prince Harry is pulling out all the stops for his upcoming radio editor slot. He'll be chatting with former US President

Barack Obama. Their bromance was on full view when the British royal interviewed Mr. Obama in September for the BBC.

Kensington Palace released this snippet of the two warming up.



PRINCE HARRY: No, not at all.

OBAMA: OK. Do I need the British accent?

PRINCE HARRY: If you start - if you start using long pauses between answers, you're probably going to get - the face.

OBAMA: Are you - let me see the face. Oh, OK. Do you guys have sound? Do you guys -?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're sounding great.

OBAMA: You're all good?


PRINCE HARRY: We're excited about this.

OBAMA: This is fun. I'll interview you if you want.



JONES: Well, the BBC is to broadcast the full interview on December 27. History professor and CNN royal commentator Kate Williams is with me now in

the studio.

Kate, it's the ultimate bromance, isn't it? Not a bad gig to get with your first guest. Prince Harry, though, he seemed to be nervous. In my mind,

he seemed quite nervous. Do you think it was because of his interviewee or because he's having to play the interviewer?

KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Prince Harry, he did seem nervous. He said he was nervous. He said Obama - Mr. Obama, he was excited about.

He was excited. And Prince Harry was nervous.

And I think he is nervous of the mainstream media. He is very nervous of the media. He is not a brilliant handler of the media unlike his fiancee.

And it's a different experience of him being the interviewer rather than the interviewee. But, certainly, you saw the chemistry between them there,

the friendship between them there, and absolutely that - bromance.

JONES: You mentioned the famous fiancee now, Meghan Markle. She, Prince Harry and Barack Obama, they go way back really, don't they, in terms of

shared values and shared interests?

WILLIAMS: Yes. And Ms. Markle has been a great supporter of Barack Obama. She has not been a supporter of President Trump. She's definitely

the Obama camp.

It's very interesting because we haven't heard the interview yet. We're not going to hear that till the 27th of December and then sort of

(INAUDIBLE) on a podcast.

But what been very clear that it's about Mr. Obama. It's about his last days in office. It's about his experience as a president, but also about

his post-presidential ambitions.

But Kensington Palace has said that both he and Prince Harry want to work together to foster the new leaders of the future. Now, we know that Mr.

Obama is doing that through the Obama Foundation.

But the idea that Prince Harry is going to be part of that is a new piece of information that we haven't had before about his ambitions for charity

and the way he sees his role with Meghan.

JONES: Quite a force. Quite a team if they do team up indeed after the wedding. And we have to talk about the wedding, of course.

Given the fact that these two clearly are friends, can we expect the Obamas to definitely be on the guest list?

[15:55:03] WILLIAMS: I think had it been Westminster Abbey, they would have definitely been on the guest list. It is a much smaller venue at St.

George's, about 800 people. So just smaller.

But I do expect you probably will see them. But, of course, then there is the problem that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Trump will probably not be invited.

But he's Prince Harry. He's not the heir to the throne. He's a long way from the throne. He doesn't have to invite heads of state. He doesn't

have to invite political allies. it's just about his friends. And, clearly, Mr. Obama is one of his friends.

JONES: Four people - five people, I should say, who will definitely be on the guest list, because it will be five by the time we get to May 19 next

year, will be Prince Harry's brother, Prince William and his wife and children as well. And I think they've got a new Christmas card out, which

we can show our viewers now. The family just is a four at the moment. But, of course, the Duchess of Cambridge is expecting and baby's due April


WILLIAMS: So, just a month before. So, this photo, we believe, was taken quite a few months ago because the duchess is not showing any hint of

pregnancy there.

JONES: She doesn't really show that much anyway.

WILLIAMS: (INAUDIBLE) very tiny. And this is quite a formal Christmas card. No Christmas jumpers here. And it really I think reflects a much

more kind of statesman like attempt here from Williams to look more serious, but they're all dressed in blue, all dressed in these cute blues.

A lot of chat on social media about how Charlotte looks like the queen.

JONES: And statesman like, do you think that's because the interview that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle did when they announced their engagement,

came across so well. They said that they wanted to do so much. And, William, for all of his effort, has been given quite a bad press about

being work shy in the past as well. Whereas, this picture very much puts them forward as kind of like the future of the royal family.

WILLIAMS: Yes. I think that's true. I think there will be some attempts in the media at dividing them between Harry and Meghan who work hard and

William and Kate who don't. And there is - I think that is going to be one of the key parts of William's efforts in PR really to make it very clear

that they do work hard as well.

Certainly, Harry and Meghan are getting all the attention at the moment. They're the glamor couple. They're everywhere. There are even

collaborative mugs being sold in the (INAUDIBLE) in Buckingham Palace shops. So, they are sort of becoming the superstar. So, I think William

and Kate are superstars. So, I think William and Kate have to reassert their identity and it very much is as the future king and queen.

JONES: Yes. And they have no pressure on them as well, Harry and Meghan as well because he's like, what, fifth in line to the throne and he's about

to drop down again as well.

Kate, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

And thank you so much for watching tonight. Stay with here on CNN. "Quest Means Business" is coming up next.