Return to Transcripts main page
HALA GORANI TONIGHT
U.K. Government Meets Oxfam over Misconduct Allegations; President Unveils Plan to Fix Crumbling Infrastructure; Trump Defends Ex-aide Accused of Domestic Abuse; Did Pence Blow his Chance to Break the Ice?; Unilever Warns Fake News Extremism Erode Democracies. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired February 12, 2018 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from CNN London. I'm Hala Gorani.
Tonight, foreign aid under fire, we'll bring you CNN's exclusive reporting out of Somalia where aid money is ending up in the hands of terrorist
Also, this, as one of the U.K.'s biggest charity desperately tried to contain a crisis after its aid workers were involved with prostitutes in
And later this hour, advertising giant, Unilever, says the internet is a dirty swamp and it's threatening to pull ads from companies like Facebook's
unless they clean it up.
All right. That will be later, but first, all these stories related to foreign aid on this same day. Two big stories tonight that have their
roots thousands of miles apart but are intrinsically linked by foreign aid.
It's been a diplomatic norm for decades. Countries giving a portion of their income to other countries in need. But a number of shocking scandals
are shining a spotlight on how that process can be abused.
First to Somalia this hour, a country that is see as fair share of horror and misery through the years. Large portions of the population are
desperate for that foreign aid, but a CNN investigation has found that money given by the United Nations is being exploited by terrorist group,
al-Shabaab. Our Sam Kiley has this exclusive report from Somalia.
SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The center of Somalia's humanitarian disaster, a source of ready cash for al-Shabaab
(on camera): First of all, we need to talk to the guy who is the -- who knows about the financing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Fine.
KILEY (voice-over): Somali national intelligence officers taking us inside a secret prison for al-Shabaab.
(on camera): How many prisoners do you have in here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have just only four -- eight.
KILEY (voice-over): Captured a few days earlier, this former al-Shabaab fighter was on the front line of this fundraising, collecting thousands of
dollars in road tolls, much of it taken from trucks delivering food for refugees.
(on camera): So, each day, you would have quite a lot of money coming in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No doubt about it. Every second, you can imagine.
KILEY (voice-over): It's a cycle of exploitation that has victims at its very core, hundreds of thousands of them. Many in receipt of money from
(on camera): This is Fudan (ph) refugee camp. There is steady flow of refugees coming in here every day. It's impossible to access without an
escort from the African Union. The people fleeing into here are fleeing drought and conflict. And of course, it's those two combinations that are
so profitable for groups like al-Shabaab and other warlords.
(voice-over): Fatima's family once owned dozens of goats and seven cows. Drought and conflict with al-Shabaab forced them on the road. Now she has
nothing. Now destitute, she is still a source of income for al-Shabaab.
The 270, 000 refugees now live in (inaudible) and more come every day, and this is where the terrorist group profits. Now an agent for the
government, this man was a Shabaab tax collector for eight years. Merchants bringing food for sale to refugees pay al-Shabaab to get to Bidoa
(ph) and attacks there too.
(on camera): Even now?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even now.
KILEY: If they don't pay?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They capture and kill.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is how they get the money. When it comes here, the business people, I mean, for example, those people, they either becomes
-- those are given cash cards from the U.N., they go into the market. They buy $25 of rice. So, that 25 includes the taxation of al-Shabaab, includes
the transportation, includes the of the business people.
KILEY: And then Shabaab come along once a year and tax the businessmen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tax the businessman, yes, once a year.
KILEY: On top of that? So, this doesn't work? You're saying it doesn't work. The U.N. is still indirectly paying tax absolute to al-Shabaab?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. For the sake of road blocks.
KILEY (voice-over): Bidoa (ph) was at the center of man-made famines that killed 300,000 in 1992 and a quarter of a million in 2012 and one that was
headed off by aid last year. To avoid theft of supplies, the U.N. switched to directly transferring cash to refugees last year. And that shifted the
responsibility for moving food to merchants, but al-Shabaab has continued to profit.
[15:05:06] MICHAEL KEATING, U.N. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY- GENERAL: Putting the onus on the private sector, it helped reinforce the economy rather than making aid an alternative to the economy.
KILEY (on camera): Arguably then there is actually an incentive for al- Shabaab to concentrate people in Bidoa (ph), focus the aid delivery there and just scoop off 3 bucks a bag.
KEATING: I think that's probably right, and the thing is how do you mitigate and manage those kinds of problems? I mean, and what is the
KILEY (voice-over): The U.N. estimates a single al-Shabaab roadblock along the profitable Mogadishu to Bidoa route generates $5,000 a day for the
terrorist group. The country's roads have become al-Shabaab's financial blood supply.
(on camera): This is the bridge over the Shibelly (ph) River. It marks the extent of the African-Union's capability to safely patrol. Down that
road to Bidoa is Somalia's hungry interior.
(voice-over): Twenty-two thousand African troops have been fighting al- Shabaab, but they're due to pull out in two years.
COLONEL CHRIS OGWAL, BATTLEGROUP COMMANDER: We are now conducting minor offensive operations. If reduced that will affect the general operations
KILEY: It will leave a vacuum that al-Shabaab could step into?
OGWAL: Absolutely. It will leave a vacuum.
KILEY (voice-over): And the vacuum will leave al-Shabaab better able to exploit refugees.
KEATING: Unfortunately, those in need and those who are going to be targeted by humanitarian organizations to receive assistance to become
attractive for those trying to make money. There will be all sorts of scams going on.
KILEY: Using force to recapture roads might be a solution, but that's been tried by the African Union and U.S.-led military interventions for nearly
30 years, and still the chaos reigns.
GORANI: Well, let's go live to Abu Dhabi. Sam Kiley is there now. Sam, are aid organizations aware of the extent of the problem and if so, do they
just consider that this is the cost of doing business in Somalia?
KILEY: I think this goes to the center of a dilemma that the aid organizations, the industry of humanitarian assistance has had to grapple
with for more than 30 years and that is that there is always leakage of aid in conflict environment.
There are always players -- very often the only players involved control all forms of industry and that includes the distribution of aid, and
therefore, cream off the top. We saw the same thing in Sudan in the old days.
We've seen it in what was Zaire (ph), now the Democratic Republic of Congo. We are seeing it now in Somalia. In this case, is that map illustrates
they are able to do it in a very kind of obvious way by taxing along that route, particularly Leego, which has recently been evacuated by the African
Union and taken or retaken by al-Shabaab.
But that's just one illustration of really a much wider problem. There is a counter argument to this, of course, made by Michael Keating, the aid
community is if they don't do something, then huge numbers of people could die.
GORANI: But that's precisely my follow-up question, what is the alternative here?
KILEY: Well, the interesting issue really is whether or not the international community in terms of the aid agencies can get together and
establish protocols, which they've tried in the past that mean that they don't allow themselves to be exploited.
That they don't become part of the problem rather than a solution to a humanitarian issue. But for every aid organization that steps away from an
issue like that, there's always somebody going to step in to that funding environment, particularly if as led by the U.N., there is always this
I have to say that in Somalia, this is really the first time where leaders like Michael Keating and others are actually coming forward and admitting
that there is a problem. I think perhaps they would argue that is a step in the right direction.
GORANI: Can you just one last question, for anybody watching who donates money to aid organizations, how widespread of an issue is this? Is this a
couple dollars off each bag, whatever it is? When people donate money, should they be concerned that a lot of that money either is wasted somehow
syphoned off by organizations on the ground that just are profiteering from people's misery?
KILEY: I think in terms of donations to emergency aid in conflict, I've been covering this for nearly 30 years. I've never seen a conflict in
which there hasn't been rampant levels of corruption arguably making the matters worst.
There is an argument in the humanitarian sector that says people should be focusing on donating to development aid so that these disasters are headed
off in the first place rather than to the more attractive media sensitive areas of emergency aid.
[15:10:10] Driven by the sorts of images that we saw in the earlier days from (inaudible) of starving children. We are still seeing that from
Yemen. There's a natural human impulse to want to do something.
Occasionally, the critics of that system would argue you could make things worse. A development aid is often held up as the solution.
GORANI: We are going to have a big debate about this at the half hour on this program. Sam Kiley with that exclusive reporting from Somalia.
Thanks very much.
Well, sticking to a similar theme that is related in some ways because it deals with foreign aid, this time in Haiti. There is a major scandal
engulfing the aid organization, Oxfam, with allegations that executives covered up crimes by a number of the organization's aid workers. It's led
to its deputy chief executive to resign. Erin McLaughlin has that story.
ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Eight years ago, Haiti was struck by a devastating earthquake. Hundreds of thousands of people
killed, more than a million displaced. Aid workers flocked to the ravaged nation.
Some of those who came to help are now accused of abuse. The "Times" newspaper in London obtained access to a confidential Oxfam report, the
product of its own internal investigation.
According to the "Times," the report revealed that seven Oxfam employees staged orgies with prostitutes and that minors may have been among those
sexually exploited. At the center of the investigation, Oxfam's country director, here talking to CNN in 2010 about the challenges of working in
earthquake ravaged Haiti.
ROLAND VAN HAUWERMEIREN, FORMER OXFAM HAITI COUNTRY DIRECTOR: I have to make a choice between trying to save lives of thousands of people and
putting my staff at risk.
MCLAUGHLIN: CNN has not been able to reach Director Roland Van Hauwermeiren for comment and he has not spoken publicly about the
allegations. He and the six other employees involved were either fired or allowed to resign.
Now Oxfam is accused of covering up their misconduct. British and Haitian authorities say they were not notified of the alleged wrongdoing.
BOCCHIT EDMOND, HAITIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.K.: Of course, it was a (inaudible) and it is unfortunate to even mention that that coverup went
all the way up to the top.
MCLAUGHLIN: Oxfam has apologized but denied any coverup. In a statement, the aid group said accusations that under aged girls may have been involved
were not proven. On Monday, the first high profile resignation, Penny Lawrence, Oxfam's deputy chief director.
She released a statement acknowledging there were allegations that Van Hauwermeiren and others used prostitutes in Chad prior to their move to
Haiti. Concerns that they, quote, "failed to adequately act upon."
Oxfam says it's still investigating exactly what went on in Chad, but Lawrence said as program director at the time, I'm ashamed that this
happened on my watch.
(on camera): Oxfam relies on people's goodwill, it relies on donations and visits to charity shops such as this one. It also relies on government
funding, over $40 million of taxpayer money a year. Now all of that could be in jeopardy.
(voice-over): Now British authorities say they are considering cutting Oxfam's government funding.
PENNY MORDAUNT, BRITISH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARY: It doesn't matter whether you've got a whistle-blowing hotline, good safeguarding
practices in place. If the moral leadership at the top of the organization isn't there, then we cannot have you as a partner.
MCLAUGHLIN: Oxfam also faces questions in Haiti. The Haitian ambassador to the U.K. says the Foreign Ministry plans to summon the charity to learn
exactly what happened in their country following that devastating quake and why it was kept from them? Erin McLaughlin, CNN London.
GORANI: All right. We'll have a lot more on this topic as I mentioned in about 20 minutes' time.
In the Middle East, we're seeing a very sharp escalation of tension involving Syria, Israel and Iran. Israel says it has intercepted an
Iranian drone that was launched from inside Syria. An interesting aspect according to what the Israelis are saying is that this Iranian drone they
say was based on stolen American technology. Iran says that claim is ridiculous.
Let's get out to Jerusalem for the very latest. CNN's Oren Liebermann is live for us there. This comes after an Israeli jet crash landed inside
Israel after taking fire inside potentially we believe Syrian air space.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, at this point, we've confirmed that. Let me walk you through the timeline of events. This begins early
Saturday morning when that drone that Israel says belongs to Iran enters Israeli air space. Israel downs it and then tells us that the drone was
based on an intercepted American drone from back in 2011.
Israel responds and says it was the Command and Control Center in Syria in that strike, a Syrian anti-aircraft missile took down an F-16 for the first
time since the 1982 Israel/Lebanon war, so three and a half decades.
[15:15:04] Israel responds again, striking 12 Iranian and Syrian targets in Syria. That's where the military tension peaked right around Saturday
afternoon. Since then, it has ebbed a bit or at least held there even as the rhetoric and threatening language has continued to fly.
Notably this is the first direct confrontation, the first time Israel has said we're openly targeting Iranian targets in Syria. Also, it was Russia
that was in the center of all this. Remember, Russia has ties with Israel and Iran.
Russia put out a sort of down the line statement urging all sides to deescalate. It is President Vladimir Putin that has that kind of influence
across the Middle East.
GORANI: But it really feels like this is a new chapter. You have unprecedented actions. You have new fronts opening up in Syria between
various groups, state and non-state actors. It appears as though Israel is not just willing to go after more targets inside Syria, but also willing to
confirm that they're doing so. This year looks like it could be a very different year as far as Israel is concerned inside of Syria and going
after Iranian targets there.
LIEBERMANN: It does. It's worth pointing out what my colleague, Ben Wedeman, has said about looking what's happened in Syria over the last few
days here since this weekend. He said this is reality of what's becoming the post ISIS era. Now that Syrian forces and other forces have gotten a
control on ISIS, it's sort of back to the old conflicts, but in a very much new way.
Syria, Hezbollah and Iran have claimed the downing of that Israeli jet as a new strategic era, a game changer. Israeli denies that, says it's still
free to act. How all this shakes out is incredibly difficult to look and to figure out at the moment. But it is clear that we're seeing a new
A more background of what's happening, Israel has insisted it wants to keep Iran as far away from its borders as possible and they will continue to
strike Iran if it gets too close. Israel now making clear it will use force until now has been unprecedented.
So, you're right in the sense that we may see a new chapter and developments that we simply haven't seen before in their scale and scope.
GORANI: All right. Oren Liebermann, thanks very much. Israel doesn't want Iran close to its border. Turkey doesn't want the Kurds close to its
border. The U.S. has special forces. There are so many actors battling it out inside of Syria and as always civilians suffering. Thanks for your
And speaking of Syria coming up, we have exclusive information on the leader of ISIS. Our Nick Paton Walsh will take us through that. He joins
me in the studio just ahead.
And the pros and cons of international aid. You heard about the Oxfam aid scandal earlier. How much should countries be giving to big agencies? One
of my next guests wants to cut what he says is wasteful overseas development. Stay tuned for the full debate.
GORANI: We want to bring you some exclusive CNN reporting now. Our Nick Paton Walsh has new information on the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr Al-
Baghdadi. He joins me in the studio now. We haven't heard from him in a long time. We don't know what condition he's in even.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we haven't heard from him yet, but we do know from U.S. officials that in May of last
year they're pretty confident, according to information they've got from ISIS detainees and refugees, that he was wounded in an airstrike near
Raqqah in May.
The wounds he got were sufficiently serious that he wasn't able to be part of the ISIS group in his usual managerial sense for about four or five
months. That's a key period of time because in May of last year, they were losing ground fast in Mosul and Iraq, and they were also found themselves
encircled in Raqqah as well by U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish forces.
GORANI: But we haven't seen any propaganda videos of him.
WALSH: Just the one behind you now.
GORANI: Yes, that's basically it.
WALSH: That's it --
GORANI: Or his voice or anything like that?
WALSH: His voice did emerge in September when technically this four to five-month period of him being wounded in action may have ended. The key
question I think is who conducted this airstrike really because the Americans don't know exactly (inaudible) which happened so they can't tell
if it was them and they were the predominant force dropping bombs around Raqqah that period of time.
The Russians, though, in June claimed they killed or injured him and they pointed towards May --
GORANI: They walked that back a bit.
WALSH: They kind of walked it back. It doesn't look like Americans think at this point that actually they were behind this particular bomb. The
point is, where is he now? He was clearly wounded and on the run. They think he's probably in the Syrian/Iraqi border. Now that (inaudible) area,
deserted, vastly populated landscape, easy to hide out in but also hard to find somebody.
GORANI: So, we did hear his voice, you said, in September and it was possible to date that, to timestamp it.
WALSH: He'd certainly recorded them in the last couple of months or so. He was referring to events in happened since then. The point is this man
is still a key kind of figure head for that group.
They've lost their territory. They've lost sort of that ability to call themselves as part of a landscape, but now they're looking perhaps to see
what they can do with this singular symbolic individual who began them as an idea.
GORANI: But does it really matter, you know, whether or not he's alive?
WALSH: When do you really finish the idea of ISIS? It's going to live on --
GORANI: So many of these fighters presumably were locals, they melted back into their communities. There were some foreign fighters who were able to
leave as well Raqqa, right? Is it possible that like al Qaeda and Iraq they've disbursed but once that idea -- there's a vacuum, that idea will
gel again and they can kind of form another type of fighting force?
WALSH: I think some of the idea of ISIS was in the man of Baghdadi and he's still out there, and (inaudible) unanswered question of what exactly
happens with that scattered leadership. The Americans I think want to hunt him down. You're right to say they've been a viral online issue where
people can read something and decide to act in their name, matter of hours later. That's very hard to defeat because you can't really defeat the
GORANI: But I wonder if he's killed, and it's proven that he's killed in the same way Bin Laden was killed, does that defeat the al Qaeda idea?
WALSH: It didn't suddenly turn al Qaeda off overnight. It doesn't, but his continued existence, some say, in the mind of ISIS is a continued
victory. They haven't managed to find that one. The same way how Bin Laden was for al Qaeda.
GORANI: All right. Nick Paton Walsh, thanks very much with that exclusive reporting, just back from Syria.
Let's take you to Africa now. South Africa's ruling party is trying to break a dead lock over the political fate of President Jacob Zuma. The
African National Congress convened an urgent meeting, but we are still waiting to hear outcome.
Mr. Zuma has been clinging to power. He just refuses to leave amid corruption charges despite efforts by senior officials to force him to step
down. ANC leaders say the country needs closure and a new beginning. A lot of South Africans would agree with him.
Let's go live to South Africa now. David McKenzie joins me from Pretoria. Will he or will he not leave? That's the question almost every day.
DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is the question every day. That question is not answered yet, Hala. In this hotel behind
me, they've been locked in meetings for at least eight hours. The top echelon of the ANC deciding the fate of Jacob Zuma.
Now generally, Hala, they will come up with a decision based on consensus in these meetings. So, it could be a very contentious eight hours up until
this point. Now the question is, will the ANC get together and throw out the president of the country, recall him, and if they do, will he even
Because the next step is to parliament and the position parties here in South Africa are using this moment to pressure the ANC to do something.
Otherwise they'll bring in a no confidence vote.
Ultimately, the ANC wants to be talking about the hundred-year anniversary of Nelson Mandela's birth, but they are locked in this titanic struggle for
the future of the party and possibly that of South Africa -- Hala.
GORANI: But why won't he leave? I mean, it's a simple question. What is the answer to that?
MCKENZIE: Many people say he wouldn't want to voluntarily resign and there were indications that a week ago he did just that, dug in his heels is
because he wants to protect himself and his allies. Some might call them cronies in this country.
Because with the veneer or the protection of the presidency, it is a powerful office like anywhere, the same applies to South Africa. So, if he
leaves that position, it opens him up to have an accelerated campaign against him in the courts and elsewhere.
It's worth remembering, Hala, he already has pending corruption charges waiting to be sort of unleashed upon him as well as all sorts of other
scandals and court proceedings. If he loses the presidency, then that might be the final kind of nail in his potential coffin politically
The opposition today said one thing, that they're trying to negotiate maybe for him to have added security when he leaves. They said the most secure
place he could be is in a jail cell. That really shows you the contentious nature of this debate ongoing behind me. It really remains to be seen
whether (inaudible) he can put it off.
GORANI: David McKenzie in Pretoria, thanks very much. We'll keep our eye on that story.
Still to come tonight, what to do with foreign aid. It's a debate that has been going on for years, long before a scandal erupted around Oxfam. I'll
speak to two lawmakers with very different opinions on this topic.
Plus, in the same row yet miles away, did the U.S. vice president missed an opportunity to break the ice with the North Koreans? We'll have that
question coming up as well. Stay with us.
GORANI: It's made a, quote, "full and unqualified" apology to the British government. It's deputy chief executive has resigned and its faced a
barrage of criticism amid a growing sex crime scandal involving the organization's aid workers in Haiti and Chad as well.
But the Oxfam scandal has laid bare a wider debate just how much money countries should be giving to aid agencies for international aid, if any at
all. I'm joined by Peter Kyle, an MP from the Labour Party. He joins me via Skype.
I'm also joined here in the studio by David Kurtin, a London assembly member (AUDIO GAP).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's exactly what they're wondering was at this McDonald's here in the south side of Chicago and we have pictures of the
march today. These are folks that are not invested in the stock market, I think and fairly safe to say. Service workers, they would like a union and
they would like $15.00 for a minimum wage. Many of them make around $10.00 or $11.00 an hour (AUDIO GAP) and was assassinated. They said they're
fighting for the same stuff that he was. You point out, without a fight, a lot of companies, not only have given bonuses, but have raised (AUDIO GAP)
where that money goes --
GORANI: All right. And can I ask? I'd like to ask my guest --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- did not get a tax cut that was just signed in the law. I talked to one of those folks today.
GORANI: -- unclear exactly how the money is used (AUDIO GAP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I have not got an increase on my (AUDIO GAP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are folks that -- when they say, they like to just make a little bit more an hour if they could please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's from (AUDIO GAP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- straddling the line getting out of correction territory. Apple is now out of it. It's up $6.85 right now (AUDIO GAP) a
whole lot more expensive Disney, a Dow member, raise fuel economy is good enough and people can handle that price. Disney land in Anaheim seeing the
steepest price hike for one-day tickets during peak hours (AUDIO GAP) Disney trading up a third of a (AUDIO GAP) by scooping up 21st Century
Fox's entertainment assets, but is Comcast fighting a losing battle on this one? Even though they're offering way more money. Charlie is about to
break it. Next on Countdown.
PETER KYLE, BRITISH LABOUR MP: -- Britain to disengaged to the rest of the world and I only do so in a (INAUDIBLE) it doesn't involve real, real long-
term investment and commitments. And I am telling you this from experience and history that if we don't engage with problems where they are emerging
into directly, those problems will at some point end up on our shores. The problems fermenting in Pakistan. If we do not engage with them in Pakistan
and with Pakistan, then it will end up in our shores and we know that in fact in recent history. And then things like -- what's going on with Haiti
with an off sound?
There is an issue there that I am very, very keen to discuss and I have been out there on the media talking about it because I've experienced
issues within the state that I'm very, very upfront and frank about it. First, is he also suggesting that we close down the BBC because of Jimmy
Savile carrying out pedophilia for 30 years? The football league, the International Olympics Association. What's going on in (INAUDIBLE) this
happens unfortunately in every walk of life, even in the -- mature civil society.
GORANI: David Kurten, essentially a few bad apples, right? I mean, that's what going on in every industry. So you shut the whole thing down because
DAVID KURTEN, LONDON ASSEMBLY MEMBER: Well, you got to look at the individual cases and you've got to look at perhaps Oxfam here seems to be
have a lot of rottenness among the top grades. People seem to have known about what's going on. You have the --
KYLE: Be specific.
KURTEN: You have the former secretary saying that she's aware of people who knew what was going on and it seems to be some kind of cover-up. We
really have got to get to the bottom of that. But I would dispute and the point that was made that we want to disengage from the world. Absolutely
not. But I think trade is the best way to do this rather than aid. We're looking forward, of course, as a party to Brexit and putting in trade deals
and engaging with the world that way. And I think there's a lot more wealth will come to people around the word through engaging in trade rather
than keep on sending aid which isn't going to the people that needs it in an effective manner.
KYLE: Aid and trade are intrinsically linked. You cannot have a country and a community or society or family who doesn't have the ability to trade
and take away everything without any development, no executive work, no investments in your community and then say it's all going to be based on
trade. I was a frontline aid worker for 10 years. I then left and did a Ph.D. on international developments and economic development. I am
absolutely telling you, you can't stop aid and expect communities that do not have the social capacity to engage in economic activity and expect them
suddenly to work their way out with trade. Countries and communities have extremely isolated are not going to be able to suddenly start trading with
one of the most mature economies in the world, which is first to activate it. Aid and trade are linked and it worked and it works.
GORANI: Many of our viewers, by the way -- and this is not the first time. It's not just the Oxfam scandal, have worried in the past about giving to
big bureaucratic organizations where the executives of those organizations fly business class, stay in luxury hotels, drive in 10-car convoys in
disaster zones. And they think, why am I for every dollar that I give to these organizations, maybe 80 cents goes to admin costs? How do you solve
some of those issues that lead to corruption and top-heavy bureaucratic structures?
KYLE: And this is exactly the conversation we should be having. How do we make aid and development work more efficient? And particularly in areas
where they are crisis-stricken, war zones or through humanitarian disasters. It is extremely difficult to make that work -- that work
efficient and effective. I think the place to start is to end the territorialism and overly competitive nature of aid work. And this is a
government has a role to play there. Because what we find is -- but because of the needs and not talk about problems in public just to make
sure the illusion of all aid is efficient and effective and nothing ever goes wrong, that this is creating a culture of secrecy within some of the
big aid agencies.
The problem isn't the 10K and the pound or 10 cents in the dollar is spent on admin because that admin is also about staff development, training.
It's the kind of pay and support the people need. If you are working in a war zone, believe me, you need a decent car to drive. You need the safety
and support of a safe place to sleep in the evening. These things cost money. And what we can't do is say that there are people who are making
their way into frontline aid work who are abusers and perhaps criminals but what we need to do is spend less money on the front line of aid work. In
fact, what you're going to do is if you don't spend enough money on those places and invest properly, you're going to create a vacuum which is being
exploited now we know by pedophile --
[15:40:09] GORANI: David -- I'd just like to get a response from David Kurten. I mean, it's your view, not my optic of this whole thing. Let's
just pull back the spending, when in effect, you create bad will, how were vacuums that are exploited by true criminals, where really you will have
humanitarian issues and then you'll complain that refugees want to come to your front rather than solving the problem where it started.
KURTEN: Well, I mean, some of the things I've said before will address that. We need to put money into things in this country for example, like
our border force needs to make sure that people who are coming to the country are genuine refugees. But that was said just in the piece there.
We need to make sure that the money is spent efficiently. And there are some organizations who do spend it very well and do actually focus on
disaster emergency relief. But I think the military can have a very big role to play in that. And I think the government seems to have rundown the
money it gives to the military, the army, and the navy, for example, when there was the hurricanes earlier this year. Last year in the British
Virgin Islands and the Caribbean.
GORANI: Well, there have been scandals involving military aid workers -- aid work as well in Africa, specifically with the French military there,
were issues there. So it's not reserved only for civilian aid agencies.
Thanks very much. Peter Kyle and David Kurten, I want to thank you both there for joining this spirited discussion. I appreciate having you on the
program this evening. Thank you again.
If Donald Trump has his way, the big focus in Washington this week will be on his plans to improve American infrastructure. He made his priorities
clear with this tweet this morning adding, "After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it's now time to start investing in our
country." Mr. Trump later unveiled the proposal to fix what he called, "America's crumbling infrastructure."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This morning, I submitted legislative principles to Congress that will spur the biggest and boldest
infrastructure investment in American history. The framework will generate an unprecedented $1.5 to $1.7 trillion investment in American
infrastructure. We're going to have a lot of public/private. That way it gets done on time on budget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Let's go to the White House now for details. We're joined by Jeremy Diamond. So, Jeremy Diamond, the thing about infrastructure
spending is that it costs a lot of money. Where is that money going to come from? And will Republicans authorize it, his own party?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right. Well, the president is trying to solve that problem of federal spending with this
$1.5 trillion plan. Only $200 billion of that plan would actually come from federal dollars over a period of 10 tears. The rest of that would
come from state and local infrastructure spending as well as some private spending as well. But while he has solved that problem of not spending too
much federal money over time on this infrastructure plan, that does open him up to a larger political problem. Democrats, House Democrats, in fact,
unveiled their own infrastructure plan just a couple days ago.
And their plan calls for, I believe five times the amount of federal funding. So there is a large gap here between what the president is
proposing and what that Democrats have been calling for as far as an infrastructure plan. And of course, the president is hoping that
infrastructure will be the issue that you can tackle in 2018. That is going to be very difficult, of course. This would need to be a bipartisan
process. And of course, ahead of the 2018 midterms, bipartisanship is going to be very, very difficult. Hala.
GORANI: All right. And there are still other stories that people are talking about, including the resignation of top White House officials after
allegations of domestic abuse. Thanks very much, Jeremy Diamond in Washington.
Tonight, stop the fake news or else. A huge conglomerate has that warning for sites like Facebook. And it could affect what you read online. We'll
be right back.
GORANI: The Trump administration is not just dealing with wanting to announce big infrastructure plans, but it also having to deal with North
Korea. The Vice President Mike Pence is back from the Winter Olympics in South Korea and he tells the Washington Post that the U.S. is open to
talking with the North. You'll remember that awkward moment where he was with Kim Jong-un's sister in the same viewing box at the Olympic opening
ceremony? Now, obviously at that point ignored the North Koreans during the games. This is the scene I was referencing with the sister of Kim
Jong-un. He didn't even appear to glance in the direction of Kim's sister.
So, did Mike Pence blow a chance to break the ice with Pyongyang? My guest Sue Mi Terry has been following the politics behind the games and she joins
me from Washington.
So, what do you make of the fact that vice president sat during the joint North and South Korea entrance, didn't look at all at in the direction of
the sister of Kim Jong-un during the opening ceremony, and then told the Washington Post that there could be the possibility of some sort of
dialogue without preconditions. What are we to make of all this?
SUE MI TERRY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Well, I think vice president now saying that we're willing to
talk to North Koreans came after Kim Jong-un's sister, Kim Yo-jong to President Moon Jae-in that Kim Jung-un is now inviting President Moon for a
potential summit. I think this is something that Vice President Pence and President Moon Jae-in worked out in terms of how to proceed forward. Just
talking to North Koreans is not that big of a deal. It's the negotiation that's going to be hard.
GORANI: But definitely with conditions that is a big deal, though, isn't it? It hasn't happened in a long, long time.
TERRY: It's a tactical shift. But I would say a big deal is if we relieve, give some sort of sanctions relief or give anything to North Korea
for these talks to occur. But I think we're just saying talks can occur, but we're going to continue with maximum pressure policy, we're going to
continue the sanctions. So in that regard, it's not that big of a deal.
GORANI: Right. Now, but the secretary of state, as this often that has to be the case with the Trump administration, downplaying the suggestion that
there could be direct talks with no preconditions. Again, signaling that perhaps the White House and the state department are not 100 percent on the
TERRY: Well, Secretary Tillerson and the state department have said previously that they're willing to talk to North Koreans without
precondition even. That the White House press sort of said no to. But I think the fact that it's coming out of vice president and the vice
president was in close communication with the White House, so I think it is significant that we are willing to sit down with the North Koreans to see -
- again, talking is talking. It's different from actual negotiation.
GORANI: I get that. But now, as we've covered in the past this story and Kim Jong-un's determination to continue to expand his nuclear program, in
his nuclear weapons program, what incentive would North Korea have to give up any of its nuclear program, and this is exactly what is giving as the
leverage to attract the attention of the United States? It knows that it's a bargaining chip. Why would he give it up under any circumstance?
TERRY: North Koreans were not giving up. Just because they're going to sit down, it doesn't mean they're going to give up nuclear weapons. I do
not believe that at all. What they are trying to do is buy some time while they work on their nuclear missile program. And if they can put a wedge
between Washington and Seoul, all the better for it, if they can get sanctions relief, that's also good. If they can push back on the bloody
nose of the missile strike talk coming out of Washington, it's also good for North Korea. So it makes sense from the North Korean perspective.
[15:50:04] GORANI: But what about from the U.S. perspective? It doesn't seem like it's getting any of what it wants.
TERRY: Well, you don't know until you at least sit here and sit down and hear what North Koreans have to say. Either way, South Koreans -- or South
Korea and North Korea is probably going to have a summit. President Moon is probably going to meet with Kim Jong-un. So I don't think there's a so
much we can -- so I don't think United States can say too much about that. The only thing the U.S. can do is to say to South Korea, hey, you better
not give anything away for this summit to occur. You better not give any kind of sanctions relief or -- because remember in 2000, the first summit
between North and South Korea, South Korea had to give the North Koreas $500 million in cash for that summit to occur. So that's what we will be
against for and will be against South Korea giving anything away for this summit to occur.
GORANI: All right. Well, Sue Mi Terry in Washington D.C. We'll continue this conversation when we perhaps learn more details on a trip by the South
Korean president to Pyongyang and see how the rest of the Olympics develop as well. Thanks so much.
GORANI: Fake news and online extremism are eroding trust and undermining democracy. That is according to a corporate giant, not a government. The
giant company Unilever. You may not know the brand Unilever but you know Unilever -- but you know its brands, Dove, Lipton, Ben & Jerry's. Unilever
is threatening to pull billions of dollars in advertising if sites don't clean up.
Samuel Burke is here with me for that. What do they mean clean up?
SAMUEL BURKE, CNN BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Oh, this is really quite stunning because Unilever, with all the brands you just
mentioned, spends $9 plus billion on advertising a year. It's the second biggest advertiser in the world. And what they mean by cleaning up, they
say two things mainly, fake news, get rid of it.
GORANI: As it on Facebook and other social media, right?
BURKE: Exactly. Facebook and Google is mainly what they're talking about here. And they're talking about the toxic culture which all of us have
seen on social media. We don't have time to read all the mean tweets that people have said about us. But if you actually look through what the CMO,
the chief marketing officer of Unilever said in his speech today, he breaks it down two folds. He says, number one, really they don't want to be
associated with Facebook because they don't want people and Google -- because they don't want people to even see them giving them money. So the
bad actors here are Facebook and Google.
And then the other part which you and I know a lot about working on a platform where we have advertising is brand association, you want to have
ads on CNN because you believe in the integrity of CNN. And what he's saying is we may not want our ads on Facebook and Google because we don't
believe in the integrity of it. And there's one thing that really stood out to me. If we just put up a little part of his speech here. There's
one word in particular which you'll notice. Keith Weed, the CMO of Unilever saying this, "We cannot continue to prop up a digital supply
chain, one that delivers over a quarter of our advertising to our consumers which at times is little better than a swamp." Hala, a terms of the
GORANI: Right. But I get their point, but where else would they reach billions of young -- younger than TV viewer consumers?
BURKE: And that's the interesting point here, because Facebook and Google represent 60 percent of the digital ad marketing. Talk about a monopoly
and it's the Holy Grail for advertisers. I mean, they can target exactly who they need if they want to know somebody who's been in a certain place
and then they want to figure out, OK. We want to get anybody who's been shopping, let's say, at a certain grocery store or shopping at a certain
place, they can target those people. So for advertisers, this is an incredibly important platform. So to abandon it --
GORANI: They have no alternative to that platform.
BURKE: Exactly. And might have to go back --
GORANI: Are they just saying this to try to push Facebook and others to just basically address this fake -- because I -- it's not just the fake
news. Young people are turning off of Facebook. Their numbers are not as exciting as they were.
BURKE: Exactly. We just saw numbers that people were not tuning -- especially young people were not spending as much time on Facebook before
as they were previously. But to answer your question directly, I thought about this, is this just a veiled threat? But I want to put up a list. I
was thinking back to last year when all of these groups actually took their ads off of YouTube for a time. We're talking about Etihad Airways,
Marriott Hotels, Deliveroo. Even the U.K. Labour Party took their ads off of YouTube. So YouTube is listening. They know that they're in hot water.
GORANI: What was the reason at the time?
BURKE: That's because we saw a lot of terrorist videos up on YouTube. But those are people took their revenue away for a period of time. Now, they
came back, to your point. But listen, I spoke to an advertising expert. He said, what Unilever will likely do if Facebook and Google don't clean up
their acts is to actually pull brand by brand and see what happens. I'm not going to pull all of their ads, they don't think.
GORANI: Well, it's just an interesting development. Samuel Burke, thanks very much. Samuel, are you're weighing for that royal wedding with bated
breath, I'm sure. We have more details on it, coming up.
GORANI: We are just a little over three months from Britain's next royal wedding. And we're getting an idea as to how that day will play out.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will get married at noon on Saturday, May 19th in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. After that, they will leave
in a horse-drawn carriage and take this procession route that you see highlighted there through Windsor where the public can see them. The
prince and his bride will come back to the castle for a big reception and then there will be a smaller private gathering later in the evening.
Thanks for watching tonight. I'm Hala Gorani. I'll see you same time, same place tomorrow. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
(CLOSING BELL RINGING)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And stocks go stratospheric as trading comes to an end. It's Monday the 12th of February. Tonight, the uproar at one of the
world's biggest charity, Oxfam, apologizes for a sex crime scandals.