Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Two Reuters Journalists Released After 500 Days Behind Bars in Myanmar; Many South Africans Uneager To Vote In The Election; The Duke and Dutchess of Sussex Welcome New Baby Boy; Recap of Daring Fashion at The Met Gala. Aired 3-4a ET

Aired May 07, 2019 - 03:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[03:00:00]

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN HOST: Free at last after more than 500 days behind bars in Myanmar, two Reuters journalists are finally going home. Plus...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And are you voting this year?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Since I was four I wasn't (inaudible).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHURCH: A generation born after apartheid refusing to vote in South Africa. We'll explain why they're so frustrated. And good news from Windsor Castle as the Duke and Dutchess of Sussex welcome their new baby boy. Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world, I'm Rosemary Church and this is CNN Newsroom.

Breaking news out of Myanmar where two Reuters journalists jailed for more than 500 days are now free. The men were arrested in 2017 for their investigation of the murder Rohingya Muslims. Myanmar's government said they violated the official Secret Act(ph) and they were sentenced to seven years behind bars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(Applause)

CHURCH (voice over) Jubilation there in the Reuters news room in Singapore as their colleagues watch the release. One of the journalists spoke with reporters just outside the prison.

WA LONE, FREED JOURNALIST: Inside the prison and also around the world people who were wishing to release us. So I wanted to say thank you very much and really happy. I'm excited to see my family and my colleagues. I can't wait to go my (inaudible). I'm a journalist I'm going to continue.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CHURCH: Eager to get back to work there and we want to bring in CNN's Ivan Watson who has been following all of these developments from Hong Kong. So Ivan, the sudden release of these two journalist has surprised many people many, relieved so many across the globe. Why did Myanmar decide to release them at this time?

IVAN WATSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It appears to have been a part of an enormous presidential pardon of more than 6,500 prisoners. The release allowed scenes like this. We're going to show you footage of the two journalist reunited in freedom now with their families, able to embrace their wives, their children. One of the two Pullitzer Prize winning Reuters reporters, Wa Lone, since he was detained in December of 2017, he missed the birth of his only child, a daughter, who was born while he was in captivity.

So this, of course, a very emotional and powerful moment for these two men to be released after more than 500 days in prison. Part of this of course, the effort of the Reuters news organization trying to get them released, arguing that they were not guilty and they were being punished for their journalism. Take a listen to what the editor-in- chief of the organization had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN ADLER, REUTERS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: We are enormously pleased that Myanmar has released our courageous reporters, while Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo. Since their arrest 511 days ago, they have become symbols of the importance of press freedom around the world. We welcome their return.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATSON: No the two journalists had been sentenced to seven years in prison. They have made multiple appeals for that conviction to be overturned, which just last month, were rejected leaving their lawyer no alternative but to make an appeal for a presidential pardon which they appear to have received. Rosemary.

CHURCH: Yes, amazing watching the family reunions there. And of course Ivan these two reporters were convicted and sentenced under the countries official Secrets Act. So what happens now to all the other journalists who face similar charges?

WATSON: We don't have any real idea. In fact, press freedom groups are saying, "Hey, this should be a jumping off point for Myanmar to re-embrace a path towards democracy." Now the reason that Reuters and many press freedom groups argue that these two men were arrested was because of their groundbreaking investigative work into the crackdown and expulsion of more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims starting more than two years ago.

These men had uncovered what Reuters reported as the execution of ten male Rohingya Muslims from a village which was later partially torched. The Rohingya Muslim parts of the community and they had gotten evidence and testimony from the members of the security forces that it was the security enforcers in fact that were behind this human rights atrocity. Now the Myanmar government rejects accusations that they have been behind genocidal policies of ethnic cleansing and they have been accused of arresting these two journalists to try to squelch this kind of reporting which actually came out months after the two men were arrested.

[03:05:00]

That's why the two men got the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting last month and part of why they are being revered by members of the International Journalistic Committee as heroes. Their release doesn't do anything to approve the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Rohynga who have been forced to flee their homes.

CHURCH: All right, our Ivan Watson keeping an eye on this breaking news and all the developments that come with it. Reporting there from Hong Kong. Many thanks to you.

We have just learned that Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will be heading to Washington as the U.S. and China continue their high-level trade talks. Investors across the world have been feeling a little tense about these increased tensions between the two superpowers. The DOW futures tumbled and Asian stocks fell after the Trump Administration accused China on Monday of reneging on some of its trade agreements. The U.S. also plans to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods by Friday.

And our Matt Rivers joins us now from Beijing with more on this. So Matt, bring us up to date on these news that we're getting now, the premier going to these talks. What does that signal?

MATT RIVERS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well it's an interesting development Rosemary because we weren't sure how China was going to react to these latest accusations out of Washington. Lieu He is China's top economic negotiator through all of these negotiations between the United States and China as they work towards an eventual trade deal. It was just last week that the Washington delegation, the U.S. delegation was here in Beijing. They met with Liu He and then there were scheduled meetings between Liu He and a massive Chinese delegation that would go with him in Washington this week.

But on Sunday it all changed when the President of the U.S. sent out two tweets basically saying that negotiations were going too slow and that he was going to raise tariffs from 10 to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods - Chinese imports to the U.S. this coming Friday. So that threw completely into question what many people had suspected might be the announcement of the framework of a deal by this Friday when the Chinese delegation is in D.C.

So then the question became, Rosemary, how is China going to respond? And one of the options was that Liu He, the top economic negotiator for China might not go to Washington and that would signal China really not being that serious about a deal getting done this week. But we don't know exactly what the delegation will look like but we do know it will be lead by Liu He and that's significant because I think it shows you that China does not want to see a deal fall apart. They're not taking these latest tariff threats from Donald Trump and completely walking away from the table. They are saying by sending Liu He that they remain serious about these negotiations.

Now whether that produces a deal, I think many people will be highly doubtful of that outcome but sending Liu He does show that China does not want the negotiations that have lead up to this point to completely unravel.

CHURCH: Right, so the United States would be watching this very closely. They'd be very happy and would welcome this news that the Vice Premier will be going to these talks because the big concern here is that the two sides possibly return to a full-blown trade war. That is a real concern.

This is a positive note but there's a lot of negotiating going on. There's a lot of brinkmanship going on and this could go either way couldn't it?

RIVERS: Yes, I don't think anyone can tell you, or they shouldn't with a straight face that they know exactly how this is going to play out. I think what the United States has said though over the past 48 hours or so is that they are very unhappy with the way talks went here in Beijing last week. Washington came here with an understanding of a certain language that the Chinese were willing to put in the final wording of a trade agreement and what Washington is saying now is that Beijing has reneged some of the commitments on some of that wording, the language that was going to be put into the agreement specifically in regards to the kind of economic structural changes to this economy here in China that Washington really wants to see.

So Washington is playing hardball, but Donald Trump is also playing hardball. He's saying that the United States has leverage and they're not going to make a deal that they feel is just a headline and it's fake. Now this could be part of a negotiating tactic but I think that there is real concern on the part of the United States that the Chinese are not living up to their end of the bargain so it will be fascinating to see what concessions China is willing to make if any to address some of those concerns that the United States has during these negotiations set for Thursday and Friday later this week in Washington and whether that ends up in some sort of a deal, whether we just continue this negotiating that we've seen for months now or whether both sides walk away and like you said the trade war really escalates. No one knows how things are going to look come Friday evening in Washington.

CHURCH: Exactly right. We'll be watching very carefully. Matt Rivers joining us from live from Beijing; many thanks to you.

All right, we're covering another story. Iran says it is watching as a U.S. aircraft carrier speeds toward the Persian Golf. The White House announced Sunday the USS Abraham Lincoln was being sent to the region. It is being joined by bombers and other war ships. U.S. officials say it is a response to specific and credible intelligence that Iran and its proxies are targeting U.S. forces in Syria, Iraq and at sea.

Now the deployment comes as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was at an Arctic council meeting in Finland. CNN's Fred Pleitgen is there. He joins us now live with the very latest on this. A lot of people are asking, what is going on here and what might happen? How concerned should people be?

FRED PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well it is very interesting, and you're absolutely right Rosemary, a lot of people are asking whether or not this might have been a preplanned deployment that maybe some of the Trump Administration are now talking up or whether there was really a credible threat that lead the United States to more quickly deploy this aircraft carrier that is on a regular rotation. It was in the Mediterranean. I was actually on it just a couple of days ago; a little over a week ago. It was then heading towards the area of the Persian Golf.

[03:10:00] Now it's interesting, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last night after dinner here at the Arctic council he came out and he said that there was evidence that the U.S. had been receiving that Iran may have been planning an escalation in that region. Now what exactly that means he didn't say. He also had been saying that the deployment of this carrier, the speedier, the quicker deployment of this carrier and that bomber group, that is something that had been in the works for awhile.

So a bit of mixed messaging that we're seeing there from the Trump Administration. Of course, the National Security Advisor John Bolton, he was also coming out and very clearly saying that this was a message to the Iranians. It seems as though what the U.S. is trying to do is maybe they did pick up some sort of intelligence that maybe some sort of escalation might be in the works but they also very - wanted to make it very clear to the Iranians that they are making this move to maybe try to prevent any sort of miscalculations which of course could have devastating consequences there in that region.

As far as the Iranians are concerned, it's been interesting messaging actually also coming from the Iranians as well. I was in Iran just a couple months ago and I actually managed to speak to some senior members of the Iranian revolutionary of the Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guard Corps and they were clearly saying that if there is an escalation with Washington that one of the things that is sort of in their repertoire Rosemary would be to use their ballistic missiles that they have to try and target American bases in the greater Middle Eastern region. They kept talking about more than 100 bases that the U.S. has in that region according to the Iranian calculation.

The other thing that they were talking about was possibly some sort of standoff in the Strait of Hormuz. Of course that's a very key shipping lane for the world's oil traffic and also one of those areas where Iranian and American war ships are very frequently in very close proximity. I went through there once on an American aircraft carrier and you do actually see Iranian vessels, you see the Iranian coastline. You see Iranian planes as well flying overhead. So a bit of tension but it seems as though also with the deployment especially of the carrier strike group that the U.S. is sending that message to the Iranians, don't do any escalation and then all of this could pass. But certainly it is a key development there in that region that could possibly be an escalation but could possibly also be a move to try and prevent an escalation before it even kicks off, Rosemary.

CHURCH: Yes, as you point out though the fear here is a miscalculation. And everyone will be watching to see how Iran responds to this and Iran has said that it thinks the United States is looking for any excuse to basically start war.

PLEITGEN: Well I think the messaging from the Iranians has been very very interesting because as I've said, I've spoken to those members of the revolutionary guard - just some military members, and some hardliners in Tehran as well and they said, "Look, if America wants and escalation then Iran is ready." They have their ballistic missile program. They obviously have a very strong military - the Iranian Revolutionary - the Revolutionary Guard Corps that also obviously has a fairly strong Navy, obviously not one that could match up with the United States but when you're talking about a waterway like for instance the Strait of Hormuz, it could certainly do a lot of damage there and at least make it unfeasible for instance for merchant travel to go through the Strait of Hormuz.

But at the same time, you also have the Iranian government and specifically the Iranian foreign minister who seems to be seeing divisions in the Trump Administration, Rosemary, one of the things that he obviously did was a couple days ago he went out and he gave a range of interviews where he said he believes that President Trump does not want an escalation with Iran. That President Trump does not want war with Iran.

[03:15:00]

But that the Iranians feel that for instance the National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, well of course we saw here yesterday might be more inclined to start the military conflict with Iran.

So, the Iranians seemingly trying to play out what they see some of these divisions in the Trump administration with a very cautious president as far as the use of military force is concerned and then obviously someone like the National Security Advisor who seems to be less cautious when using American forces.

So, it seems that the Iranians have sort of mapped that strategy out for themselves. So this is a very interesting diplomatic game that we're seeing right now.

As of course we always have to keep pointing out, the U.S. doe shave that strategy of maximum pressure on Iran which in itself has already caused a lot of conflict between these two adversaries, Rosemary.

CHURCH: We'll watch this story very carefully. Fred Pleitgen bringing us today the latest, they appreciate it. Well it is the T.V. event that could rival Game of Thrones, though I doubt it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Will Special Counsel Robert Mueller testify before congress? New details just ahead and a dial warning from experts, animals and plants almost one million species face almost certain doom unless humans act right now. We take a look at that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHURCH: Well democrats in the U.S. congress are not giving up their demand for the complete version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report. They will meet with Justice Department officials in the coming day before voting Wednesday on a contempt citation for Attorney General William Barr.

Meanwhile, President Trump isn't backing down either. CNN's Jim Acosta has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: As the honor of the army football team at the White House, the president sidestepped the news that his former personal attorney Michael Cohen was heading off to federal prison.

[03:20:00] Instead launching a full scale blitz against the Mueller report, tweeting "there are no high crimes and misdemeanors, all the crimes are on the other side," a reference to democrats. But nearly 380 former federal prosecutors argue that's not true.

Saying in a statement on the website media, "each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would in the case of any other person not covered by the office of legal council policy against indicting a sitting president result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Certainly the next step is we need to have Bob Mueller come to Capitol Hill and testify. I expect that's going to happen this month.

ACOSTA: But now the president doesn't want that to happen, tweeting, "Bob Mueller should not testify." That's a departure from what he told reporters that it's up to Attorney General William Barr.

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: I don't know, that's up to our attorney general who I think has done a fantastic job.

ACOSTA: Barr told congress that's fine with him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about Bob Mueller, should he be allowed to testify before the senate?

WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I've already said publically I have no objection.

ACOSTA: The president is feeling cheated, retweeting Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. who said, "I now support reparations. Trump should have two years added to his first term as payback for time stolen by this corrupt failed coo." That won't sit well with democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the New York Times she si worried the president won't give up the White House if he loses in 2020, saying "we have to inoculate against that. We have to be prepared for that." As for Michael Cohen, he once said he worried about that as well.

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY FOR PRES. TRUMP: Indeed given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power.

ACOSTA: The legal turmoil for the president comes as he's grappling with a range of foreign policy headaches with the administration sending an aircraft carrier to the Middle East.

And a warning to Iran this happening amid a delicate ceasefire in the region between Israel and Gaza militants after a weekend of violence that left at least 23 people dead.

And North Korea trying Mr. Trump's patience with a missile test over the weekend, the president may be causing some heartburn for his own team by failing to bring up election meddling with Russia's Vladimir Putin last week.

TRUMP: We didn't discuss that. Really didn't discuss it.

ACOSTA: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that's no big deal.

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We talk to leaders all the time; we cover a broad range of subjects. Sometimes conversations just aren't long enough to include every issue that might be brought up.

ACOSTA: Before bringing it up himself with the Russian foreign minister.

POMPEO: The same thing I've shared with them each time, we've had a chance to cover that particular topic, which is that it's not appropriate. And that we'll do everything we can to deter it.

ACOSTA: And there is one other foreign policy concern that could have a big impact on the U.S. economy, and the economy around the world and that is the president's continued trade war with China.

The president's threat to hike tariffs on China rattled the markets earlier in the day but it seems those jitters have eased as of this evening. Jim Acosta, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

CHURCH: Richard Johnson is a lecturer in U.S. politics and international relations at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom. Thank you so much for being with us.

RICHARD JOHNSON, LECTURER IN U.S. POLITICS & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Good morning. CHURCH: All right, so we just heard there, more than 500 former federal prosecutors signed this open letter saying Mr. Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he weren't president.

Does this make the need to hear Robert Mueller testify even greater to clarify some of these points? And ho likely is it do you think that will happen?

JOHNSON: I think it does make the case for Mueller to testify stronger. I think there's been a lot if dissatisfaction with the way in which the Mueller report has been presented and interpreted by the attorney general's office.

And I think that people felt that the attorney general was very quick to draw quite strong positive conclusions in the president's favor from the Mueller report. That unhinged the context that the Justice Department's own guidelines about not bringing indictment through the Justice Department against the president.

And so really this is a matter for congress to decide and therefore it's important for congress to have all the information available to it, including Mueller's testimony.

CHURCH: And of course at this point President Trump is saying no, there is no need for Mueller to testify. The attorney general has said he doesn't object to that. We'll see what happens with that. But I want to ask you too about these two congressional deadlines.

It came and went Monday with no compliance on the part of the Trump administration just as most people expected. So let's start with the democrats' request for the president's tax return. It's now up to the court. And this could take a while, couldn't it?

JOHNSON: Yes, I mean this tax issue is -- we've been talking about this since long before President Trump was elected president. And what's interesting also is not just the federal action which is being taken at the moment, but the way in which states are preparing themselves for the next presidential elections.

There are a lot of discussions about how California may require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to even appear on the ballots.

[03:25:00]

And so what we've moved from as a norm of President's releasing their tax returns for many decades, since the Ford Administration, to moving to a period now where we have almost sort of force legal compliance for a norm.

And I think that just speaks to what's happened in the last few years in American politics where sort of norms of good behavior have eroded and we've moved into a much more legalistic and hostile context.

And so I think this is going to continue to play out for quite some time to come. CHURCH: Right and of course that other Congressional deadline that came and went. The Attorney General Bill Barr resisting providing an un-redacted Mueller Report but the fight continues to see that as well.

But the Democrats will never see a completely un-redacted report will they? After all the Trump Administration does have the law on its side on this point because there're a number of elements that can't be revealed right?

JOHNSON: Well, that's what they're arguing and I think what will be interesting is that there've been discussion about a move to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress.

Now on the face of it that's a serious move and what that would mean is that if the entire House of Representatives passed a contempt of Congress resolution that would be forwarded on to the US attorney for the District of Columbia.

Who would be able to take legal action against the Attorney General and in theory could fine him or even imprison him. Because the US attorney for the District of Columbia is himself a Trump appointee it's unlikely that she would take action we think.

Congress actually has quite wide ranging powers in these (inaudible). Congress in the past used to be able, I think it still does but doesn't practice-exercise but could even imprison people using its own Sergeant of Arms and its control over the District of Columbia's jail.

Now I'm not saying that I expect Congress to send the Sergeant of Arms off to arrest the Attorney General but we are in an increasingly escalating conflict between the Legislative and Executive branch.

And so I think that we're going to see perhaps powers being used that haven't been exercised in quite some time. Where sort of kind of level of conflict that we haven't really seen since, probably since, Watergate.

CHURCH: Interesting a lot of push back for sure. Richard Johnson thank you so much for bringing your analysis and perspective to this appreciate it.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

CHURCH: Let's take a short break hear the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now parents and we've got a line to England for the details of the newest addition to the royal family. Plus why millions of young South Africans are staying away from this week's national elections. We'll have a live report.

[03:30:00]

CHURCH: Welcome back everyone, I'm Rosemary Church I want to update you now on the main stories we've been following this hour. Myanmar has freed two Reuters journalists jailed for their reporting on a Rohingya massacre in 2017. The men spend more than 500 days behind bars for violating the Colonial era Ofiicial Secrets Act. They were apparently released as part of a Presidential pardon. Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will be heading Washington as the US and China continue their high level trade talks set for Wednesday.

The Trump Administration is accusing China of reneging on its previous agreement and sys it will escalate tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. US war ships and bomber are being sent to the Middle East after threats from Iran and its proxies against US forces.

That is according to US officials citing specific and credible intelligence. The White House announced on Sunday a carrier strike group was heading to the region. Well Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markel are now parents.

The baby boy's birth on Monday was announced in the traditional way on easel outside Buckingham Palace. And then in perhaps a less formal more tongue in cheek staff, via town crier in the town of Windsor of course.

And now there is a third way, Instagram. It's just one of the many ways the couple are doing tradition with a little twist. As for the baby we don't know his name yet but his father delivered the rest of the details.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY CHARLES ALBERT DAVID, PRINCE OF ENGLAND: Meghan and myself had a baby boy, early this morning. A very healthy boy, mother and baby are doing incredibly well.

It's been the most amazing experience I could ever possibly imagine. How any woman does what they do is beyond comprehension but we're absolutely thrilled and so grateful to all the love and support from everybody out there.

It's been amazing so I just wanted to share this with everybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHURCH: We have a very happy father there. Let's bring in CNN's Anna Stewart live from Windsor. So good to see you again Anna, he is so happy, so proud, and so thrilled isn't he. A great day for both Harry and Meghan and all the royals.

How are their subjects responding to this happy news?

ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: You can see that Prince Harry was bursting with joy as is everyone here in Windsor and the next big question is what will the baby be called. And every one has an opinion on this.

I've had some pretty strange names, unlikely names I'd say so far. But I'll give you the top bets at the moment. Cause the bookies opened their books months ago, we've been watching them very closely. At the moment, number one is Alexander at 72, now that is Prince Georges middle name also Alexandra is the queen's middle name so it's got a big royal tradition there. Next up you have James. A long history of Jameses in the royal family. Arthur again that is a middle name for Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince Louis so that's already a very popular one.

And then we have Spencer at 11 to two and this is kind of climbing the tables rather suddenly right near the end. I didn't see it in the top 10 a few weeks ago it would be a nod of course to the baby's late grandmother Princess Diana.

That was her maiden name now it will likely have two middle names. So frankly, it could have all four. It could have four names. It could have five names. Traditionally royals do have quite a few so it could be a combination of all of them.

Surnames, well royals don't need surnames but at school it's likely to use the surname Sussex because Prince George uses Cambridge at school we know that. It can also used Mount (ph) Boston (ph) Windsor if it needs to.

And then there's a big question of the title, whether the queen intervenes and gives this baby the titles of Prince His Royal Highness, if she doesn't it's most likely to take Prince Harry's lesser title Earl of Dumbarton.

Now in addition to that once we find out what the baby's called, what the title will be I expect we'll hear it as he said on social media through past statements but also from the town crier and there's not just one but two here in Windsor take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

[03:35:00]

TONY APPLETON, UNOFFICIAL TOWN CRIER: Oh yay, oh yay, oh yay...

STEWART: He's a familiar face at royal events. Now you are the self appointed...

APPLETON: Royalist town crier.

STEWART: You are the self appointed town crier for all royal events.

APPLETON: All royal events and I done the three royal babies Charlotte...

STEWART: George, Charlotte, Louis, and...

APPLETON: And now we're not sure but it's a boy. I forecast a boy. And not sure of the name yet but...

STEWART: Any guess on the name.

APPLETON: Oh it might be Charles. STEWART: Problem is there's another town crier in town. Royal bearer of Windsor made his-is this official.

CHRIS BROWN, OFFICIAL TOWN CRIER: This is official.

STEWART: You are the official town crier.

BROWN: The mayor appointed me in 2012 and I've worked with every mayor since. I am the official town crier for this town.

STEWART: Now is there a little bit of rivalry cause I've met Tony many times. Tony blocks (ph) in (ph) second royal crier. No comment, no not awkward at all.

BROWN: None at all, I'm sorry. We have a rule, we are polite in this town we don't say nasty things about people.

STEWART: But unofficial town crier Tony has more royal feathers in his cap.

APPLETON: I'm all over the world. I'm international.

STEWART: You're the international self appointed royal (INAUDIBLE)

APPLETON: I'm international and the royal family do know me and royal family have actually called me to (INAUDIBLE) the royal babies. He's not in the book. Whatever forget the rest I'm best.

BROWN: God save the queen.

STEWART: There may not be room for a third town crier but just in case a back up is ever needed...what do I shout?

BROWN: You have to start with, oh yay, oh yay, oh yay, what you say after that is entirely your problem.

STEWART: Oh yay, oh yay, oh yay, Anna Stewart, CNN, Windsor.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

I think he's worrying for his job there he took that hat off me very, very quickly indeed Rosemary but I hope we have more announcements for you soon.

CHURCH: Yes, he didn't give you a chance to finish your sentence. He felt threatened for sure. Thanks so much Anna Stewart. Appreciate it. all right let's get some perspective now on the new arrival from Royal historian Kate Williams.

She is the author of the book Young Elizabeth: the Making of Our Queen. Good to see you Kate.

KATE WILLIAMS, AUTHOR AND ROYAL HISTORIAN: Good morning.

CHURCH: So Prince Harry understandably thrilled with the arrival of his new baby boy and of course proud of his lovely wife Meghan. So what all can you tell us about this royal baby's arrival and of course the history this little boy's making.

WILLIAMS: Well, it's just been a fabulous day and baby Sussex waking up I'm sure already awake a day old now and all of the newspapers are covering the royal baby. It's just so much excitement here in Britain.

Anna was showing how excited people are there in Windsor and really across the country we've seen a lot of our big land marks including the London Eye girthed (ph) in red, white, and blue and blue for boy and everyone's so thrilled.

And I think we've really seen that when Harry said how he was over the moon. Some of Harry's real magic, he was overwhelmed, so much emotion, paying tribute to women of the world for giving birth.

He really was absolutely thrilled and we're all so happy for him. And this baby-it's really a very exciting moment. The first Anglo-American baby born into the royal family. It's going to be a duel US UK citizen we understand so theoretically it could one day stand for US President you never know.

And it's also our first biracial baby in the modern royal family and that sends a powerful message to the world, to the country, a muliti- cultural country in Britain which still is to a large degree very white and the elites but it doesn't have the same role as George.

It's seventh in line to the throne it may not as Anna was saying, it may not have a prince title, the HRH title, it may be Earl of Dumbarton. There is some talk in the newspapers about how it might even have no title at all.

It might just be a mister like any normal citizen of the United Kingdom. So that we will find out hopefully tomorrow with a photo of mother, baby, and father which we can't wait for. And the title and then of course I'm dying to know who will be the godparents?

Will it be Serena Williams who was looking fabulous at the MET Ball, will it be George Clooney who the baby shares a birthday with or will we have a lot of royals but well this royal will grow up to have not a life like Prince Georges but it will be a back up royal.

We will see this royal having an important role as a backup royal. Helping out with the royal engagements. So...

CHURCH: Yes.

WILLIAMS: ...it will certainly have a life in the spotlight.

CHURCH: Very similar to his father right. So as you mentioned no name yet, no title, there has been rumor that the queen would probably not call him a prince so what's behind all of that chatter on name and title?

[03:40:00]

WILLIAMS: Yes well we think probably now the queen won't call him a prince because usually if she was to do that it would have been planned and issued a few months in advance. It would be quite last minute if she makes a decision now.

And the reason really was, we go back to George V now, the queens grandfather who made a rule about who could be prince and who could be princess. And it's strictly was the grandchildren of the sovereign and those in the male line of the Prince of Whales.

And Prince Harry of course is a grandchild so he is a prince but his son is a great grandchild. But that does have the strange possibility that when Charles becomes king this baby could now become a prince and sort of accelerate from mister or Earl of Dumbarton to prince.

So at the moment it is all up in the air but I think probably we'll see the baby being Earl of Dumbarton for the meantime which is a pretty cool title I think.

CHURCH: Yes it is. It's all very cool. And we'll see what the name is in a few days perhaps you don't know. It could take longer than that right. Kate Williams thank you so much for joining us appreciate it.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

CHURCH: And time for a short break here. Just ahead we will hear from South Africa's born free generation and why they have no interest in voting in this week's election.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHURCH: Russia's transport minister says all 41 bodies have been recovered from Sunday's plane crash near Moscow. These are new images of the Aeroflot passenger jet. Investigators are trying to figure out what brought the jet down.

They have recovered the flight and data recorders and are examining surveillance videos. The plane, carrying 73 passengers and five crew members, suffered what was said to be a communications failure shortly after takeoff, headed back to the airport where it bounced on the tarmac and then burst into flames.

The transport minister adds that Russia will not ground the Sukhoi Superjet 100 despite this crash landing. Well voters in South Africa are preparing to head to the poles this week. 25 years after Nelson Mandela was first elected President.

The powerful African national congress which the late president once lead could lose its grip on power in the national and provincial elections. And the government is dealing with a struggling economy, corruption, and rolling power black outs.

[03:45:00]

CNN's David McKenzie joins me now live from Johannesberg with more on this. David, not all South Africans are eager to vote in this election. Why is that and why would they give up their right to have a voice?

DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's a great question because South Africa is a young democracy and everyone will remember or have learned about the transition to democracy from a racist apartheid regime. Many of the older generation fought and some of them even died to get that right to vote for all South Africans and now the younger generation isn't voting.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

MCKENZIE: (Inaudible) says she never depended on anyone to survive except herself. She makes herself (inaudible) a kind of mango pickle. All along their streets, parties and politicians are vying for the (inaudible) family vote.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People who are in charge now, that does make it a big risk. As we get poorer, there is nothing to do for us.

MCKENZIE: Just as Mandela represented the possibilities of a free South Africa, voting lines stretched for blocks in 1994. The first democratic election held the promise of a better future. Now millions are born free, South Africans born after the apartheid regime ended haven't even registered to vote in the election.

MCKENZIE: Are you going to vote?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hell no.

MCKENZIE: Twenty-five years on and around half of the young people are jobless. Much of the black majority is stuck in the poverty track, kept there in part by rampant government corruption. By some estimates, South Africa has become the most and unequal nation on earth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I'm not going to vote.

MCKENZIE: Why not?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll survive without voting...

MCKENZIE: Young South Africans like designer (inaudible) didn't see apartheid firsthand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just take it off.

MCKENZIE: The struggles are with the new South Africa.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a born free, maybe we were promised mansions. I don't know that.

MCKENZIE: Do you have a mansion?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't have a mansion.

MCKENZIE: And are you voting this year?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, since I was born, it wouldn't (inaudible) no more voting again.

MCKENZIE: And until they see real change in (inaudible), will never cast another ballot.

What was really striking to me was these young South Africans and there are many in there that aren't featured in that report that we spoke to, don't feel the enthusiasm like you see in this video from rallies of the party. So the party faithful are saying they're coming out and want their sides to win of course but there are many, many South Africans, perhaps millions of them who feel disenfranchised because of the problems of the ruling party, because of the corruption of the last 9 or 10 years under the previous president.

So (inaudible) that you see speaking there, he has said that he wants to have a new dawn and he says he wants to get rid of corruption in the party. But Rosemary, many of his senior leaders surrounding him in the ANC have been implicated in that very corruption and it means that South Africans who thought there would be jobs, who felt there would be a brighter future in the 25 years of democracy really that we spoke to feel that promise hasn't been kept. Rosemary.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

CHURCH: All the more reason though to have a voice and vote. And we see this cycle over and over again don't we where people die to get the vote and then the younger generation, unfortunately doesn't see this through. We'll watch to see the outcome. David McKenzie with that live report, appreciate it.

All voters will be recasting their ballots in Istanbul, Turkey, as Turkey's electoral commission has ordered new elections for the mayor of the city. The main opposition party achieved a huge upset narrowly beating the candidate from the ruling party of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the AKP party has raised questions about possible voter fraud. Istanbul's newly-elected mayor has hit back accusing the election board of bowing to the president's will. Regardless, he says he will run again and the vote is expected in late June or early July.

Well next, a warning from scientists. It is time to take action now to save about one million species from becoming extinct. Plus over the top and eye-popping, this year's Met Gala fame demanded a little extra drama. We will break down the best and most bizarre looks ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[03:50:00]

CHURCH: A devastating report from a U.N. backed group has an alarming warning, humans must do something to stop climate change now or contend with dire consequences. Here's CNN's Nick Watt.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Around one million species now face extinction; many within decades because of humans. Three quarters of all the land on earth is being significantly altered in just the past 50 years by humans. Plastic pollution at sea is up 10 fold since 1980, our fault.

PAUL ENRICH, PROFESSOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY: For a species that named itself homo sapiens, the wise man, we're being incredibly stupid.

WATT: The human population has doubled in just 50 years; our agriculture consumes more and more land, natural habitats are shrinking. We continue to pollute. The climate continues to warm and natural ecosystems crumble at an accelerating rate. One hundred forty-five leading experts from 50 countries spent 3 years compiling this gargantuan report reaching frightening conclusions.

ENRICH: The other organisms of the planet are our life support systems. You don't have to worry about them if you don't care about eating, if you don't care about breathing, if you don't care about having fresh water and so on, then you can just forget about it and die.

WATT: The authors hope this work will land like last year's bombshell U.N. Global Warming Report which galvanized the Green Movement and spurred politicians towards more urgent action.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): You must also thank the existential threat of our time, the climate crisis.

WATT: As for our rapidly dwindling biodiversity, these experts claim it's the 11th hour. We must act now, consuming less, polluting less, having fewer children.

ENRICH: I'm very, very optimistic about what we could do in theory. I'm very pessimistic about what we will do.

WATT: One eighth of all animal and plant species on earth now at risk of extinction because of us and as this report states, nature is essential for human existence.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

CHURCH: Our Nick Watt reporting there. So let's get more now on this dire report with meteorologist Pedram Javaheri, very sobering news.

PEDRAM JAVAHERI, CNN METEOROLOGIST: It always is. Yes, either sobering or just heartening and in this case it's a little unique of a perspective when it comes to these reports because often we are looking at carbon dioxide levels, we're looking at extreme temperature rise, one to two degree Celsius rise, a threshold that has been set in place. But this study as Nick alluded to there, you look at 145 scientists involved in this and of course over 3 years some 50 countries as well, so certainly a wide-reaching impact when it comes to what it revealed.

And you know biodiversity, when it comes to this essentially what you're looking at is biological diversity on our planet and the study looked at anything from genes to widespread ecosystems and saw that widespread impact associated with it and Nick again talked about the 1 in 8 species or 1 million species threatened on our planet out of the 8 million species and a lot of this, of course, caused by the decline in biodiversity because of humans.

Now, when you take a look at the rate of extinction, this is really what stood out for me out of this particular study was that 10 to 100 times higher than what it had been over the past several hundred million years. So certainly an incredible increase when it comes to the rapid decline in the population of species around the world and the global populations for humans as well. You know that has risen dramatically from the 1950s alone - 2.5 billion up to almost 8 billion for present day across our planet.

[03:55:00]

So that's a threefold increase in a matter of just a few decades and with that, of course, you've got to feed the human population that is on the rise. We know that farming production has increased upwards of 300 percent since the 1970s alone. And the study found that the livestock production essentially takes up three quarters of the fresh water supply on our planet. So if you put this together, the fresh water resources on our planet, you put this together you know that our resources are very quickly becoming dwindled, the population very quickly increasing and of course time very quickly running out. So that is exactly what this particular study was trying to pinpoint. Rosemary.

CHURCH: Well yes. We must heed the warnings. Many thanks to you Pedram, appreciate it.

JAVAHERI: Yes, Rosemary.

CHURCH: It's known for some of the most daring fashion statements and this year's Met Gala Fame camp votes on fashion couture costume design to another level of risque and playful. On Monday night celebrities came to the charity ball in their boldest outfits inspired by irony, humor and parody. As for Lady Gaga, one of the night's hosts, one look was apparently not enough. She arrived in a fuchsia dress with an enormous train and an entourage of umbrella-holding suit wearing men to handle it making her way towards the main stairs she stripped off three different outfits all on the pink carpet. Eventually Gaga made her way in wearing only black undergarments and boots.

And to light up the ball literally, Katie Perry came as a chandelier. Her headpiece weighed a whopping 40 pounds or 18 kilograms and if that's not gaudy enough, rapper Cardi B owned the fame with a red feather gown that nearly covered the entire floor. Her dress was so big an entourage was needed to help her up the stairs.

Actor Billy Porter's entrance featured a theatrical nod to ancient Egypt wearing a bejeweled cat suit. He arrived being carried on a chaise by six shirtless men. His (inaudible) ensemble was accented with 10-foot wings and a 24 carat gold headpiece. And of course, let's not forget some of the most eye-catching and bizarre, actors Jared Leto and Ezra Miller arrived with some form of their own faces. The Met museum gave Miller props for his costume tweeting, "He dressed as the epitome of camp."

And thank you so much for your company. I'm Rosemary Church. Remember to connect with me anytime on twitter @Rosemarycnn. CNN Newsroom continues next with Isa Soares in London. You are watching CNN.

[04:00:00]