Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
U.K. Pledges More Power to Scotland; Ebola Crisis: U.S. Military Deploys; Imagine a World
Aired September 16, 2014 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST (voice-over): Tonight: the United Kingdom now just days away from a vote which could radically define the
entire country, I'll get former prime minister John Major's view on why Scotland should remain part of the U.K.
Also ahead, America's top military chief testifies on the fight against ISIS as President Obama announces a major deployment to fight a
different kind of battle -- against the deadly Ebola virus.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.
In a rare show of unity, the leaders of Britain's three main political parties made a vow today in a last-ditch attempt to keep Scotland part of
the United Kingdom. Appearing on the front of the Scottish newspaper, the "Daily Record," David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg vowed to transfer
more powers to Scotland if it rejects independence in Thursday's vote.
But deputy leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party Nicola Sturgeon hit back at Westminster, saying the offer wasn't good enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICOLA STURGEON, DEPUTY LEADER, SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY: It's meaningless. You know, they're saying we'll deliver more powers if you
won't vote, but won't tell us what powers they're talking about. They don't agree between themselves what more powers should come to Scotland.
And we are already seeing MPs from south of the border saying that they will block any more powers for Scotland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So John Major was the Conservative Party's prime minister here in Britain from 1990-1997 and he's a veteran of this particular
political war and he's joining me now live in the studio.
Welcome to the program.
JOHN MAJOR, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So what of Nicola Sturgeon? The Scottish Nationalist saying that this vow is a bribe and it's a day late and a dollar short.
Do you agree?
MAJOR: As a matter of fact, there's nothing that anyone could say that would satisfy the Scottish Nationalists. Their aim is independence, a
separate Scotland. They're perfectly prepared to throw away 300 years of history and the gains we've made in unity.
So whatever was said, the SNP would turn it away and would disavow it. That's been their tactic right the way through this debate.
AMANPOUR: Do you believe, though, that this vow is the right way to go?
Can it keep the union together?
And is it offering something that you believe in?
MAJOR: This vow is something quite special and quite new. It offers Scotland a great deal more self-dependence in terms of the powers given to
the Scottish parliament; it keeps the United Kingdom together. It stops many of the risks it would otherwise take place both to the United Kingdom
and to Scotland because be in no doubt about this, were there to be separation, both the United Kingdom and Scotland, in my judgment would
suffer and suffer seriously.
AMANPOUR: Let's first talk about Scotland. They are obviously full of the desire to move inevitably and inexorably from devolution to their
own parliament to independence.
And they say we can run our own economy; we'll be able to talk about jobs and govern those crucial economic areas ourselves.
MAJOR: No one has denied that the Scots are an intelligent nation who could run their own country. That's not the issue.
The question is would Scotland be better off in the United Kingdom or better off --
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: They say they're (INAUDIBLE) economically.
MAJOR: They have faced none of the realities that that actually refers to.
Whenever the realities are placed before them, they say people are lying. They say we can get straight into the European Union. Well, the
European Union say they can't. So they say the European Union is lying.
They think they can enter into NATO. I think that's extremely unlikely.
They say they can manage without having their own currency. They can't use sterling. They're two days away from the vote and they do not
yet know what currency they're going to use in the long term.
Now that is just absurd. And one could stretch that list to points put to them that they've denied. And they're not points put to them by
advocates of the No campaign; they're points put to them by senior business men, by senior politicians outside the country, people who have studied
what's happened and knows the impact upon Scotland and a Scottish nation have, frankly -- and I don't say this lightly -- have been fed a load of
pap by the Scottish nationalists in the belief that everything will be all right on the night. Well, it won't. There are very serious problems that
Scotland will face if they go down this route.
AMANPOUR: What about the wealth of the nation, so to speak? They talk a lot about the oil wealth. There they have it in waters off
Scotland.
Why should that not keep them afloat?
MAJOR: Well, it's U.K. oil. It isn't all Scottish oil. Let me make that point firstly.
Secondly, it's a diminishing asset. The oil is reducing. It's not going to be there forever. It might be there for 30 years. It might be
there for 40 years. But what about the young men and women who'll be voting for the first time in this referendum and their children and their
children? They won't have Scottish oil to rely on. They will have to compete and in future they'll have to compete with the rest of the United
Kingdom as well as others; whereas now the United Kingdom are advocates of Scotland.
I go abroad frequently and I speak about British prospects and I include the prospect of investment in Scotland. In future, they'd be
competitors if they were separate, not part of the United Kingdom.
AMANPOUR: And what about this notion? Because everyone watching this program from around the world is worried about what this means for
separatist movements elsewhere, but also what does this mean for the reliable, trusty ally and trading partner that is the U.K.?
Is this going to lead to a totally devolved U.K., one way or the other?
MAJOR: Well, there are two separate points there, firstly about separatism. There's no doubt that the Scottish plans have excited
separatists in Catalonia, in Bavaria, in Flanders, all over the place. They expect to join the European Union and yet they will have excited
dissent and separatism in a large number of European Union countries, a point they totally overlook.
As to the impact if Scotland became separate, it would have a pretty dramatic impact on the rest of the United Kingdom as well. I don't think
anything is going to break the United Kingdom's affinity and affection for its traditional allies.
But they will be weaker. They will be weaker. They will have less influence. You can't have a large chunk of a country suddenly falling off
and retain the same international influence that you had before.
AMANPOUR: I mean, right now, we're in the midst of a major existential fight that the West has identified against these terrorists,
barbaric terrorists, who slaughter people in public, ISIS.
Britain has always been a trusted military ally. It's been a trusted voice in the United Nations Security Council.
How will that be affected, boots on the ground and people under arms, Scottish contribute a lot to that.
MAJOR: British military capability would be diminished if Scottish became a -- if Scotland became a separate nation, no doubt about that, an
extraordinary time to do it. We had jihadists all over the Middle East. We have Russia misbehaving in Ukraine. We have a range of problems in
different parts of the world and this is the moment that the United Kingdom, that's been together for 300 years, finds a part of it, which is
to break away, it is an extraordinary concept and particularly an extraordinary concept at this moment in time with the world as it is.
AMANPOUR: You fought an election in 1997 and you lost to Tony Blair. But you, one of your platforms was to oppose the independent Scottish
parliament.
Now they have it. Do you agree with the idea of devo-max or whatever's been promised in this vow, even if they vote to stay in the
U.K.?
MAJOR: I think if they stay in the United Kingdom and get more powers, I'm perfectly content with that. Frankly, I'd trade almost
anything for the importance of keeping the United Kingdom as a single entity.
AMANPOUR: So why was that often made from the beginning by Prime Minister Cameron?
MAJOR: I can't answer that question. You'll have to ask Prime Minister Cameron --
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: -- former Conservative Party leader.
MAJOR: -- it doesn't mean I necessarily know the mind of my -- all my successors. But I did foresee in 1992 the damage that would come about by
spreading devolution; I believed it would be a stepping stone for a separatist movement and thus it has proved.
But we're now under a different circumstance. And now we're in the circumstance where there is a demand in Scotland that I think that in one
way or another needs to be met. And to that reason, I think it is right to make this particular offer if it will sustain the union.
AMANPOUR: And finally, what about people individuals who say they are just fed up of central government? They just don't believe in this
anymore; they don't see the leadership. They don't see how it helps them.
MAJOR: Well, I think that's a feeling in the U.K., but not only in the U.K. I think that's truly United States and in most of the countries
of Europe as well. But there's a bigger point really in terms of the United Kingdom. Are we suddenly to wake up in two mornings' time and find
that the Scots are foreigners?
That the Scots, who've been integrated with the United Kingdom for hundreds of years, many of whom, 800,000 of whom live in the United
Kingdom, are suddenly a foreign nation? It's an alien concept, very hard to grasp. And I think people today who are advocates of separatism have
not perhaps realized the sheer impact upon them, upon Scotland, upon their colleagues in the United Kingdom and upon the United Kingdom as a whole if
separatism were to be agreed by the Scottish voters on Thursday.
AMANPOUR: Sir John Major, you've made your case. Thank you very much indeed.
MAJOR: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
And talking about being foreigners, while the prospect of Scottish independence is of course serious business, some merry pranksters have
managed to have a little bit of fun with the debate.
This checkpoint on a highway that runs from England to Scotland may look real but it is just a spoof of a border crossing, complete with
barrier and passport control.
After a break, can closing borders in Africa even shutting down whole countries help prevent the spread of the deadly Ebola virus? Desperate
times and desperate measures when we come back.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.
America's top military officer, General Martin Dempsey, testified before Congress today as the United States hit its first ISIS targets near
Baghdad. But it was another national security crisis, as President Obama calls it, that prompted news of deployment overseas.
The United States is sending 3,000 troops to contain not terrorists but a terrible virus that is spiraling out of control in West Africa,
Ebola. The U.S. plans to build 17 health centers in Liberia, where the 100 beds each, critically important as the WHO says there has not been one
single bed open and free in almost two weeks there.
The United States will also train 500 health care workers a week and provide tens of thousands of home health kits and much more.
After facing criticism for not doing enough at the onset, is America's new initiative enough? And how exactly will it work?
Rear Admiral John Kirby joined me from the Pentagon to explain.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Tell me exactly what a U.S. military deployment can do to stop Ebola.
REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Well, what we can do is bring some of our unique capabilities. As you know, Christiane, the
military has a lot of capabilities that might be of use here, particularly not just in medical science; we have doctors and nurses, some of whom are
trained in infectious diseases. But we also have logistics capability. We have training capability. We have some security capability. So there's
lots of things we can do.
But I also want to stress that we're in support of the State Department, USAID and, in this case, the government of Liberia. The
military won't be leading this effort. We'll be supporting this effort.
AMANPOUR: And we understand there are going to be many hospital beds made available, many local doctors and nurses trained.
But we're also being told by aid workers who are on the front lines that if this doesn't get up and running in two weeks' time, it could be too
late.
How sure are you of the speed with which this can be operational?
KIRBY: Well, I can tell you that Secretary Hagel and all the leaders here in the Pentagon share the same sense of urgency about this crisis and
about getting those capabilities that we talked about down there, just as fast as we can.
I don't know if it'll be as fast as two weeks. But I can tell you that there's a lot of energy being applied here. We understand the threat;
we understand how dangerous this disease is and we want to chip in just as much as we can.
AMANPOUR: And what happened to change the policy? Why suddenly is it a national security imperative, the president is right now going to be
speaking at the CDC in Atlanta about this deployment.
It was -- it's quite sudden, this turnaround.
KIRBY: Well, I don't know about that. I -- from a military perspective, we certainly have been watching for a while. I believe the
commander in chief has talked about this being a national security threat for a while, since March. The U.S. government writ large has been involved
in trying to address it, be through donations or through medical doctors and assistance. We've had eight medical doctors down in Liberia ourselves
for six, seven months now.
So this is something we've been tracking for quite a while.
AMANPOUR: How is it a national security threat?
And I ask you that because obviously you've heard some criticism already of people complaining that it will take forces away from the fight
against ISIS.
KIRBY: It's not going to take any forces away from doing the things that the American military needs to do for the American people, which is to
protect and defend them.
As a matter of fact, we believe that in our support to this particular crisis, we're actually helping do that because as you know, the disease
spreads rapidly. And while there's no evidence that it's spreading to America's shores right now, that's certainly something we need to be
concerned about.
And it's also a humanitarian issue.
You know, Christiane, you've been coverage the U.S. military, that we contribute to humanitarian relief efforts all over the world, because it's
good for our partners, our friends. It's good to help create stable conditions, not instable, so that we don't have security threats down the
road.
So there's lots of reasons why we believe that this is a national security threat and why we are convinced that it's the right thing to do to
contribute to it.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about this operation has a name already, Operation United Assistance, the fight against ISIS does not have a name
yet. And already there's been some questions about General Dempsey's testimony to Congress, where he said that perhaps maybe if circumstances
change, American military advisers may be fighting with Iraqi forces.
Can you please clear that up? What is he talking about? Is he making some declaration about ground forces, ground troops, boots on the ground?
KIRBY: No, I think Chairman Dempsey was speaking about what his best military advice would be if in case we needed to further advance our
advisers and our assistance troops out to lower level units. Right now they're going to be advising and assisting at a brigade level or higher, so
a very high headquarters level. And what he said was that if he felt that the strategy as it was being proposed and executed was failing, that he
would not hesitate to change his advice to the commander in chief about maybe putting advisers in lower -- in lower level units out there.
But he also said that he supports the strategy that we're executing right now and he also said that he doesn't believe we're at that stage
right now. So he wasn't talking about specific troops in a combat role on the ground, more advising and assisting at a lower level.
AMANPOUR: On that note, Admiral Kirby, thank you so much for joining us from the Pentagon tonight.
KIRBY: Thanks for having me, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And now for the humanitarian view from the front lines against Ebola, it was, of course, Medecins sans Frontieres that launched
the fight against the disease. Its general director, Christopher Stokes, is just back from Liberia and he joined me a little earlier from Brussels.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Christopher Stokes, welcome to the program.
CHRISTOPHER STOKES, GENERAL DIRECTOR, MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES: Hi. Hello.
AMANPOUR: You've just returned from practically ground zero in this case, Monrovia-Liberia. Tell me right now how bad is it. Do you have any
sort of handle on the spread of this disease?
STOKES: Actually, these numbers underestimate. One, you have a lot of people who are dying and who are not reporting to facilities.
Two, you have to imagine Liberia, the impact of Ebola is engulfing the country, especially in Monrovia. So you have the impression of being in a
kind of war zone. I've worked in a lot of war zones and it does remind me of this, because the schools have closed. The borders have closed. Most
airlines no longer fly there.
The ships no longer berth and the hospitals have closed. And next to this, in our own treatment center, which is probably the -- which is
actually certainly -- and there were three in Monrovia, the biggest Ebola hospital that's ever been built, we're overwhelmed. In effect, we have to
refuse every day -- and this is what our teams find the hardest -- every day we're refusing patients who go back into their communities, because
there's no room basically.
AMANPOUR: You must be very, very pleased to hear that the United States plans to send several thousand military medical personnel.
STOKES: Actually, we've been denouncing for months the international inaction -- we call it a coalition of inaction around Ebola. And we've
really accelerated over the last few weeks these calls in going so far as calling for the deployment of state assets, be they military or non-
military state assets.
So, yes, this is a good positive step. The U.S., the U.K., France, we'd like to see other countries. I think Cuba's also committed to send
doctors and people on the ground. And this is a good step. But it has to go quickly because for the moment, the epidemic is actually doubling. The
numbers of cases are doubling every three to four weeks. If the deployment is too slow, we'll still be behind the curve.
AMANPOUR: One of the huge problems that you face is not just a contagion in terms of a disease, but there is a contagion of anxiety and
fear and ignorance.
Let me just play for you what the Liberian information minister told me about the second front battle that they're fighting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEWIS BROWN, LIBERIAN INFORMATION MINISTER: We're fighting cultural, long-held cultural practices and beliefs and certainly we're not the most
enlightened society in the world. And we're trying to bring every tool imaginable to bear in helping our communities to help themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So he's saying ignorance is a massive, massive barrier to fighting this war against Ebola.
Is that what you're finding?
STOKES: Well, Liberia doesn't have the monopoly of ignorance, because there's been a lot of ignorance about Ebola and you've had this -- the
Ebola epidemic itself, but you have -- you've had a epidemic of fear.
The Liberian government is doing the best it can to inform its population and the community will be a key part of this. So, yes, speed
will be of the essence. The community, changing the behavior in the community will be part of the response. And that's vital.
AMANPOUR: Because what we've seen is that people have just terribly frightened of these so-called yellow men and women, who turn up and remove
their loved ones or whatever.
How are you going to get over that, the fear of these strangers entering their house?
STOKES: Well, I think that was true, what you describe was especially true in the beginning of the epidemic. But indeed, we're under huge
pressure to collect the bodies. But as people have understood in Liberia and in many parts of Sierra Leone and Guinea to actually -- to have
somebody infected or dying or, indeed, dead of Ebola in your house is a huge risk, even if it's a close family member, you want that body to be
managed by somebody and to be taken away.
AMANPOUR: Do you think this new international response, as long as it gets on the ground and working quickly will stop it?
Or do you think that this disease, this virus, whatever could mutate and spread even further and faster?
STOKES: My feeling, having come back from Liberia is that if it's still concentrated in these three countries, Sierra Leone, Guinea and
Liberia, we have a chance. But the longer we wait, the higher the risk that it'll spread to Ivory Coast, Senegal, et cetera, and then I find it
quite hard to see how we're going to get on top of this.
AMANPOUR: Christopher Stokes, a lot at stake. Thank you so much for joining me.
STOKES: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And after a break, the Ebola virus was first discovered 40 years ago in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a number of cases
there has doubled in recent weeks.
But imagine sounds of life amid the morning, the healing power of music when we come back.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, while the spread of Ebola sends shivers throughout Africa and around the globe, imagine a world where one
of Africa's first symphony orchestras born from conflict is giving the healing power of music.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): The Kinshasa Symphony Orchestra is touring Britain for the very first time, 160 musicians, many of them self-taught,
and with day jobs as teachers, doctors and office workers back home in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
It's the brainchild of founder, conductor Armand Diangienda, the orchestra played London's Festival Hall this past weekend, a remarkable
journey that's 20 years in the making.
A few years ago, I couldn't imagine one I would be here with all these musicians. When we started, I remember we had many problems.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): The DRC is the largest country in subsaharan Africa and 65 percent of the 70 million people who live there live in
poverty. It's the only symphony in Central Africa and it was created in 1994 when genocide ravaged neighboring Rwanda and the country then known as
Zaire was going through its own tumultuous transition to independent nationhood.
The fledgling orchestra, like the country itself, was in a fight for survival.
We didn't have enough instruments for everybody to practice. We didn't have some musical scores for some pieces. Every day for some
musicians to get to the rehearsal place was really a challenge.
I remember we started in 1994. The first time we saw a viola in the orchestra it was in 1999.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): With its repertoire of Beethoven and Congolese music, the Kinshasa Symphony is bridging cultures and showing the world
that, out of poverty and despair, some hope and harmony can rise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And that's it for our program tonight. Remember you can always contact us at our website, amanpour.com, and follow me on Facebook
and Twitter. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.
END
