Return to Transcripts main page


Prince Andrew Settles Sex Abuse Lawsuit; Humanitarian Crisis In Afghanistan; Interview With McAllister Olivarius Chair And Senior Partner Ann Olivarius; Interview With Times Radio Presenter Ayesha Hazarika; Interview With Aarhus University Political Science Professor Michael Bang Petersen. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired February 16, 2022 - 13:00:00   ET




Here's what's coming up.


AMANPOUR (voice-over): Large-scale refugee crises accompany any conflict, whether Europe, the Middle East or Afghanistan.

I speak with International Rescue Committee president David Miliband about the human cost.

And Prince Andrew goes from denial to settlement, acknowledging that he's accuser, Virginia Giuffre, suffered as a victim of abuse.

I asked what this means for the royal family and for victims' rights.


MICHAEL BANG PETERSEN, AARHUS UNIVERSITY: In the end, tough decisions during a pandemic needs to be made by politicians.

AMANPOUR: As Denmark becomes the first European country to lift all COVID restrictions, Walter Isaacson speaks to government adviser Michael Bang



AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

World leaders express cautious optimism on Ukraine, as diplomatic outreach with Russia continues. But while Russia's E.U. ambassador, Vladimir

Chizhov, claims there will be no attack today or next week or the week after or next month, the situation remains on a hair trigger.

Here is U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken:


ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Unfortunately, there's a difference between what Russia says and what it does.

And what we're seeing is no meaningful pullback. On the contrary, we continue to see forces, especially forces that would be in the vanguard of

any renewed aggression against Ukraine, continuing to be at the border, to mass at the border.


AMANPOUR: Western leaders also warn of a massive human cost if Russia invades Ukraine, a potential tsunami of new refugees. Of course, the world

is already grappling with the desperate humanitarian cost of war in Asia, the Middle East and Afghanistan.

My first guest tonight says the West is taking a starvation policy on Afghanistan ever since pulling out all its military last August. He is the

former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, now president of the International Rescue Committee.

And he's joining me here in the studio.

Welcome to our studio.


AMANPOUR: So it is quite stark, what you said, that the West is pursuing a starvation policy.

That's what you said.

MILIBAND: Well, I have called it a catastrophe of choice.

And the choice that's been made since August, early September has been essentially to cut off the Afghan economy from the supply both of public

funds and of private sector economic activity, no salaries being paid to nurses employed by the Ministry of Public Health.

Meanwhile, the sanctions regime means that an import-dependent economy can't import because companies outside the country are scared of getting

entangled in that sanctions regime. And that's what leads to a situation where the World Food Program says it has to feed more than half of the

population, and where the U.N. says that nine million people are at level four of food insecurity.

Level five, Christiane, is famine. So that is the situation today, a million kids one step short of a famine designation.

AMANPOUR: So you have several thousand employees out there. Many of them are women, your employees out there of the IRC.

What are they telling you? What are they reporting back? What do they see in the hospitals, in the villages, in people's houses?

MILIBAND: Yes, we have worked, the International Rescue Committee, across Afghanistan for the last 40 years.

And there are now 3,000 IRC staff members across 10 of the most densely populated provinces. I spoke to them last week; 44, 45 percent of them are

women, as you say, including in management positions. What they say is that the media reports of people selling their children for money are true.

Media reports of people selling body parts are true.

The malnutrition statistics at our health centers -- we're now running 68 fixed health centers, more than 30 mobile health clinics -- the

malnutrition statistics going through the roof. And the reason is simple. Public sector staff are not getting paid. Private people dependent on small

business can't make payments. The banking system isn't working.

The sanctions are biting. The finance minister and the Central Bank don't have the staff to run themselves. This is not about whether or not you

recognize the Taliban. This is about whether you allow people to feed themselves.

AMANPOUR: OK, so that's what I was going to get to, because all of this -- and much of the world we will agree with isolating the Taliban, and they

will say, see what they do to women. See what they do here and there. See what they do in terms of supporting terrorism, at least in the past, maybe

even still today.


We have got to show them that they cannot do that. And if they want to be recognized, they have to play by the international norms.

What do you say to that?

MILIBAND: I say that, when you tell a nurse in Herat that she can't be paid, you're punishing her. You're not punishing the Taliban. When you tell

a teacher in Kabul that she can't be paid, you're punishing him or her.

When a small business person can't pay his staff because the Afghani banknotes are stuck in a Polish printing press that doesn't dare import the

banknotes into the country, you're not punishing the Taliban. You're punishing the small business person who can't pay his staff.

And so this is a punishment strategy that is...

AMANPOUR: The collective punishment.

MILIBAND: Well, it's misguided. It's being in -- there are meant to be 140-plus Taliban who are under U.S., but also international U.N. Security

Council sanctions.

OK, this policy is squeezing the whole country. And that's why I said in my testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Afghans know

the price of war. Now they're suffering the price of peace, because it is more secure there now, but people can't feed themselves.

AMANPOUR: So what did you tell them about President Biden's promise? Because, if you remember, I remember, he said that they were going to pull

out all their military, but they would not abandon Afghanistan economically, humanitarian-wise.

But they seem to have done just that, haven't they?

MILIBAND: Well, it's not good enough.

AMANPOUR: Have they done that?

MILIBAND: Well, I promise you, I'm going to answer that.

What they say, what the administration in Washington, but also in London or in Berlin, say is, we're paying humanitarian aid.

Now, I'm running a humanitarian aid agency. So you would think me -- I'd be coming on the program saying, give more humanitarian aid. But I'm saying,

we have got to get the economy running. There is a $4 billion aid bill. The U.N. have said it will become a $10 billion aid bill if you can't get the

economy running.

And so when I speak about assets that are frozen, so there's no capital for the banking system, when I speak about the inability of businesses to

import, whether it be grain or machine tools, I'm talking about a private economy that is frozen. And as long as that's the case, we humanitarians,

we're running up an escalator that is going down faster than we can cope.

AMANPOUR: You actually do say this: :The economy is not just in freefall. It's being strangled. We're a humanitarian agency, but we want to say loud

and clear that you can't solve this problem of mass malnutrition only with the humanitarian effort."

So -- because a lot of people think you can, that you can do an end-run around the Taliban, and solve their immediate humanitarian desperate need

right now.

But you can't, right? I mean, and do you actually think that, if all of these spigots were open to the Taliban -- and we will get to conditions in

a second -- that they could run a country and stave off famine and starvation? They have never run a country before.

MILIBAND: But the spigots is not for the Taliban. The spigots is for the - - as you describe them, is for teachers, nurses, and water engineers who haven't been paid since August or April.

The ability of an agriculture-dependent economy to import fertilizer or foodstuffs, that's essential. And, at the moment, there is no economic

activity in the formal economy. There's an informal economy. There's a drugs economy. But we don't want to drive people into that. We don't want

to drive them out of the banking system. But that's what's happening at the moment.

AMANPOUR: And, meantime, there's a massive exodus as well, people fleeing all across different borders as much as they can.

There's this whole other international quandary about whether to recognize them. But I have heard you talk about, at the moment, it's kind of

semantic, because President Trump de facto recognized the Taliban.

MILIBAND: Well, that's certainly a very good point.

But you can negotiate with people who you don't recognize. What I say is, there's recognition, and then there's recognition of reality. And

recognition of reality requires two steps. Step one is deal with the starvation crisis. Step two is figure out, what is going to be

international engagement with the Afghan economy over the next two, three, four years?

And the truth is, you don't find many issues where Russia, China, Iran, the United States, Pakistan might agree. But, actually, there's an alignment of

interests. They don't want an Afghan failed state. They don't want an Afghanistan that's an exporter of terrorism, and they don't want an

Afghanistan that's an exporter of people.

And that's what an international effort needs to get to. The U.N. Security Council is going to be debating the renewal of the UNAMA mandate, the

United Nations Afghan -- aid mission in Afghanistan.

It's essential that that doesn't confine itself only to matters of humanitarian aid. That's important, but it's not sufficient. Unless there

is a political and economic prospectus for the next two, three or four years, we're going to be back in the situation next year, with one

important difference.


More humanitarian aid is going to be needed, not $4 billion, which is what the U.N. are asking for now, but $10 billion next year, on their estimates.

AMANPOUR: The other major issue, in fact, the major issue about Afghanistan, the way the rest of the world looks at Afghanistan, is the

litmus test of how they treat women, how the Taliban treats women.

And we saw, despite all sorts of promises of being Taliban 2.0, et cetera, we have seen a lot of restrictions. We're now beginning to see them talk

about opening schools, like at the end of March, for girls as well, and universities as well.

Do you think the Western message of respecting human rights and women's rights is getting through to them?

MILIBAND: The most important messengers are not politicians or ex- politicians in the West or elsewhere. The most important messengers are the people in Afghanistan.

You have covered women demonstrating. That -- it's Afghan civil society that has seen the gains of the last 20 years that are the most important

messengers. We employ 45 percent women. There's no attempt to interfere with the employment that we're offering. Primary school-aged girls have

been going to school up to the age of 13.

But you're right to say March is an important date. It is the new term. And there have been promises made that those girls will be able to go to school

over the age of 13 and that they will be able to go to university.

Let's test that. But at the moment, we're not paying the teachers. So the teachers aren't being paid. So the -- you have got a blockage there, and

you have, frankly, got an excuse there as well.

AMANPOUR: Can I just play a sound bite that has come to represent essentially the current administration's view and the perception of the

current administration's level of care about what's happening in Afghanistan?

And it's President Biden when asked about whether he felt the U.S. bore a responsibility, particularly to Afghan women, if all the troops pulled out.

This was in 2020 during the presidential campaign. This is what he said.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do I bear responsibility? Zero responsibility.

The responsibility I have is to protect America's national self-interest, and not put our women and men in harm's way to try to solve every single

problem in the world by use of force.


AMANPOUR: I mean, the distinct lack of empathy there and the coldness of that comment has been noted by many.

And I just wonder whether you think -- just a few days ago, he also announced that they're going to release half the frozen Afghan assets and

give them to American families, victims of 9/11, while people in Afghanistan, as you have just laid out, are starving to death, selling

organs, selling children in order to feed themselves.

MILIBAND: Well, on Thursday last week, $7 billion of Afghan assets were frozen in America, and $2.5 billion frozen in Europe.

On Friday, $3.5 billion of the American frozen assets were released. Now, we have argued for full release, albeit not overnight, because you can't

just throw $9 billion worth of assets at an economy overnight.

But I think it's really important that we don't lose sight of the fact that that $3.5 billion that's been released is used to underpin the banking

system, is used to ensure that the economy gets moving. Some of it may be used for humanitarian aid as well.

The immediate issue when I spoke to our staff last week is, how are we going to feed our families next week? Now, if you're an IRC staff member,

you can get paid, and you can ensure that you get the cash. But the relatives can't. Other people can't.

And I think it's really important that we don't lose sight of this. There's a legal process in the U.S., which the American administration obviously

has to follow. But where are the Europeans on the assets?

AMANPOUR: And the British to have assets?

MILIBAND: Yes, most of the assets, I think, are in the Bank of International Settlements. It's hard to get to the bottom of it. But you're

right. There's London. There's Berlin, Frankfurt.

It's very important that Europe, which talks a lot about the need for stability in South Asia, talks a lot about his fears about mass migration,

this needs to be addressed from a European, not just moral perspective, but also a perspective of strategic interests.

AMANPOUR: As a former foreign secretary, and as the president of a massive humanitarian aid agency, we're talking about Afghanistan, but we also

potentially, I mean -- hopefully, the temperature has cooled over Ukraine right now.

But there could be a massive exodus of refugees, right, flooding into Europe again. What do you think of the current situation, how certainly the

West and NATO have handled it?

MILIBAND: Look, the global picture is that we have got system failure. We have got states failing. We have got diplomacy sailing -- failing, 55 civil

wars going on around the world at the moment.

We have got legal failure, with impunity in war zones, and we have got operational inability to keep up with the problem. The last thing the world

needs is a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Now, it seems to me that the paradoxical product of the last couple of months of buildup of troops on the borders of Ukraine has actually been

more unity in the Western alliance than we have seen for a very long time, a German SPD, Social Democratic, chancellor going to Moscow and saying, the

choice about Ukraine's future belongs in Ukraine, not in Moscow.


And you will remember well, Christiane, 50, 60 years ago, George Kennan said that Russia's problem is that, when it looks at its neighbors, all it

can see is a vassal or an enemy. That was Kennan.

Now, what Olaf Scholz did when he went to Moscow was to say, we want a partnership with Ukraine, you can have a partnership with Ukraine, but you

can't deny Ukraine its own sense of agency and self-determinations.

AMANPOUR: So, just to be clear, I was too young to...

MILIBAND: You remember the quote.

AMANPOUR: Just to be clear.


AMANPOUR: But do you, therefore, believe that this united front, plus the incredibly aggressive public talk of the American intelligence, has worked?

MILIBAND: Well, we don't know.

And the proof of the pudding comes when we see what Russia does. There's obviously a dispute about whether or not they have retreated; 130,000

troops is not enough to occupy the whole country, but it's enough to do a lot of damage, to cause a lot of refugee flow, as you said, and to violate

the most basic tenet of international relations, which is the territorial integrity of states, alongside, I would argue, in the U.N. Charter, the

indivisible rights of human beings.

And what we're seeing is challenge to both at the moment.

AMANPOUR: Can I just go back and ask you about these sanctions? Because, again, most people in the world would say, yes, you should sanction the

Taliban because of their conduct historically, housing and protecting al Qaeda, and the way they behave in terms of criminal networks, and certainly

towards women historically.

Others are saying, and including former U.S. State Department officials, that it's one thing to sanction individuals, but you -- can you actually

sanction or should you actually sanction an entire movement and call the entire thing a terrorist organization?

And doesn't that then lead to this conundrum that you can't actually give humanitarian aid to people who desperately need it?

MILIBAND: Well, I would put it the other way. Who shouldn't be sanctioned? You shouldn't sanction the people of Afghanistan. They shouldn't be


And if you're a technocrat in the Central Bank trying to make the Afghan Central Bank work, you shouldn't be sanctioned. You need a government


The trouble with the current policy is, if you wanted to design a policy to achieve state collapse, you would have the current policy. And that's the

last thing the world needs.

AMANPOUR: One of the aspects that we talked about on our program last night was, where does the West have a leg to stand on when it comes to

pressuring Russia, when it comes to the sanctions and all the rest of it?

Because quite a lot, including here in the U.K., have -- politicians have been the recipients of a lot of Russian money. You know perfectly well

since your time in government that all sorts of oligarchs and money laundering and this and that and all sorts of sort of hanky-panky going on

that has benefited quite a few politicians.

Where do you come down on that? I mean, millions of pounds have gone into - - have been donated to various political people and parties.

MILIBAND: First of all, it's worse than hanky-panky.

When I was foreign secretary, I was dealing with the consequences of the murder of Mr. Litvinenko. Secondly, there's way too much Russian money that

is in London, and there's way too much Russian money in politics. And the promises of cleanup that have been made really in the last decade, because

it's become the issue in the last decade, have not been followed through.

The current government is saying it's going to follow through. But, of course, you're right. Britain can't be at the table until or unless -- with

effectiveness, unless it really addresses this home situation. And it's not about being anti-Russian. But it's about not -- it's about making sure that

London isn't used for ill-gotten gains. That seems to me to be an absolute prerequisite for that.

And it's being demanded by Europeans, but it's also being demanded by it by Washington, rightly.

AMANPOUR: And, finally, as you look around -- and, I mean, this is your job -- where do you see the next big crisis, or are you just focused mostly

on Afghanistan right now?

MILIBAND: Well, we have just published our Emergency Watchlist; 20 countries around the world, based on 60-plus indicators that we have

analyzed, Afghanistan is at the top, but those 20 countries, all you need to know is they account for only about 10 percent of the world's

population, but they account for 80 percent, 90 percent of refugees, humanitarian need.

That's the real conundrum at the moment, generalized rising prosperity across the world, people coming out of poverty, but, in the conflict zones,

growing poverty, chronic poverty, abject poverty. And that's what needs to be addressed.

AMANPOUR: And very finally, obviously, Western nations, rich countries need to do their bit for these poor people.

And they have really instead got draconian anti-refugee policies, anti- immigrant policies. President Biden promised to up the number of refugees allowed after President Trump.



AMANPOUR: So, you are satisfied with what the U.S. and Britain are doing?

MILIBAND: The -- well, not Britain, because the U.S. is admitting 200,000 refugees this year, 70,000 -- pledged to -- 70,000 Afghans, 120,000 from

other countries.

The U.K. needs to really step up. Europe still doesn't have a resettlement framework. Time to step up. Time to match what President Biden is doing.

AMANPOUR: Fascinating.

Thank you so much, David Miliband, president of the IRC.

MILIBAND: Thank you very much.

AMANPOUR: Thank you for being with us.

And, next, let's turn to this country and Britain's Prince Andrew, who has reached an out-of-court settlement in the sexual assault lawsuit that's

brought by Virginia Giuffre. Giuffre claims that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and forced to have sex with his friends, including Prince

Andrew, when she was 17 years old.

While the sum of the settlement is not disclosed, and Andrew has always denied the charge, in a letter to the judge, he does accept that Giuffre

has suffered both and -- as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.

So what does this mean for Prince Andrew, for the monarchy, and for victims' rights around the world?

Ann Olivarius is an attorney specializing in sexual harassment in the workplace. And Ayesha Hazarika is a former political adviser and now

commentator for "The London Evening Standard."

Welcome to the program, both of you.

Let me ask you first, Ayesha, as -- I mean, you're a commentator in this country around so many of the social and political issues. What does this

development mean for the country and from -- for the royal family?

AYESHA HAZARIKA, TIMES RADIO PRESENTER: Well, I don't think it reflects well on the royal family.

And, obviously, this settlement is not a legal admission of guilt, but it has cast a huge stain over the royal family. I think many people feel that

the entire way that Prince Andrew has handled this right from the beginning has just not been appropriate.

And, look, there's a lot of affection in this country for the queen. We are in her jubilee celebration year, but this has definitely cast a stain. I

think people feel it was very distasteful that Prince Andrew did not cooperate earlier. It was then a really quite ugly look for him and his

legal team to try and discredit Virginia Giuffre. We all knew about that car crash interview with "Newsnight," the BBC, Emily Maitlis.

And I think the big questions that are now being asked in British society, in political circles, in media circles, in social circles is, why was he

allowed to just bring so much dishonor on the royal family? And where is the money coming from for this settlement?

Because a lot of British taxpayers will feel absolutely dismayed if they feel that their hard-earned taxes, particularly during a cost of living

crisis, is going to foot this bill.

AMANPOUR: OK. So we're going to get to that part of it in a moment.

But, first, as a lawyer, Ann Olivarius, I want to ask you whether you believe that this is a just settlement, that it's potentially, I don't

know, I'm asking your opinion, the best that could have been done. And what does it mean for victims' rights?

ANN OLIVARIUS, ATTORNEY: Oh, Christiane, I think this is an extraordinary victory for women, for men, for people who have been raped, for working-

class people who have few resources.

This woman was able to come from really nowhere and really poverty, like, life as a young kid with so little behind her. And, here, she has been able

to bring down a prince, and you get justice.

And what is justice? I mean, the currency of justice is money, of course. And she's gotten a good sum of money, and, certainly, the kinds of sums

that we get in our law firm routinely from men like Prince Andrew, very -- men who have a lot of resources. I mean, there's some question as to how

much she's actually gotten.

"The Telegraph" today said 12 million pounds. But of course, they're still David Boies' legal fees to pay, Virginia Giuffre's lawyer, a very

expensive, very good American lawyer. Those are going to be in the multimillions. He's got legal fees to pay. Those are in the multimillions.

And he's going to make a donation to a trafficking charity. And so this whole settlement may well be approaching $30 million.

As to who pays for it, it's small beer for the royal family. There is an outrage, but I find it very curious, because sell a piece of furniture. I

mean, it's -- this is nothing for the royal family to pay. So I'm not particularly concerned about the numbers.

Of course, the numbers work in the United States much more easily than they do in Britain, where, still, damages numbers for any kind of sexual assault

are fairly low.


AMANPOUR: Let me ask both of you, because we have not been able to get any public statement from either Prince Andrew's team or from the palace. They

just haven't talked about it, not the sum, not anything about it.

But we understand that the settlement was drawn up by lawyers from both sides, and that it was, in principle, written jointly by both teams.

So, is that satisfactory, do you think, Ayesha, to the British public, the fact that this has happened? Is it -- I mean, I don't want to say an

admission of guilt, but is it good enough to put this now, I guess, in the past?

HAZARIKA: No, it has absolutely not drawn a line under it at all.

I mean, most people are thinking back to some of the prince's defenses. He, first of all, said that he had never met this person. Most people are

asking the questions -- and this is on the front page of some newspapers today here in the United Kingdom -- why would you pay 12 million pounds to

somebody you didn't even meet?

I mean, it just doesn't add up. And I think the fact that the way the prince has handled it right from the beginning has been so obstructive. And

he has sought to really kind of push back hard against these allegations. And, actually, if he had cooperated more with the investigation right from

the beginning -- remember, when he had that interview with the BBC, he was -- he wasn't even expressing deep regret for his -- with his friendship

with Jeffrey Epstein.

And I think the British public are really, really dismayed about this. The royal family has had a very, very difficult time. There is a lot of

affection for the queen, as I said. But I think people feel that Prince Andrew has really blackened the name of the royal family.

There is another bit of bad news of the royal family to do. The Metropolitan Police is investigating one of Prince Charles' charities. So,

I think, at the moment, a lot of people are looking at this torrid tale and actually thinking this just puts the royal family into disrepute right now.

AMANPOUR: Let us play this famous and incredibly effective interview by Emily Maitlis on "BBC Newsnight." It was done in 2019, a couple of years


And, to be fair, we need to say that Prince Andrew told her: "It didn't happen. I can absolutely, categorically tell you, it never happened."

And then we have this exchange.


EMILY MAITLIS, BBC: She says she met you in 2001. She says she dined with you, danced with you at Tramp Nightclub in London.

She went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell, your friend. Your response?

PRINCE ANDREW, DUKE OF YORK: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.

MAITLIS: You don't remember meeting her?



AMANPOUR: So, as a lawyer, Ann Olivarius, would you have ever put this client on the witness stand? Would you have encouraged him to clear his

name in public?

OLIVARIUS: Absolutely not.

I mean, this is the man who has publicly said that he doesn't recognize servants. The clear message is, he doesn't recognize potentially women that

he's had been involved with sexually. He's arrogant.

That Maitlis interview was dreadful. She said afterwards that he came up to her. And Prince Andrew said: "Let's do a second one. I did such a good job

on this one, I'm keen to do a second one."

And she said: "Prince Andrew, I don't think that would be the perception when this is published. And you shouldn't do a second one."

So, I mean -- and on this interview, of course, he talks about having a medical condition, that he doesn't sweat, when, of course, that medical

condition does not exist in science. There are other things he states. And so it's just not a question of trying to duck and weave, but, actually,

he's doing more than that. He's showing bad judgment.

He's -- he's lying. These things aren't possible to happen. To put him in front of a deposition with David Boies would be like leading someone to be

killed. He doesn't have the skills. He doesn't have the training. Perhaps he doesn't have the integrity. This is not a man who thinks that he has to

answer to anyone.

This whole thing may not be over, because still the FBI, prosecutors in New York have asked him to speak to them about Jeffrey Epstein and what went on

at some of those parties. And he refuses to do that.

And he's refused to do that, to be uncooperative, to be disrespectful to the criminal justice system, for many years. They may now decide to come

back and push him on that and cause something of an international embarrassment.

How can it be that, as a citizen of Britain, he would not give what evidence he has to federal prosecutors, to the police?



AMANPOUR: So, just to be clear, this settlement does not, as you say close the book on this, there is a possibility that they could be further public


OLIVARIUS: Absolutely. Absolutely. And the most interesting thing to seems to me, when we first started meeting about Jeffrey Epstein, there was

always discussion in the press and legal documents and depositions, that when Jeffrey Epstein had people to his residences, he would tape most of

those events. So, -- of these parties, there would be tapes of things.

Now, what happened those tapes? Who has those tapes? We know who those tapes were taken at Mar-a-Lago at times, Former President Trump's

residence. We know that he had many men from, you know -- Melissa Gates says -- Melinda Gates says, you know, this is one reason she divorced her

husband, he was too friendly with Jeff Epstein. He went to too many of those parties. How many other men were there enjoying themselves?

When those tapes come out, and they should exist some place, somebody's got them, and we don't know why they haven't come out, but should they come

out, who knows what's on them. But one can imagine that this is going to open up a pandora's box for an awful lot of people.

AMANPOUR: Ayesha, I know that you know very well the impact in the U.K. after that train wreck of an interview with Emily Maitlis. But I wonder

what you make of this because this is what was a part of the letter sent to the judge in New York by Giuffre's attorneys, but as I said, written, we

are told, jointly with Prince Andrew's attorneys.

Part of this letter says, Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre's character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an

established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.

So, let's just unpick that a little from both of your perspective. Because what we are really trying to get to as well is the right of victims, not

just to be heard but to be compensated and for justice to be done. So, Ayesha, unpick that statement that Prince Andrew made, that he recognizes

that she has -- you know, she has suffered the abuse of unfair public attacks.

HAZARIKA: See, I think this is a really, really important part of the statement because Prince Andrew's team was trying to discredit her. They

were putting forward some pretty nasty kind of smears and gaslighting and sort of victim shaming onto her. They were a part of that public mood,

which I'm afraid is still quite prevalent in our society, where we don't believe victims of sex abuse, we often seek to stigmatize them and shame

them initially.

So, I think it's very interesting that this is now gone in the statement. I am sure that was on the part of Virginia Giuffre's team. And I think what

is so interesting and seminal and important about what has happened with this settlement, is that this is a woman who took on the most powerful

forces on the planet. She took on some of the richest men on the world. She took on the royal family. She took on status. She took on absolute male

gilded privilege, and that was not an easy thing.

And, you know, people were trying to smear her, left, right, center. And she stuck with it. And I think that's what's so powerful about that

particular part of that settlement. Because it sends a message out that we must listen to victims and treat them with respect. There is too much

shaming and smearing and discrediting of women who come forward in our criminal justice system here in the U.K. and certainly, in America.

AMANPOUR: So, Ann Olivarius, as I said in the beginning, you specialize in sexual abuse in the workplace, and I wonder what you think of this in that

timeline, you know, since you have been starting this kind of work, sexual abuse, you know, of women in public spaces and whether this marks a real,

you know, a real victory for -- or is it -- or not?

I'm just concerned about what it might mean, because Virginia Guiffre said just in January, my goal has always been to show that the rich and powerful

are not above the law and must be held accountable. And there was a moment within she said that -- or her people said that she would probably unlikely

to accept a purely financial settlement and there was a potential, you know, court case involved.

OLIVARIUS: Yes. As I've said, she's a hero. I think she's really done so much good for the down trodden, for the vulnerable, for those that don't

haven't had a voice, who don't generally have access to the legal system.

And at time now in society where we know that sexual assault is at epidemic proportions, we have so little we can do to get redress. The criminal

justice system both in Britain and in the United States for sex crime is broken, it's really hard to get any kind of conviction ever. The statistics

are so low that it is fair to say it's a free crime for most people.


So, you have this girl who comes from no place where she's got resources, who is backing her? No one. She fights. She's got courage. And now, you

know, to have Prince Andrew's people says -- actually, Prince Andrew says in a statement, she's courageous. She's brave. He gives tribute to her when

all he did was malign her and try to humiliate her, and it is that usual way that I find that lawyers often choose when you are up against another

firm, it happens all the time, you generally take the approach, if you're representing the women who is accusing, you know, men of rape, that they're

going to try to destroy her, humiliate her, shame her and hope for the best.

And usually, they get away with it, which is the sad thing. But Prince Andrew did not get away with it. And I think either he didn't listen to

good legal advice or perhaps he never had good legal advice. But certainly, we would advise him to have handled it very differently. You know, our

advice would have been to say, look, I was a single man. I was involved sexually with a number of different parties. You know, if I did something

wrong, I am so, so sorry and I am wrong, and I will make amends and I will talk how I can make amends.

And I think that was his only option, is to show a slight bit of humility and to try to proceed forward and do the right thing. That that's only what

he's done now because he has been forced to do it.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just read that bit of the statement. And this is the letter again by the joint party. Prince Andrew regrets his association

with Epstein and commends the bravery, as you said, of Mrs. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others. He pledges to

demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fights against the evils of sex trafficking and supporting its victims.

So, that's that. Ayesha, as an observer of the British, you know, situation, this does come at a moment, which is incredibly difficult for

the queen. And you've said, that of all the royals, she stands out as the one to whom, you know, affection and respect is shown consistently. It's

her 70th jubilee. Her platinum jubilee this year, and there will be nationwide celebration. And yet, the faith of the monarchy will always be


What do you think in the future? What do you think this might do? Because Andrew has been stripped of all his honors, all of his military, you know,

commands, may even be stripped of his title Duke of York. That's what they say. What next for the British royal family?

HAZARIKA: Well, I think this is a moment of crisis for the British royal family, as I said earlier, you have this terrible instant with Prince

Andrew, lots of people in this country are very, very upset about what happened and with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Prince Charles is having

one of his charities investigated by the metropolitan police at this stage.

And I think the queen has sought to try and get things on an even keel. She had just announced that she was very happy for Camilla to become Queen

Camilla when the time came. There are lots of plans for celebration. There is also a celebration to honor the life of the Duke of Edenborough, Prince

Philip, as well, and I am sure Prince Andrew will want to be at that, whether he is there is another case.

AMANPOUR: All right.

HAZARIKA: I think people's patience is running quite thin. And I do worry that when the queen does go, I think a lot of people in this country will

kind of fall out of love with the royal family. They and we and I respect her service and her commitment to the British people. People do not look at

Prince Andrew and think the same thing. They see somebody who behaved really badly and who thought he could act with impunity.

AMANPOUR: Really fascinating to get your perspective. It's a really important case. Thank you so much. Ayesha Hazarika and also Ann Olivarius

very, thank you very much, indeed.

Now, the coronavirus pandemic is showing no sign of easing in Hong Kong, which today reported a record 4,000 new cases. Overwhelmed hospitals are

setting up outdoor wards as they reach capacity. But elsewhere, there is a different story. Denmark has become the first country in the European Union

to lift all pandemic restrictions.

And our next guest, Michael Bang Petersen, advises the Danish government on COVID policy, and he tells Walter Isaacson how they reached their decision.


WALTER ISAACSON, CNN HOST Thank you, Christiane. And, Michael Bang Petersen, welcome to the show.


ISAACSON: You're a great expert on what Denmark is doing. You have helped advise the government. Earlier this month, almost all restrictions

involving COVID were lifted. Tell me what happened.


PETERSEN: The basic decision was to lift restrictions because the pressure on the hospitals were no longer there. We still have very high case

numbers, but we are not seeing the same pressure on the hospitals because of this combination of Omicron and then a very high vaccine coverage in


At this point, we have seen a small uptick in cases among young people, but it's not something that we are really seeing in the hospitalization numbers


ISAACSON: It was supported by the Danish people. Is it partly a political decision you made, especially as you see the backlash around the world

against mask mandates and vaccine mandates?

PETERSEN: You can say it's a political decision in the sense that it formally is the politicians who are making their decision and it's very

clearly described as a political decision or a political responsibility within the legal framework that regulates the pandemic response here in

Denmark. But it was based on a recommendation from the health authorities.

But I do think that often when you say it's a political decision, then it's sort of casts in a negative light, but actually, I do think that in the

end, tough decision during a pandemic need to be made by politicians because they are the ones who are accountable to votes and they are the

only ones who are able to make those complex tradeoffs that are involved in the pandemic between health, the economy, democratic rights, well-being and

so on.

ISAACSON: You say you can't fight a pandemic without public support. That, I've read your papers, all requires public trust as well. People have to

trust the government. They have to trust each other. How does Denmark get to the point where it is where more than most nations it has public support

and public trust together?

PETERSEN: I think that there are two main factors. One is a set of historical factors. So, we are a country with low corruption, high degrees

of equality. We also are a small ethnically homogenous country, which helps. And all those factors means that we move into the pandemic in a

privileged position with historical levels of trust.

But it's also important what societies do when they actually are in the crisis, it's crucial that authorities and politicians that they communicate

transparently, both about the good things and the bad things that they are willing to acknowledge errors, complexities, uncertainties. And

essentially, that means that what is crucial for the public's trust in the authorities is the extent to which authorities they have to trust the


It is, if you as, an authority, sort of believe that the public can handle the unpleasant truth and that you don't need to hide away complexities and

uncertainties, then it's way easier for the public to come and place trust in you. That is something that we see very, very clearly in the research

that we have been doing on communication during the pandemic.

ISAACSON: People resent having to get a vaccine or being mandated to get vaccine, and they have a resentment when it comes being mandated to wear

masks, even if they decide they want to wear a mask or they want to have a vaccine. To what extent is this backlash something to deal with the sort of

personal empowerment in a sense, which I can understand, that whether being Canadian truckers or people here in the United States or around the world

feel that they're being disempowered somehow by government and elites?

PETERSEN: That plays a huge role. So, what we can see in the data that we have been gathering over the pandemic is that there is a decrease in trust

in the political system across Western democracies as a result of the pandemic. And that decrease in trust is really fueled by exactly what you

are describing, that people feel that they are losing control, they are losing the power to make decisions over their own lives, and it is really

fundamental parts of their own lives, like who are they seeing? How do they go out being dressed with masks and so on?

So, it's affecting people's or personal lives to a large extent. And that sense of losing control generates frustration. That frustration is not

directed against a faceless virus. It's directed against the authorities and it creates distrust. It creates beliefs in conspiracy theories. And we

have seen in some of the research that it creates support for political activism and political violence.


ISAACSON: Your description of what reactions we've had to the virus ties into your wonderful research, which I find fascinating. On the role of

social media and media, in general, in sort of (INAUDIBLE) up resentments or maybe just reflecting our resentments. Tell me about how this all plays

into what social media does to us?

PETERSEN: Yes. So, there is a lot of focus on social media during the pandemic about the misinformation that's being circulated, about the

hostility of the debates about COVID policies. What we have found in the research that we have been doing is that what happens on social media is

not so much caused by social media, but is really a window into frustrations that are rooted in people's offline lives.

So, this has the consequence that the people who are hostile on social media, it turns out that they are basically just hostile to people

everywhere, including if you interacting with them face-to-face.

ISAACSON: But don't you think that social media can amplify the most hostile amongst us?

PETERSEN: What it does is that it provides a sort of a loud speaker for those who are hostile. Social media are these large open networks, which

means that if are you a hostile person, then you can go in and become extremely invisible, and that means that while these people also are

hostile or quickly hostile in their offline lives, we wouldn't be exposed to them. But here, they have a tool whereby they can make themselves

extremely visible and, therefore, also derail a lot of discussions that otherwise would have been more constructive.

ISAACSON: To what extent has social media specifically and more generally, I'll call it, alternative media, you know, podcasts or blogs or these

things are not a part of the mainstream of media, to what extent have these alternative avenues to facts helped cause the disenchantment and also, the

misinformation we see in this pandemic?

PETERSEN: So, the way that I see it, then the major issue with social media is that there are symptoms. They are not a disease in themselves, so

to speak. But they are symptoms of something much worse, which is declining trust in the political system, greater polarization, and that is something

that has been building, for example, in the United States over the last maybe 40 years.

So, that's some very, very deep structural processes going on linked to rising inequality, for example, that creates massive tensions in Western

democracies. And we are getting a clear window into those frustrations on social media.

Then, of course, social media can amplify some of these processes, because you could -- back in the days, you could have a conspiracy theorist in each

village, and they could sit there and be conspiracy theorists on their own. But now, they have a possibility of finding each other and creating echo

chambers, whereby they reenforce these beliefs.

So, yes, social media doesn't make it better, but I think that the major issue is that they are this symptom of problems that are pretty big.

ISAACSON: You say that's a symptom of problems that are deeper. What are the deeper issues that have caused the populist backlash of the past 20

years, 25 years, throughout Europe and the United States?

PETERSEN: So, in a way, I think we, as social scientists, have failed a bit here because a lot of me, myself and my colleagues have been focusing

on the symptoms and we have invested less in understanding the actual disease itself. But when we look at the research that has been done, then

rising inequality is crucial. Globalization has also helped facilitate some of these processes that if you are in the working class, then your jobs are

disappearing, and that is creating frustration, and it is something -- or it is some frustrations that we need to remedy, if we are to get societies

back on track.


ISAACSON: But there is another component that seems to be a resentment, a distrust, even an anger at experts, at elites, at the power structure, at

government, in general. What's causing that?

PETERSEN: That is a very good question. And I think everyone who is involved in the pandemic response as a scientist or as an expert are really

feeling the anger and the frustration that you are describing here. And I think, psychologically, what happens is that those people who are

frustrated, they think in a very sort of binary way, they think either people are a part of the system or they are outside of the system. And the

system then becomes the government, the authorities, the media, the scientific community. It's all sort of seen as the same kind of thing.

And that means that people don't differentiate their anger. You don't have people who love the media but hate the politicians or love scientists or

hate media. It is essentially seen as one big oppressive system that they essentially want to tear down.

ISAACSON: And how do we fix that?

PETERSEN: So, that's why we, in the end, need to identify the root causes. And I think social inequality is a major part of it and then, remedy those

problems. So, I think it's very important to acknowledge that the problems we are facing will not be solved by a little bit of fact-checking on social

media or some crisis in digital education like its deep-rooted problems within society itself.

ISAACSON: And one of the problems deep rooted in society that's caused resentment is this feeling of disempowerment, that everything from free

trade to automation has disempowered us. And the experts have disempowered us. And we're not allowed to even decide whether to put on a mask or to get

a vaccine.

Do you think we're now at the point when this feeling of disempowerment is so dangerous, that in some ways we should say, let's treat this pandemic in

the future differently by trying to just empower people, by giving them information but saying, you get to make your own decisions?

PETERSEN: Well, that's a very, very difficult question. Because the issue is that the behavior of one person is obviously affecting other people in a

pandemic like this. So, how a person behaves will influence the epidemic curve, which will, in fact, affect others.

At the same time, I do think that we need to take these things into account, that at a certain point, we need to say, OK, if we are going down

the path of voluntary vaccines, then at a certain point, we need to accept not everyone becomes vaccinated. And if we are not willing to accept that,

then we only have mandates left and they will be met with quite a bit of resistance among those who are subjected to it.

So, we really need to think carefully about tradeoffs. Pandemic management is all about tradeoffs. It is about, well, what are the health benefits of

this strategy and what are the costs of it? And there are costs of using force, of using mandates. Those costs are, for example, in terms of lower

trust in the political system in the health authorities and we need to carefully think about, is it worse -- worth the costs? And if we say, well,

it is worth the costs, then we need to think carefully about how can we sort of remedy some of the costs.

For example, what we have seen in some of the European countries that have moved towards a more mandate-oriented approach is that not only are they

imposing mandates, but they're also using extremely moralizing and shaming rhetoric. And I think if you are using mandates, then it's not something

you should do with moralistic triumph, it's something you should do with sorrow, and say, we need to do this because of the health benefits, not

because we want, it's not in order to punish you, it is because we need to do it from the perspectives of the health situation.


ISAACSON: Michael Bang Peterson, thank you so much for joining us.

PETERSEN: Oh, thank you. It was a pleasure.


AMANPOUR: And that's it for now. Thank you for watching and good-bye from London