Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Gloria Steinem; Negotiating During Wartime; Supreme Court Targets Roe vs. Wade; Interview with Former Chief of Staff to British Prime Minister Tony Blair Jonathan Powell; Interview with "How to Prevent the Next Pandemic" Author Bill Gates. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 03, 2022 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:33]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR.
Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PROTESTERS: We will not go back!
AMANPOUR (voice-over): An extraordinary leak about an earthquake of a ruling, a draft Supreme Court decision on overturning Roe vs. Wade.
I speak to conservative political activist Carrie Severino about the 50- year fight against abortion and to feminist icon Gloria Steinem about what this means for women's health and their rights.
Then:
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): There was not a day that we did not try to find a solution that would save our
people.
AMANPOUR: Negotiating during wartime. Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, makes the case for fighting and talking.
And:
BILL GATES, CO-CHAIR, BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION: I'm proud of my association with vaccines. I didn't expect these conspiracy theories.
AMANPOUR: Bill Gates tells Walter Isaacson how to prevent the next pandemic.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
A political earthquake may be about to rock the United States. It is also drawing headlines and scrutiny here across the Atlantic, the leak of a
draft Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision and potentially setting the clock back 50 years on women's rights in
America.
The majority opinion, a decision in a Mississippi case, written by Justice Samuel Alito and obtained by Politico declared Roe -- quote -- "must be
overruled" and that Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.
The final ruling is due from the court before its term ends in late June. If this draft is accurate, women could lose the right to an abortion in 26
states. President Joe Biden weighed in today, kicking off what is sure to be a major focus of this year's midterm elections.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The idea that -- it concerns me a great deal that we're going to, after 50 years, decide a woman does not
have a right to choose.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, for decades, right-wing activist kept the fight against Roe at the heart of America's culture wars.
Carrie Severino is the president of one such organization, the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal advocacy group, and she claims the
draft ruling accomplishes many of her life's ambitions. And she's joining me now from Arlington, Virginia.
Welcome back to our program, Carrie Severino. And you and your husband have claimed that. And both of you have worked for decades -- it's an open fact
-- to achieve this.
So, can I just read to you one of the tweets that you made after this draft was leaked? You say: "Wielding nothing but raw judicial power, the court
usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people."
So, in terms of the fact that the people of the United States actually want to see Roe vs. Wade stand -- according to a CNN poll, 69 percent of the
people are opposed to overturning Roe -- how do you link what you said in your tweet and what the American people think?
CARRIE SEVERINO, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK: Well, first of all, the Supreme Court doesn't rule based on polls. What I'm talking about is
them leaving it to the American people through their elected representatives and through the words of the Constitution itself ratified
by the American people.
When you drill down on polling, however, it's very clear that Americans, while they like the idea of Roe, and many of whom also consider themselves
pro-choice, also would like to see more limits on abortion than Roe in fact allows. Roe actually requires abortion effectively on demand all nine
months.
This is more liberal than almost every country in the world, with the rare exception of places like China and North Korea. The law at issue here in
Mississippi would outlaw abortions after 15 weeks. That itself is actually much more liberal than 47 out of 50 European nations that set earlier
limits for abortion, including France, Spain, Germany, Norway, et cetera.
[13:05:05]
So what we're talking about is a much more nuanced position on the part of the American people, then the Supreme Court decision reflects.
What's good about this is it's going to return that decision to the people themselves, who can then come to those political compromises, and not be
forced into a one-size-fits-all regime for the nation that is, in fact, far more liberal than what the country would like to see.
I think that means that some states seem to be pushing the envelope even farther. Some seem to be suggesting that even post-birth fetal demise
should not be prosecuted. That's pretty extreme. Nine months alone isn't enough.
But there are other states that are going to be want to be more protective of human life. And that's going to be fought out in the political spheres,
rather than through unelected judges.
AMANPOUR: Look, I'm going to drill down in a moment on those things that you have claimed, because, as far as we understood, the law allows abortion
up to a certain amount of weeks, and viability is one of the issues.
And, clearly, it would be an extreme position to demand or to want any kind of childicide, whether it's a boy or a girl, after birth. As far as we
know, only places like China and things like that are into that.
Now, let me ask you this, though. A majority of people have also said they want to see their state move towards more permissive abortion laws if
indeed Roe were vacated. Are you setting yourself up or setting the country up for yet more struggle on what's termed the culture wars in the United
States?
SEVERINO: Oh, well, there actually -- there obviously will be continued debate and discussion of this issue.
I don't think there will be more struggle. I think we will move to different venues. This is an issue that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
herself, a huge proponent of abortion, nonetheless said she thought that Roe did this nation a disservice by ossifying this issue and putting it at
the Supreme Court in a way that took it out of the democratic process.
So this process is going to continue, but it will be continuing at the proper levels. Instead of trying to lobby five of nine unelected judges at
the Supreme Court, which is never how these contentious issues are supposed to be resolved, people will be able to lobby their own members of Congress,
their own state representatives, and figure out for different states what the -- what the best result is.
Now, unfortunately, some places -- I alluded to California's law that would reduce or eliminate liability for, again, post-fetal -- just perinatal
demise, which includes post-born.
So, there are some extreme positions out there, but I don't think that's where most of America will go. I think it will be somewhere nuanced in
between.
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: Exactly.
And that is so extreme, Carrie, that it's really not worth bringing into this discussion, because Roe, let's just be clear for our viewers. No
matter what you think about it politically or morally, Roe allows an abortion before viability, and not all nine months. So let's just make that
very, very clear, because it's important.
It really is important, when you talk about this issue.
SEVERINO: That's not accurate. However, that's not accurate, in light of the other decisions around it, Doe v. Bolton...
AMANPOUR: OK.
SEVERINO: ... that allowed a health exception after that. And health is included to mean women's emotional and psychological health.
AMANPOUR: Fine.
SEVERINO: That has opened the door for almost no limitations in the -- up to the ninth month of pregnancy.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, let's -- we will pursue that.
But I do want to ask you this, because it's really -- it's kind of the point. You have -- along with many activists in the conservative sphere,
have worked pretty successfully for 50 years now to come to this moment.
So, I just want you to just reflect on that, and how, in fact, President Trump, who actually became electable because your movement and the
Federalist Society and the others suggested that he should be the nominee, given what you got him to say about nominating judges. All three of the
judges that he appointed are named in this draft ruling.
So just talk to me about the politics that have got you to this point.
SEVERINO: Well, first, I think it's important to separate the politics on the policy of abortion. I am someone who's pro-life.
But the big issue in this case is not, should the court be pro-life or pro- choice? The question is, what does the Constitution itself say? There are some that are arguing the Constitution itself requires a nationwide ban on
abortion. What the court said is, we're not making that call either. We are staying, as Justice Kavanaugh said, scrupulously neutral.
And that's my organization JCN's position as well. We want to make sure that the court and the judges are faithful to the words of the
Constitution. Now, on this question, that is a very easy question. It's a difficult political question. It's a simple legal question, because the
Constitution of the United States nowhere speaks to abortion.
[13:10:00]
It does not have any words about a right to abortion. It doesn't have any language about a right to privacy, which is what the right to abortion was
then derived from. The Roe decision itself doesn't even decide which specific right in the Constitution it is emanating from.
AMANPOUR: Well...
SEVERINO: I mean, they have gotten so many far -- so far removed from the language.
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: As you know, it comes from the idea of privacy and the rest, and that's what the president alluded to.
(CROSSTALK)
SEVERINO: Which is nowhere in the Constitution.
(CROSSTALK)
SEVERINO: So, the politics are...
AMANPOUR: Well, I know, but it's how some of the amendments are interpreted.
SEVERINO: Right.
AMANPOUR: But, look, lots wasn't actually strictly in the Constitution that is now law.
But let me just ask you this, because I think this is important. Susan Collins -- she's a Republican senator -- said that: this draft "was
completely inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office."
Senator Lisa Murkowski, also a Republican, per NBC, said -- quote -- "My confidence in the court has been rocked."
And that is because of the following kinds of assurances and testimony that judges or, rather, nominees made in their confirmation hearings. And I'm
going to play some of them and get you to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMUEL ALITO, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Roe vs. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So it's
been on the books for a long time.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Do you view Roe as having super precedent?
NEIL GORSUCH, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Was, Senator I -- a super precedent is...
FEINSTEIN: In numbers, 44...
GORSUCH: It has been reaffirmed many times. I can say that, yes.
FEINSTEIN: Yes.
BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By it, I mean, Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, been reaffirmed many times.
AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or hate it,
it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, obviously, you recognize all of them.
And I guess the question is, are they just being untruthful in their confirmation hearings? Are they being misleading? It just seems kind of
remarkable that, each time there is a confirmation hearing, there seems to be an assurance that precedent will be upheld.
And, remember, Roe vs. Wade was again upheld in a 1992 decision by the Supreme Court. What are people meant to take from the fact that kind of,
well, misleading comment is made to the elected representatives?
SEVERINO: I find nothing surprising about those comments.
I mean, they were basic factual statements. Roe vs. Wade is an important precedent of the United States Supreme Court. I can say that with -- in
full honesty as well. None of those justices -- and I'm surprised anyone who's claiming this -- listen to especially the way Justice Barrett
clarified.
She's not saying one way or the other whether she thinks is good precedent or bad precedent or whether she would apply it. All of those justices at
other times in their hearings talked about how stare decisis is applied. That's the idea that the court follows decisions, even if they don't agree
with them.
We know that every justice on the Supreme Court has overturned cases at times that were wrong. And there are factors the court considers in
determining when that should happen. The court -- this leaked opinion goes into great detail about what those factors are.
The big question -- this goes to the political question you asked earlier about President Trump -- is, do we have a Constitution where you can just
import things that are not in it? Or does the American people have to do that through an amendment process?
AMANPOUR: All right, so, let me ask you this then.
SEVERINO: The philosophy here is that you have, that judges can't import it.
AMANPOUR: I'm sorry..
SEVERINO: It has to be done by the American people.
AMANPOUR: Justice Alito wrote in this draft: "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast out on precedents that do not concern
abortion."
But there is concern amongst many, including some of the people who actually lobbied against -- or for some of these laws, same-sex marriage,
interracial marriage, contraception. You yourself in the past have helped draft challenges to the Affordable Care Act.
Should Americans be concerned that this will lead to the erosion of the rights that I have just listed, which have been granted Supreme Court
approval?
SEVERINO: This case is just a reminder, which we knew before, that no precedent is super precedent, as that senator was suggesting there.
All precedent -- and, again, every liberal justice in the court has overturned precedent at times. So I think what it reminds people is that we
have judges who are -- take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not take an oath to uphold precedent, and particularly erroneous precedent.
AMANPOUR: OK.
SEVERINO: Now, the logic underlying the history of the abortion right in this country has no bearing on same-sex marriage, on health care and the
Commerce Clause in the Obamacare case. All of those of the cases rest on a very different constitutional foundation.
So I think that's what Justice Alito was pointing to.
AMANPOUR: All right, Carrie Severino.
SEVERINO: The idea that the abortion history would affect the others is strange.
[13:15:05]
AMANPOUR: All right, Carrie Severino, thank you.
And, next, we're going to get the opinion of Gloria Steinem, who's been fighting for women's rights all her adult life. And she's been at the
forefront defending Roe vs. Wade since the very beginning. She sees the Supreme Court ruling as a threat, not just to women, but to American
democracy itself.
Gloria Steinem, welcome back to the program.
GLORIA STEINEM, CO-FOUNDER, WOMEN'S MEDIA CENTER: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So, what is your initial reaction to the leak of this draft?
STEINEM: It's useful that it was leaked, I think, in order to have a view of what could happen.
But it doesn't change the fundamental fact that we as individual Americans are going to make decisions over our own physical selves. And as long as a
fetus is dependent upon the heart and vessels and systems of someone else, then that someone has a right to make that decision.
Of course women were not mentioned in the -- or this was not mentioned in the Constitution, because women weren't mentioned in the Constitution. But
the principle of democracy is a very precious one. And it upholds the right for men and women to make decisions over our own physical beings.
AMANPOUR: So you have just answered Carrie Severino's point. And I guess one takes that point from you, that women were not actually represented or
mentioned in the Constitution.
Now let me ask you about the other question that everybody's sort of building this around, that it goes from the Supreme Court and from a
federal law protection to the states. You heard what I asked Carrie Severino about that.
What is your view and opinion how that will manifest itself if it gets to every state level, given the fact that the majority of Americans, nearly 70
percent, do not want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned?
STEINEM: I fear that the majority of Americans are not paying attention to their state legislatures, and who is in their state legislatures.
So, often, there are more representatives of special interests than they -- than are known by the average voter. They probably -- we, in general,
probably have a much better view of Congress and even of the Supreme Court.
But the important thing is that we all understand that we have a right to make decisions over our own physical selves. And no one has the right to
tell us what to do. And that is the majority everywhere. That is going to prevail in the end.
I'm old enough to remember, before there were any real abortion rights, nonetheless, about one in three American women had had an abortion at some
time in her life, even when it was maybe not legal. So there is just is such a thing as natural law. And natural law says we get the right to make
decisions over our own physical beings.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you? Because it goes to the heart of what you have been struggling for in your life as an activist.
In the dedication of your own book "My Life on the Road," you started by talking to a Dr. John Sharpe. Can you read a little bit about that -- from
that dedication?
STEINEM: Yes, thank you for that, because I think he embodies the gratitude that so many of us feel.
"This book is dedicated to Dr. John Sharpe of London, who, in 1957, a decade before physicians in England could legally perform an abortion for
any reason other than the health of the woman, took the considerable risk of referring for an abortion a 22-year-old American on her way to India,
knowing only that she had broken an engagement at home to seek an unknown fate."
She said: "You must promise me two things." He said: "You must promise me two things. First, you will not tell anyone my name. Second, you will do
what you want to do with your life" -- unquote.
AMANPOUR: That...
STEINEM: "Dear Dr. Sharpe, I believe you, who knew the law was unjust, would not mind if I say this so long after your death. I have done the best
I could with my life. This book is for you."
And I think there are women and men across this country saying thank you to physicians who recognize individual rights.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just ask you, then, because, obviously, that young woman was you, and you did go on to do with your life what you wanted.
[13:20:00]
But for the purpose of this now, what do you think will happen to young women in America? Which young women or not-so-young women will be most
affected by it being illegal in their states or whatever, if that should be -- yes, well, I mean, it is already the case in some. And it looks like it
will be in at least 26 states, if this goes through.
STEINEM: Well, obviously, women of reproductive age will be the most affected.
But whether or not we are of reproductive age, we are overwhelmingly devoted to the principle that we get to make decisions over our own
physical selves. So, the court might make itself irrelevant -- or different courts might make themselves irrelevant.
But the practice of women in terms of needing, wanting and supporting reproductive freedom has not changed as long as I have been alive, and I
can't imagine it will. It's kind of unimaginable that we, women or men, would hand decision-making power over our own physical selves to someone
else.
AMANPOUR: And, of course, in this case it does take two to tango. I mean, generally, women get pregnant because of relations with men. And,
generally, it's the women who get penalized or, if they do have the child, have to do the bulk of the care. There's no proper child care in America.
And it's a really, really difficult situation for a lot of women, particularly poorer women.
You talked about the Supreme Court and not being trusted. Can I just play for you what Justice Sotomayor said about the politicization of the court?
She said this during oral arguments in December.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Will this institution survived the stench that this creates in the public perception
that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?
I don't see how it is possible. It's what Casey talked about when it talked about watershed decisions. If people actually believe that it's all
political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, again, she she's referring to Casey, which is the case, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, in 1992 that reaffirmed the original Roe vs.
Wade of 1973.
Do you think Justice Sotomayor is right that this is just yet another degree of politicization in a -- in the U.S.' highest court and that it
will start to look stinky and unrepresentative, undemocratic?
STEINEM: Well, yes, I mean, if the court gets very, very, very far from what individual human beings in this country need -- I mean, it was once
pretty far on civil rights and changed. It probably was once pretty far on reproductive rights and changed.
It's hard to make such a small body appointed by not a very big body represent the majority of Americans. But the simple truth is that we, as
long as I remember, which is a very long time, women have striven, and mostly have, made the decision about what happens with our own physical
selves, and that is not going to change.
If some -- if legislative bodies try to change it, they risk being -- becoming irrelevant to life.
AMANPOUR: And what about the question I asked Carrie Severino and what others are raising, that many of the other very, some would say,
controversial decisions in cases?
Some people are very worried that they also may be overturned, whether it's same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, as I said, contraception and the
like. Do you share the worry of some that they also could be at risk, even though the Supreme Court justices in this case say it's just about
abortion, this thing, and that we won't put any of these others at risk?
STEINEM: Well, yes, of course.
If the Supreme Court becomes very unrepresentative of the majority of Americans on one issue, there is probably something that is not
representative or democratic in the way that they have been selected or appointed. So we should worry all together.
[13:25:02]
But the basic fundamental truth is that people are going to do what we are going to do anyway. And, certainly, both women and men have a right to and
are going to make decisions over our own physical selves. It is the basis of democracy.
Remember, when Hitler was elected -- and, indeed, he was elected -- the next day, the first thing he did was to padlock the family planning clinics
and declare abortion a crime against the state. Dictators have always tried to control reproduction. Democracies have always sought to empower the
individual.
And this has not changed.
AMANPOUR: Gloria Steinem, thank you for that perspective. And many women will be looking to you as they try to navigate this next phase, I guess, in
the history of women's rights in the United States.
Now, in Ukraine, 106 civilians evacuated from the besieged and bombarded steel plant in Mariupol have finally arrived in the safer city of
Zaporizhzhia. The evacuation was brokered by the United Nations and the International Red Cross.
As chief of staff to then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, my guest, Jonathan Powell, dealt face to face with Vladimir Putin. He says the sort
of negotiation taking place over Mariupol, together with a strong defense of Ukraine, will, could ultimately end this war.
Welcome to the program.
JONATHAN POWELL, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO BRITISH PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So talk to me a little bit more about that, because there doesn't seem to be any progress in any kind of negotiations. Even the
latest is President Macron, reelected, spoke today for a couple of hours with Putin. And it seems he stuck to his original positions and just kept
blaming the West.
POWELL: Well, I think that's right.
This is not the time where a negotiation, a public negotiation, is likely to succeed. But I think President Zelenskyy is very wise when he says that
nearly all wars end with negotiation. As one side knocks the other out, we will have to have a negotiation. So he's right to keep the door open to the
Russians, to keep trying and trying to find a solution.
And I'm sure, in the end, he will succeed in doing so.
AMANPOUR: So, given you know what you -- and I said you had been in negotiations with Vladimir Putin, and your former boss, Prime Minister
Blair, has written sort of a structure.
He calls it structured negotiations, that, for instance, there need to be a lot of -- well, basically Putin won't come to the table until the pain --
until he feels the pain.
POWELL: I think that's right.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- yes, tell me about that.
POWELL: I mean, academics talk about something called a mutually hurting stalemate.
And that means not just a stalemate, but where both sides are really hurting. Now, Putin clearly isn't hurting enough yet, despite the fact that
so many Russians have died. He's made the poor Ukrainians hurt and the terrible things that he's done. But when that pain gets sufficient for
Putin, then I think he will come to the table.
And what we don't want to do is box it off, so he has no alternative but to escalate, to turn to nuclear weapons, to turn to chemical weapons. So we
need to have a way out for him. And we need to apply that pressure. That's why we need to fight and talk, not just do one or the other.
AMANPOUR: Well, I mean, you are really experienced in this field.
So I just want to ask you, then, do you feel that what the United States seems to have done is now settled on a strategy, as voiced by their
secretary of defense and even their chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that the idea is for the West to help Ukraine -- quote -- "win this battle," and
simultaneously to weaken President Putin and his military ability to conduct this kind of invasion in the future.
Is that -- do you agree with that?
POWELL: I think maybe some of those comments have been misinterpreted.
I don't think they mean they're going to fight until Putin goes. We can't possibly...
AMANPOUR: No, no, no, I don't mean that at all.
POWELL: Yes, but that's the danger of the way that what they have said has been interpreted.
I think what they're saying is, we have to support Ukraine in this. They have to withstand the barrage they're facing in the Donbass, so they're in
a strong position to negotiate with Putin.
But we can't posit our policy on the fact that Putin goes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
POWELL: We might like him to go. But we can't just say that's the only solution for us.
AMANPOUR: No, I agree with you.
I just wonder whether you think, in terms of this ratcheting up the pain, that the idea is for Ukraine to win in Ukraine, and for Putin not to be
able to do to Ukraine or anybody else, Moldova or anybody else, what he's been doing, not regime change or anything like that?
POWELL: Yes.
I think that's the real danger is that what we end up with is another frozen conflict, like we had before after 2014. He takes some territory, he
inflicts pain on Ukraine, he stops them developing as a democratic country moving towards Europe. We must not let that happen again.
There has to be some way of forcing him back, making sure that he does allow Ukraine to develop in the European direction it clearly wants to. So
they can give up NATO. They can have neutrality, as President Zelenskyy has said, but they cannot give up that chance of moving in a European
direction.
And they cannot let the Russians keep the territory.
AMANPOUR: So, let's move on a little bit, talking about territory and frozen conflicts.
I'm sure you wouldn't describe it as such, but, again, you were one of the chief negotiators for this government, or your government, in Northern
Ireland, or the chief negotiator. And there was the Good Friday peace accord.
It's suffered quite a lot in these intervening years. Now it appears that the next elections might bring nationalists to power .
[13:30:00]
POWELL: Well, the Good Friday Agreement actually is stood up pretty well. Next year is its 25th anniversary, and it has to maintain peace in Northern
Ireland. It hasn't solved all the problems, the political and other problems.
Now, the opinion poll is (INAUDIBLE). Sinn Fein will win the elections on Thursday, and they will have the first minister. But think about opinion
polls in Northern Ireland is the way the electoral system works, it's all about transfer of votes. So, in the, it might need not be quite as clear as
the poll suggest. But even if it doesn't, having Sinn Fein as first minister should not be impossible for unionists to accept. After all,
unionists have had the top job all the way through
And there is some hope in the polls too, in the alliance party, the major party which is neither person (ph) nor catholic is not aligned by the
community, it's looking as it might come in second in those polls, which would really be a complete transformation in Northern Ireland. That is, I
think, the hope of being able to be moved beyond this identity politics.
And the problem is that Brexit and the way Brexit has been applied is reenergized that identity politics, reopen the question whether are you
Irish or you're British. And we need to put that back to bed again and get this to normal politics.
But I fear after the elections, we will have a long political crisis. Because putting assembly, putting that government back together again will
be enormously difficult if the unionists refused to share power, if there is Sinn Fein first minister and they refuse to share power of the political
stays in place. So, I fear we have a political crisis ahead.
AMANPOUR: And what about the idea -- because in -- obviously, in Scotland, you know, the first minister has made it clear that at the right time,
there will be another referendum and the idea of a disunited kingdom is growing, whether it might be in Northern Ireland or in Scotland. Do you see
that as inevitable, coming down the road?
POWELL: Nothing is inevitable in politics.
AMANPOUR: Likely.
POWELL: But it is looking much more likely than it did before Brexit. Because of Brexit, because the way Brexit is done, it has both pushed
Northern Ireland in the direction of a United Ireland. You could see that in the polls. It has nowhere near having a majority yet for United Ireland,
but the numbers have shifted because of the way Brexit has happened. And, also you see that in Scotland. Neither of them are inevitable, nor is it
clear what sort of time scale that will happened.
We should bear in mind the way they interact on each other. If Scotland were to leave, that would have an impact on Northern Ireland and vice
versa. One interesting thing to remember is that when Boris Johnson was elected, the voters in the conservative party who elected him around the
country were clear to opinion pollsters that they didn't care if they lost Scotland, they didn't care if they lost Northern Ireland as long as they
got Brexit. If they got Brexit, and the danger is we now lose Norther Ireland and Scotland.
AMANPOUR: So, it's 25 years since Tony Blair was elected. I covered the election. And there seems to be a lot of, I guess, nostalgia for that
period, certainly in your party, because your party is having some difficulty, even though it is ahead in the polls right now.
With the idea of Boris Johnson, Party Gate and all of this, how important are these local elections, which nobody really pays attention to outside
the U.K., usually, but this week, what might it do to Boris Johnson?
POWELL: Well, one should expect too much of the local elections. They're not going to decide this one way or another. Both sides will try and spin
them as best they can. The Tories will say, they're not too bad. Label say -- shows their complete of Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson's problem is more
profound, that I think he has lost the support of his conservative party MPs. He thought he had got through it after the police charge, demeanor
crime and fined him.
I think those conservatives MPs have now made their minds up. They can see that the public are not going to forgive Boris Johnson. It's very clear
again from the opinion polls that people have made a clear decision about Boris Johnson, and they cannot go into another general election with Boris
Johnson as their leader.
AMANPOUR: You are sure about that?
POWELL: I'm sure about that.
AMANPOUR: OK. Go ahead.
POWELL: I think that because sometimes in politics thing have cut through. People suddenly noticed something. They suddenly take a view of something.
And Boris Johnson keeps on hoping he can claw his way back, and he said he'll have to be removed from number 10 by force. But I think those Tory
MPs are worried. They can see that the public bear this grudge, and that is their problem. And they're very good at doing this, with Mrs. Thatcher, as
you remember, they (INAUDIBLE) her. They had John Major come in for just one year and have an election, a clean skin, if you like. I suspect they'll
do the same, because what the Tory Party is, is as a ruthless machine for winning elections. And I can see that with Boris Johnson, they'll get rid
of him and bring in someone else.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you -- I don't know whether you want to weigh in on this, you know, abortion dilemma, or rather debate crisis, however, what
side wants to call it in the United States. Some are saying that it suggests a movement away from liberal democracy. They are saying the United
States is going backwards, while many states around the world, many countries are going forwards on the issue of women's rights with obvious
outliers, in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
And the fact that liberal democracy is something that we have to contend with. And actually, you know, President Biden has sort of portrayed the war
in Ukraine as a defense of liberal democracy in rules-based order. What do you think when the United States is now involved in such -- you know, such
a battle over basic human rights, women's rights?
[13:35:00]
POWELL: Well, this is a very visceral issue, particularly in the United States. I know that in Ireland, both north and south, the issue has moved
on in the direction of -- liberal direction, which is what I would expect and hope.
AMANPOUR: Even though it's a catholic country, sort of?
POWELL: Even though it's a catholic country, with referendums. But in the United States, it has become such a live political wire that it's really,
really difficult. I don't think we should read too much into the death of liberal America through this. This is a very serious battle. And I
sincerely hope those on the liberal end of the battle will win it. Because in the, and that's the way history is moving around the world.
But we do have a serious threat to liberal democracy. But I think that's much more expressed by President Putin by what's happening in Ukraine and
what's happening in some Ukraine countries like Hungary than it is necessarily through Roe v. Wade. And I think it's a very important we're
alert to that and we are working to support Ukraine exactly because we cannot have autocrats win.
AMANPOUR: So, given what you have just said about that and your experiences as a negotiator and what you said about not pushing Putin into
a place where there's nothing to negotiate about, have you envisioned, in your mind, what a negotiation would look like?
POWELL: I think one thing that's important to think about, this negotiation, is its structure. What raw architecture will it have? This is
not just a bilateral negotiation between the Ukrainians and Russians. The security guarantees that the Ukrainians wants will have to come from the
United States and other western countries. The sanctions will have to be lifted by the United States and other western countries.
So, it's a three-way negotiation, if you want. And I think it's important the U.S. and other states participate in that. We need a group of friends
in Ukraine to help them in those negotiations and make sure they're not bamboozled by the Russians as they were in 2014.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
POWELL: The Minsk Agreement was really very unfair on the Ukrainians, and they were pushed into it by western governments and by mistake they made
they themselves made. It wasn't the elements of the agreement. It was the sequence of steps that they found themselves agreeing to. We must make sure
that doesn't happen again. And the Ukrainians must have the support of the negotiations just as they do in the war.
AMANPOUR: Really fascinating. Jonathan Powell, thank you very much indeed.
Now, Dr. Anthony Fauci says the U.S. is in a different phase of the pandemic. But there are warnings of the COVID-19 summer surge across the
southern states. Looking to learn from the past two years and plan for the future is Bill Gates, with his new book, "How to Prevent the Next
Pandemic." He tell Walter Isaacson why we should treat pandemics like fires.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CNN HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And Bill Gates, welcome back to the show.
BILL GATES, AUTHOR, "HOW TO PREVENT THE NEXT PANDEMIC": Great to be here.
ISAACSON: You have this new book out on "How to Prevent the Next Pandemic." And it begins by saying, hey, we got to learn the lessons from
this past pandemic. Let me ask you about a specific lesson. What did we learn from the countries that actually handled this well?
GATES: Well, there weren't many countries, but a few responded very quickly to scale up the level of diagnostics, and then, they had quarantine
policies that were well adhered to. So, Australia stands out, and their death rate is about 10 percent of other rich countries. So, pretty dramatic
benefit.
ISAACSON: But if you totally locked down because of people testing positive, make them all quarantine, certainly, that happened in China. But
now China is in a total mess because of that.
GATES: Well, China needs to get their vaccination rates of their elderly up to be a lot higher, including probably vaccines that are more effective
than the primary ones used in China. You know, eventually, Omicron is going to sweep through China, but they're trying to delay that while they rushed
to do a better job on vaccination.
ISAACSON: But a society like ours that, at least, people have the option to be fully boosted, people like myself, yourself have had the booster
shot, even second booster shots, should we still try to quarantine anybody who gets it or is it going to be something like the cold or the flu, you
just got over a cold, that gives you a sort of nice immunity and we shouldn't be trying to shut things down now that people have the options to
be vaccinated and boosted?
ISAACSON: Certainly, the combination of getting high levels of boosting and doing a good job of getting the therapeutics out, so that if you test
positive, it's very easy to immediately get the antivirals likes Paxlovid. That should mean we don't have to make the extreme trade-off of shutting
things like schools and businesses down. We should, as you say, treat it as an endemic thing like the flu.
The message on boosting needs to be stronger, because clearly, for older people, there is a waning effect. And so, we are starting to see some
deaths in vaccinated people, although, still, the majority are the unvaccinated.
ISAACSON: One of the things that struck me when you said the lessons learned from the countries that did it well versus us who didn't do it well
was the correlation with trust in government. Tell me about that and what we can, perhaps, do to improve that metric.
[13:40:00]
GATES: Well, it be nice to have that, you know, the kind of polarization and conspiracy theories that are out there, kind of tearing that fabric of
shared trust. Japan is an outlier, partly because of trust. I think their attitude towards mask-wearing where it's, you know, for a form of
politeness. If you're going to be near to someone, even before the pandemic, they had a lot of mask-wearing. So, Japan and South Korea,
benefited from that.
You know, the -- a lot of the rich countries are in about the same range as the U.S. The U.S., sadly, didn't do better, even though before the
pandemic, people thought that we would.
ISAACSON: You write in the book, one effect of speaking out is that it has provoked criticisms of the Gates Foundation. That's actually a sugar-coated
way of saying it. You've been sort of a target for wackiest of all theories. Why has that come about, and should you be pushing back on those,
like the crazy, you know, falsity that you're putting microchips in people when you do vaccines? How do you pushback on things like that?
GATES: You know, the theories about tracking, you know, as long as they don't discourage people from getting vaccinated, those almost so bizarre
you can laugh. The ones that suggest that vaccines overall are a plots that I or I in partnership with Dr. Fauci or getting rich over and it's causing
more deaths, that's really tragic because, you know, the world should be very proud of how vaccines are saving lives.
You know, we've cut the under-five death rate from 10 percent in near 2000 now down below 5 percent. And vaccines are the biggest part of that. You
know, so I'm proud of my association with vaccines. I didn't expect these conspiracy theories.
ISAACSON: You say that people say you are trying to get rich off of these vaccines, or at least, the 1 percent of real wacky people. How much have
you actually done the opposite, which is donated and given philanthropic dollars in order to promote vaccines as opposed to gaining some profits
from them?
GATES: Yes, the foundation has given over $10 billion for vaccines and $2 billion, specifically, for this pandemic. So, you know, I'm very lucky I
have those resources. I have an amazing team, and we were able to jump in, including funding early vaccine manufacturing.
ISAACSON: Should there have been one central database in the United States where you could go to find where to get the vaccine, where we can track in
real-time who's had the disease, whether we contract the correlations of the disease to whether you've lived in the place with people wearing masks,
those type of things?
GATES: No. It's tragic that the CDC wasn't asked by its leadership to have a website where access to diagnostics, access to results, all of the
information would have been there, including, you know, where to go and get vaccinated. So, we ended up, you know, kind of state by state, we ended up
with the diagnostics, you have a delay to get results. There is no reason you should ever create that backlog, because delays make the test
absolutely worthless.
So, the -- we didn't practice the idea of getting all that PCR testing behind a CDC website and, you know, that's a big difference between the
U.S. failure and what's the exemplars managed to achieve.
ISAACSON: The CDC, the Centers of Disease Control, that you've just talked about, you used to speak of them out as the golden standard of the world,
that they -- everyone would come to the United States to figure out how our Centers of Disease Control worked. Why did they fail so badly this time,
even on the things that were surprising, like keeping track of data of who got it, who was wearing masks, whether if you ended up testing positive,
exactly what vaccines you had, whether you lift in an area, where you could correlate it to mask mandates? It seems we had to use Israeli data or a
foreign data in order to figure out whether masks were working or not.
GATES: That's partly the CDC's fault. CDC still is the smartest group of epidemiologists, you know, they were involved in smallpox eradication,
they're key to the polio eradication work. They also didn't keep full-time people on pandemic work and think about the drills and the scenarios. And
when big pandemics only come along every, you know, hundred years, it's easy to get lax. And there's so much work, you know, they have a limited
budget.
[13:45:00]
So, you know, next time, we'll know better how to scale up those diagnostics. Likewise, we don't have a health data system. And so, they
suffered from the fact that correlating, you know, behavior in an area with health outcomes is much harder in the U.S. than it is, in say, Israel,
where they have a common database.
ISAACSON: You talk about the need for that centralized website. In your book, you talk about the fact that you had a really heated phone call with
the White House on that issue. I'd love to hear about it. Who was it with and what where they arguing and what were you arguing?
GATES: Well, you know, Secretary Azar who ran HHS at the time has the FDA, NIH, CDC, this group called BARDA, you know, even an undersecretary for
emergency response. And we -- so, we have more people than any other country to think about these medical things. But there were gaps between
the efforts, there wasn't the practice level.
And so, for example, scaling up diagnostics, once they got off where they were not doing it, they didn't want to backtrack and step up. You know, the
Defense Production Act would have let them go out to all of those PCR companies, which the U.S. has way more than anyone else and get rapid
diagnostics in place and given us a chance to have substantially less deaths. But, you know, we simply failed to convince them of that. It got
confusing. Then there was a task force and then there was Jared, and no willingness to step up and build that key resource.
ISAACSON: Yes. But tell me about the phone call where you really tried to push them into doing things.
GATES: Well, I was fairly stern. You know, I try and do that less now than when I was young to sort of, you know, say, hey, if you don't do, this it's
pretty dumb. But I thought it was worth raising the, you know, strength of my concern in a pretty direct way.
You know, sadly things were quite dysfunctional. You know, that was in a period where they was -- you know, Trump had says, hey, it go away without
a vaccine. And, you know, they were probably getting calls from lots of people until they just didn't want to build that website. And so, then we
had to build relationships with individual states. Some of which had capacities to do it, but most did not.
ISAACSON: You talk about preparing for the next pandemic. Are you sure the next pandemic is going to be a viral pandemic or it might be bacteria or
even fungus or something else and does that change how we have to prepare for it?
GATES: No, that's super important that we can't just focus on the last war, so to speak. But it's very likely to be respiratory virus. You know,
when I did the 2015 TED Talk and articles around that, you know, it was about respiratory because that can get out so quickly. You are still
healthy and you're on a plane or a bus. And it could be bacterial, most of those bacterial diseases aren't as difficult as the viral ones but we need
tools there as well.
So, the scary thing is that the fatality rate could be 10 times higher than it was this time. And in that sense, we got lucky.
ISAACSON: Biden had a plan for fighting the next pandemic, his science advisers had a lot of money behind it. What happened to the big plan they
were going to do for the next pandemic? Is it still possible for the administration to do something like that?
GATES: Well, of course, the government has a lot of issues that's dealing with. You know, we have to finish this pandemic and we are still worried
about different variants and the waning of the vaccine protection. Ukraine is raising massive issues. I have to say, I'm still a bit disappointed that
the congressman executive branch aren't putting more bandwidth into this discussion. I think that this year is the time for that.
That discretionary budget recommendation didn't have this. They did it in kind of an unusual white with the mandatory recommendations. So, I don't
know how seriously the debate will emerge. You know, my book, I hope, will kick off that debate here in the U.S. and around the world and yet, things
like this surveillance group, monitoring group, which I call germ, you know, get the funding for that. And they will make us practice on a regular
basis, even when there is no pandemic.
[13:50:00]
ISAACSON: You know, that surveillance group you just talked about, you call it germ in your book, I think you say it already, it goes back to
Emperor Augustus who had a permanent team of firefighters. We like to think it was Ben Franklin too who created the first, you know, full-time
volunteer fire department to say, all right, we will be out there.
What is the connection, the analogy between what we do with firefighting and what we should be doing with the pandemics?
GATES: Yes. So, governments take charge of the safety of citizens against many bad, surprising events. War, you know, meteors, volcanoes. Fire is the
one that people can relate to the best because, you know, we are all trained, we all know about it and there's lots of small fires and that
helps us to get ready to make sure you don't have like citywide fire, like existed in the past.
I was surprised that now there's 300,000, full-time fire people in the United States. And, of course, they are practicing all of the time. And we
all know when that alarm goes off, to calmly proceed to the exit. So, the idea that that is the analogy for pandemics, I think that resonates with
people far more than just talking about the defense budget or wargames, which are pretty distant from everyday life.
ISAACSON: So, if you are to set up, as you've described in your book, a pandemic response team, what would it be like? What would it do?
GATES: Well, it's got to start at the global level because these outbreaks, you know, they can take place in Asia and Africa. And so, you
know, to protect all countries, you have to be constantly seeing are there little outbreaks and apply resources to sequence and understand what that
is and then quickly try and avoid it getting to many countries.
So, I'm talking about 3,000 people under the W.H.O. So, at the global level, that work with each country. And then, if a country is not
practicing, they -- the W.H.O., as a group, would complain and says, come on, we all are in this together, and they figure out how to get an overall
global cooperation plan.
ISAACSON: How does this all -- this pandemic teach you things about and relate to the broader work about health equity that your foundation does?
GATES: Well, predictably, the great pandemic tools got out to the rich countries a lot faster than they did to the developing countries. And
particularly, if you look at the elderly people in those poor countries, they should've got vaccines before any young people in any country did,
because this, overwhelmingly, is a disease of the elderly and that is where the vaccine has this huge impact.
You know, that is where, even now, all countries should emphasize coverage and boosting in that part of the population. People were stunned that the
vaccines didn't get out quickly. There were efforts to do that, the U.S., you know, withdrew from W.H.O., the money came late and then, Trump blocked
the spending of the international money. And so, Biden had to unlock that. So, there were things that made this one very hard.
But, you know, health is inequitable for all diseases. You know, if you are in a developing country, the cancer treatments are not there. And so, if it
-- if this reminds people that we need to keep reducing that gap, it will be good. You know, we didn't get the equity on this disease even though it
was visible. So that overall cause, you know, it's been a setback, those countries, their economies, they debts, even though their death rate,
because their age structures is a little lower, they've suffered overall more than any other countries.
ISAACSON: Bill Gates, thank you so much and it's good to be with you again.
GATES: Thanks, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, on this World Press Freedom Day, let's take a moment to reflect on the work of so many journalists across the
world, many of whom report in the face of great danger.
President Biden paid tribute to reporters covering the war in Ukraine at the White House Correspondent's Dinner this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have all seen the courage of the Ukrainian people because of the courage of American reporters in this room and your
colleagues across the world who are on the ground taking their lives in their own hands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And we also remember the courage of those Russian journalist who are still trying to get the truth out despite mounting censorship.
That is it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
