Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Amanpour and Co; The January 6th Committee Reveals New Details About How Donald Trump's Pressure Campaign Endangered Mike Pence's Life; As Ukraine Fights For Its Existence, Moldova Also Grapples with Pro-Russian Separatists and a Battered Economy. Did Not Air Live.

Aired June 16, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour and Company. Here is what's coming up.

The January 6th committee reveals new details about how Donald Trump's pressure campaign endangered Mike Pence's life.

And --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: I shall resign the presidency effectively by noon tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- the Watergate break-in 50 years on. Walter Isaacson talks to legendary reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein about uncovering the

scandal that brought down a president and continues to shape America.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATALIA GAVRILITA, MOLDOVAN PRIME MINISTER: In the last several weeks, we have seen a number of incidents, explosions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- as Ukraine fights for its existence, its neighbor, Moldova, also grapples with Pro-Russian separatists and a battered economy. I speak

to Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SERHII PLOKHY, HARVARD HISTORIAN: There is a possibility of a major, major nuclear accident as long as the war in Ukraine continues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- nuclear threats past and present. Harvard Historian Serhii Plokhy dives into the chilling history in Atoms and Ashes.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

It's a pretty astonishing claim. A sitting president was not only indifferent to the safety of his own loyal vice president whose behavior

actually helped cause the threat. Donald Trump's pressure campaign to overturn the 2020 election was the focus of the latest January 6th

hearings. And the committee says his actions directly contributed to the attack that endangered Mike Pence who was rushed to safety as the riots

unfolded.

17 months after the insurrection, new details are still coming to light about that fateful day and what led up to it. Correspondent Pamela Brown

reports.

Our thanks to Pamela Brown.

While many are drawing parallels between these hearings and those from Watergate, this year marks 50 years since what seemed like a simple break-

in revealed a scandal that ultimately brought down President Richard Nixon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIXON: I continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication but almost totally observe the time and attention of both the

president and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issue of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.

Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: That stunning moment came after dogged reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two junior Washington Post reporters at the

time. They broke news about a president's attempt to undermine democracy.

And with Donald Trump's actions now on the spotlight, both Woodward and Bernstein joined Walter Isaacson to reflect on Watergate and its enduring

legacy.

We turn next to Russia's war and its impact beyond Ukraine's borders. Few countries are monitoring the conflict more closely than Moldova, Ukraine's

neighbor and hosts of thousands of its refugees. Moldova is also dealing with its own group of pro-Russian separatists in the breakaway region of

Transnistria. So, it's pushing to join the E.U. amid fears that it could be drawn as well into the war.

I recently spoke to Moldova's prime minister, Natalia Gavrilita, about the tense situation.

Well, Russia's war and the threat of nuclear dangers is keeping the world on edge. Ukrainian Historian Serhii Plokhy assesses current and past

nuclear disasters in his new book, Atoms and Ashes. And he joined me to discuss the risks of Russia's actions.

So valuable to hear there from Serhii Plokhy, author of the new book, Atoms and Ashes.

We turn now to Colombia where voters this weekend will head to the polls in a highly anticipated presidential run-off. The candidates are offering

starkly different visions for the future, including on climate and green energy. But those plans could be thwarted by Russia's war on Ukraine.

Correspondent Stefano Pozzebon reports from Northern Colombia.

Our thanks again to Stefano Pozzebon for that report.

And, finally, tonight, this Sunday marks Juneteenth in the United States, commemorating the end of slavery. Even after President Lincoln declared all

enslaved people free on paper with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, some states didn't follow it.

It wasn't until the 19th of June of 1865, two years later, that the order was enforced and many of the enslaved learned of their freedom. Despite

being that last state to abolish slavery, Texas was the first to make the day a state holiday in 1980. This is the second year Juneteenth is now a

federal holiday after President Biden signed it into the law last year.

Happy Juneteenth, everyone.

And that's it for our program tonight. Remember, you can follow me and the show on Twitter. Thank you so much for watching Amanpour and Company on

PBS. Join us again next time.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour and Company. Here is what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: We at the Fed understand the hardship that high inflation is causing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: The U.S tries to cool down a hot economy now as a recession looming, I break down the data with Economist Michelle Holder.

And --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SGT. AQUILINO GONELL, CAPITOL POLICE: It's watching. It's hard reliving it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: -- punched, pushed, kicked and shoved. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell talks to Michel Martin about the January 6th hearings and

how he is trying to heal.

Then, forced to flee, the International Rescue Committee's David Milliband joins me with an urgent plea to help the staggering 100 million uprooted

from their homes.

Plus, a chilling wave of journalist murders in Mexico. We'll bring you an on-the-ground report from Tijuana.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

The global economy is in uncharted territory. And where it goes next is anybody's guess. Raging inflation, the soaring cost of gas and food are

plaguing consumers in America and around the world. The U.S. Federal Reserve belatedly racing to react took its most aggressive move in decades

on Wednesday, hiking the interest rate 75 basis points to try to rein in the rising prices.

And just today, the Bank of England also raised rates. But will the rate hikes be the cure to cool down this overheated economy or is it now at risk

of sliding into a recession? And what might the outlook mean for big issues laid bare by the pandemic, including inequality and the economic cost of

racism?

Michelle Holder is an economics professor and the outgoing president and CEO of Washington Center for Equitable growth, and she joins me now from

New York. Michelle, welcome to the program.

First, let me get your reaction to the interest rate hike, 75 basis points from the Federal Reserve. It's the largest rate hike in nearly 30 years. We

were expecting a rate hike, not nearly this high until we got some really disturbing inflation data last week. What do you make of their decision?

Was it the right move?

MICHELLE HOLDER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK: Well, I think that it was probably the only move that the Fed could

make at this point. There are some economists who have argued that the Fed waited too long to act and to raise interest rates. So, because it took

them a while to get to this point, they kind of had to make it a pretty big jump.

GOLODRYGA: And let's talk about the increase in inflation that we've seen rapidly. Long gone is the word transitory, which is what we heard from the

administration and the Federal Reserve last year. It does appear that inflation is here to stay. In May, prices rose 8.6 percent. That's the

fastest pace in 40 years.

We know the Federal Reserve has really two mandates, and that's to keep the unemployment rate low and to keep inflation in check. How do you think they

are doing at this point with both issues, the unemployment rate remains low but the higher interest rates go? The concern is that the unemployment rate

could rise as well.

HOLDER: Yes. The Federal Reserve has a really tricky balance to strike. As you mentioned, there are two mandates that -- it includes keeping

unemployment low and keeping prices stable. So, yes, the Fed has done a great job in terms of its policy as well as President Biden's fiscal policy

approaches to get unemployment rate back to a level where we can all rest a little easier.

But the problem is, because prices are so high, now the Fed has to put the brakes on the economy, slow things down, cool things down a little bit. And

we do know that when the Fed puts the brakes on the economy in terms of raising interest rates, this means businesses are less likely to borrow,

individuals are less likely to borrow, and this really impacts the labor market in terms of hiring and job creation. And so it's a really tricky,

tricky balance that the Fed has to strike right now.

GOLODRYGA: And Fed Chair J. Powell has said that, in his view, he believes that he could bring the economy into a slow-ish recovery, right, and a

soft-ish landing to where you won't necessarily, in his view, have to see a recession. Perhaps we'll see slowdown in growth but not a recession and see

that these rates are going down as well.

Do you think the inflation rates -- do you think that he's right there, that he can -- he'd bring it in for a soft-ish landing?

HOLDER: I think that it's certainly within the realm of possibilities and it's certainly within the realm of the policy tools that the Fed has. I

think though that in order to obtain the soft landing that Chair Powell wants to get to, really close attention has to paid to what a occurs after

a huge rate hike like this one.

There's a lag factor in terms of how the economy responds, what happens. So, a little time has to pass before we really see what this Fed hike means

in terms of cooling the economy down. But, yes, it's within the purview of the Fed to be able to navigate a soft landing but that really depends on

how well they strike the balance between reining in inflation and as well as maintaining is right now considered full employment in the United

States.

GOLODRYGA: And that's a really tricky thing to do considering that inflation is really backward-looking indicator. We expect to see perhaps

another 75 basis point rate hike next month as well from the Federal Reserve ultimately leading to what some analyst are expecting at about 3

percent as the final target rate there. And that does lead many to worry that we can't avoid a recession because perhaps there could be an overshoot

given that we may continue to see inflation a backward-looking indicator continue to rise over the next few months, and that's leading to more rate

hikes.

What can be done to avoid that, because, right now, there are many people who are already feeling the pinch and we are not in a recession? What

happens when we do get to that?

HOLDER: Yes. I think the key in terms of how the Fed moves is, really, how high will it continue to hike interest rates and how quickly. And it does

seem that the Fed is poised to really be aggressive about trying to get prices under control with, as we saw this really significant interest rate

hike, the largest in 30 years, I don't see the Fed really abating this approach. And so the calls and concerns about a potential looming recession

are quite valid because the Fed, for the most part, is really putting the pedal to the metal to get prices down.

GOLODRYGA: And this is coming as, on the one hand, we continue to hear out of President Biden that the Fed is an independent entity and they need to

do what they can to rein in inflation. He is well aware of that. But at the same time, he continues to tout what is otherwise a robust economy. Here is

what he said just earlier this week about the economy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: The bottom line is this. I actually believe we made extraordinary progress by laying a new foundation for our economy,

which becomes clear once global inflation begins to recede. There's so much at stake, but the truth is I've never been more optimistic about American

than I am today. I really mean it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Does he a right to be optimistic? You compare to other developed nations around the world, the United States economy is holding

strong. That having been said, there do appear to be a lot of headwinds on the horizon.

HOLDER: Well, he is the president of our country, so we want him to maintain a high level of optimism, obviously. But for the everyday Joe and

Joanna working and buying and consuming in this country, the hit to the pocketbook is really felt quite deeply. And so I don't necessarily think

that the U.S. economy is headed for a cliff but I do think that we -- in terms of Fed policy, there really has to be an iterative approach in terms

of how high and how quickly it continues to raise interest rates.

The other thing about recession is, the word recession itself is considered kind of the boogeyman, right? But not all recessions are equal. In fact,

the COVID or coronavirus recession was really only two months. Of course, we know that there was a lot of pain both before and after that recession,

but it was a very short-lived one. So, in and of itself, the definition of a recession is a decline in output for two consecutive quarters or about

six months.

I think the U.S. can weather the storm of a short and quite moderate recession, if that is what we are headed for, but I wouldn't say that the

president should not be optimistic.

GOLODRYGA: I'm glad you brought this up in terms of weathering the storm because many -- listen, economists, Democratic economists and obviously

many Republicans are focusing their blame on this administration and stimulus checks in particular coming out of the pandemic, for sort of

putting too much money into the system and that's leading to more demand and some of the supply chains issues that we are still dealing with right

now.

On the flipside of that, you could make the argument that inflation is a global phenomenon and perhaps there are a lot of American families who have

that extra cushion to make it through whatever challenges we're facing, whether we do end up in a recession or not.

What is your take on the reason behind the spike in inflation and what, if any, role this administration played in it?

HOLDER: So, I would have to say, thinking about the fiscal policy approach of President Biden's administration, to the economic downturn, to high

unemployment that we saw two years ago, his approach of injecting more money into the economy, in essence, did the job it was supposed to do. It

did spur demand. It did lead to job creation. The problem came in the form of supply couldn't keep up with demand, right? People had more money. They

were spending. This was creating jobs. But we do know there was and still is a global pandemic. Right now, there's also this conflict, this war in

Ukraine.

So, is it the case that perhaps the administration should have foreseen that there would be supply problems in terms of our country and the rest of

the world being in the middle of a global pandemic and perhaps spurring demand to this degree could not be met with adequate supply? Maybe. But my

point is that the administration did what it was supposed to do, get the economy going again, get people buying again and get people working again.

The issue came in terms of supply not being able to keep up with it.

And as you mentioned, the U.S. is not alone in terms of experiencing really high inflation now. If you look at Germany, you look at France, you look at

the U.K., these are all countries experiencing very high inflation right now. And so to point the finger at the American Rescue plan may not

necessarily be the right direction to go in because this is a global phenomenon.

GOLODRYGA: Is the president right then to point the finger -- a large part of this, he is correct is saying that Vladimir Putin and his illegal war in

Ukraine has led to a spike in oil and gas prices. But is he correct to also point the finger at oil companies, as he sent this letter to seven

executives this week accusing them of price gouging and not putting more gasoline out there? Is he right in that respect or do you think that's more

of a political message that he sent?

HOLDER: No, I don't think it's political. The data does actually show that a significant portion of the price increases that consumers are

experiencing in this country is coming in the form of markups, companies sort of widening the margin of profit they are making on the products and

services they produce and sell. So, the president is not wrong in that regard, but I think it's difficult to sell it to the public because the

public is looking to the president to solve this problem.

He he's not wrong. In fact, Economic Policy Institute, another Washington UBC-based think tank, has done the data analysis in terms of what is

comprised of the high prices we're seeing right now. And an outsized portion of that is really the markup on goods and services, which is

attributable to corporations.

GOLODRYGA: So, let's talk about these rate hikes will mean for average Americans. We have seen an overheated housing market. Now, all of a sudden,

just this week, mortgage rate surged to 5.78 percent. That's the largest one week increase since 1987. We talked about the supply chain issues. Do

you think, in a sense, that the spike in interest rates will help level out some of these overstimulation and perhaps resolve the supply chain issues

that we're facing?

HOLDER: Well, I certainly think that the tactic that the Fed is using right now in terms of really pushing the envelope in terms of the latest

interest rate hike, it will absolutely have a cooling effect on the economy. But whether or not it affects the supply chain issues, I think, is

sort of a different matter because it's not so much that the supply chain problems are being cause by problems in the United States, they are being

caused by issues sort of beyond the control of the president.

And so I don't -- to say that it will help with supply chain problems, I do think it will help in an indirect way in terms of dampening demand, but it

doesn't solve the problem of supply chain breakdowns.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. You're right to say that this is really a global issue.

Let me finally ask you. Women and people of color were hardest hit by the recession stemming from the pandemic. As they've just gathered their

bearings, right, I'm concerned, as I'm sure you are and many are, that they could face another challenge if we do, in fact, hit a recession, or even if

we don't, the impact from this increase now in interest rates in response to rising inflation.

HOLDER: Yes. No, I'm absolutely concerned about that as well. As a labor economist, those are the groups I really look at in terms of how they are

fairing in the U.S. economy and particularly in U.S. labor market. And so we do know during recessionary times and certainly with the last recession,

the COVID recession or the coronavirus recession, whatever you want to call it, we do know that women experienced more so than men higher unemployment

rates. And we also know that, typically speaking during recessionary periods, it's really people of color who receives sort of the brunt of it.

And so, yes, it's absolutely of concern. And so the Fed really has its jobs cut out for it, trying to maintain its dual mandate of both price stability

and full employment.

GOLODRYGA: Well, let's hope for the sake of all Americans that they get it right. Michelle Holder, thank you so much. We appreciate it.

HOLDER: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: And now to the other big story in the U.S., January 6th public hearings. Americans are learning new information about the insurrection.

And for some, Sergeant Aquilino Gonell, it's not an easy watch. That's because he actually lived it.

The Capitol Hill police officer was punched, kicked and sprayed with chemical irritants as he tried to defend the building.

Here is talking to Michel Martin about accountability and why this moment is so important for him.

And now to Mexico, and data from the human rights group, Article 19, shows a shocking increase in lethal violence against journalists in the country.

At least 11 have been murdered so far this year, making the North American nation one of the most dangerous places in the world to do journalism.

But Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has openly dismissed this problem, even condemning journalists who criticize him.

Correspondent Matt Rivers is Tijuana, otherwise known as Mexico's murder capital, with more.

Our thanks to Matt Rivers for that report.

And, finally, the queen is back. The queen, Beyonce, of course, she is releasing what looks like her first solo album in six years. The news that

Renaissance is dropping on July 29th came from title, the streaming service owned by Beyonce and her husband, Jay-Z. The post reading, act one, a hint

perhaps that the project might come in multiple parts, which obviously sent the bee hive into a frenzy. We, of course, can't wait to hear it.

Well, that is it for now. You can always catch us online, on our podcast and across social media. Thank you so much for watching and good from New

York.

January 6 could happen again, a chilling warning from somebody he lived it.

And now, 100 million reasons for change. The International Rescue Committee is calling for urgent action as new data finds a record 100 million people

have been forcibly displaced from their homes, including 89 million last year alone. It's the greatest displacement figure since World War 2.

David Milliband is the IRC's president and CEO, he was also Britain's foreign secretary under Gordon Brown and he joins me now from New York.

David, thank you so much for joining us today.

A staggering figure, record-setting figure, more than 7 million of those consist of displaced internal Ukrainian citizens and more than 6 million

refugees that have been forced to leave Ukraine since the conflict began. Let's start there and the current crisis in Ukraine. What is the latest on

the ground there in terms of refugees? What have you seen?

DAVID MILLIBAND, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: Thanks, Bianna. It's very good to talk to you. The Ukraine crisis has

catapulted the growing global crisis of displacement above the 100 million figure. The International Rescue Committee has teams inside Ukraine as well

as across Europe.

And what we're seeing is three very important changes. First of all, increasing numbers of people caught up in the fighting in the east of the

country, secondly, a growing return to normality in the rest of Ukraine, people returning actually from Europe, up to 2 million of them coming back

to Kyiv and some of the other major cities in the center and west of the country.

And then in Europe, a really profound effort by the European and states to offer three years residence, three years schooling, three years employment

opportunity to Ukrainian refugees setting a new global standard for how refugees should be treated. So, different parts of the crisis are

experiencing the current wave of the conflict in different ways.

GOLODRYGA: And, David, all of these countries, many of them, whether it's Moldova, whether it's Poland, have welcomed many of these refugees,

millions of refugees, with open arms. We just did a segment though on economic implications around the world, perhaps fears of a recession,

growing inflation around the world as well. How concerned are you that that will move away some of the attention that's been directed at these refugees

and impact them negatively thus forth?

MILLIBAN: Well, I think that everyone needs to be very concerned, the inability of global leadership to concentrate on more than one thing at a

time. There's a danger for Ukraine that attention goes away but there's also a danger for many other people caught up in conflict, whether it be

Yemen or Ethiopia or post-conflict in Afghanistan, that they get forgotten.

And we have to learn that this is an interconnected world where problems will move if they're not address. And our argument is that the hundred

million people displaced by conflict and persecution around the world are indeed a hundred million reasons to change the way in which we address

these problems, both at source in terms of the diplomacy, because there are 53 civil conflicts going on at the moment that aren't being tamed, but also

how we help the victims who too often are victimized rather than being effectively supported.

And in this aspect, the scale of the support for Ukrainian refugees is much greater than that for people who are caught up in conflict elsewhere in the

world and, frankly, the level of support that Ukrainian refugees have been offered, which is right, needs to be matched elsewhere.

GOLODRYGA: And how can that be done? I'm glad you brought this point up. Because this longer this war goes on, the more concern of friction, right,

amongst allies in how it responds to this crisis grows, and that attention perhaps is too focused on Ukraine and not some of the other humanitarian

and refugee crisis that we're seeing all over the world.

Just recently, the U.N. HRC chief criticized what he called the monopoly of resources going to Ukraine. How do you balance that? How do you keep the

focus on Ukraine where it should be in a hot war right now while also not taking away resources from other vulnerable people?

MILLIBAND: Well, essentially, we have to learn to walk, chew gum and play the violin at the same time.

GOLODRYGA: It seems easier said than done.

MILLIBAND: It's certainly easier said than done. But, frankly, it would be completely wrong for people left in Afghanistan or Yemen or Ethiopia to pay

the double price of the Ukraine crisis, the first price being the rise in food prices, the second price being the loss of global attention. And we

all know that unattended humanitarian crisis leads to political instability, which the world can ill afford (ph).

Now, it so happens that we've got a G7 meeting coming up, the group of seven so-called leading industrialized democracies meeting -- including the

United States, meeting in Germany just in the next couple of weeks. It's essential that they do address the Ukraine crisis but they've also got to

show the ability to think and act and work globally.

We know that in the United Nations, 141 countries joined in condemning the Russian invasion, but the majority of the world's population were

represented by countries that refused to join that show of support. And it's vital that these western liberal democracies show that they do have a

global perspective. Because unless they are able to tackle the allegations of hypocrisy, they're not going to be able to muster the kind of global

coalition that is essential.

GOLODRYGA: Some of this criticism comes from countries that really do depend on resources out of this region, whether it would be Russia or

Ukraine, the bread basket of the world, as it's referred to as of 20 million tons of commodities there are held at the port, being held hostage

at Ukrainian ports by Vladimir Putin, is what he said, would only be released if we see sanctions lifted.

How have you dealt with this crisis? I mean, your report itself says an additional 47 million people are projected to experience acute hunger

because of this crisis right now. What can be done other than continuing to pressure Vladimir Putin?

MILLIBAND: Well, we have to do more than just use our voices. As an international humanitarian agency, we are deploying resources into East

Africa, the horn of Africa. We're deploying resources into the Sahel region of Africa. We're deploying resources into Afghanistan. Some of those are

resources that we get from government. Others are people visiting our website, rescue.org, to learn about the crises that we're dealing with and

learn how to make a difference.

What I can say to you and to your viewers is that we do know how to meet the needs that exist despite the problems of food stocks that you're right

point to and the need for diplomatic action to get those stocks out. We also know that if we don't offer economic support to people in Somalia,

people in Ethiopia, people in Yemen, they will literally move from being food insecure to being (INAUDIBLE) conditions not because it's expensive

for them. So, there are economic steps that can be taken.

Secondly, there are also agriculture steps. Africa has enormous arable potential. Obviously, that's longer term than just the next few weeks. But

this needs to be thought of in the round. The Ukraine crisis should be a global wakeup call not just a European wakeup call.

GOLODRYGA: This all comes as we continue to see record set in terms of weather, whether it would be droughts, rain, you name it, fires. It's not

just wars and famine that leads people to leave their places of home, it's also climate change. What role has climate change played in the increased

number refugees over the past few years?

MILLIBAND: Yes, that's a good point. The main impact of climate change is not to directly drive people to move between countries. Generally, when

resource stress hits a part of the country, people move from within the country. However, climate drives conflict. Climate change drives conflict.

That's what resource stress leads to. And we are seeing around the world the nexus of conflict and climate tightening. Some of the most climate-

exposed countries in the world are also some of the most conflict-ridden countries in the world if you look at the different indices.

All of this points to the need for a much more joined-up response. The idea that the climate response is separate from the humanitarian response,

separate from the diplomatic response is really an old way of thinking. In increasing parts of the world where we're working as an international

humanitarian agency, we're both meeting immediate malnutrition needs but we're also trying to help people invest in agricultural livelihood so that

they're more resilient to the stresses and strains of the climate crisis that undoubtedly are happening.

The future has elements of danger and elements of chaos about it but there's also elements of progress, scientific and other progress. And we've

got to make sure that the scale of resources that exist to meet needs are actually mobilized to do so.

GOLODRYGA: David, going back to the question about economic headwinds that not only the U.S. is facing but much of the developed world is facing, how

do you convince Americans, Brits, French to invest in what you are right to point out are staggering figures a crisis that needs to be addressed, how

do you convince them to deal with that at the same time that they are paying much more than they were at gas pump, at the grocery store, trying

to balance their own budgets and now perhaps worried about their own jobs in the next few months?

MILLIBAND: Well, obviously, the first part of that is to make sure that the burden of taxation is spread in a progressive way, so that those with

the broadest shoulders end up taking the greatest weight. So, it's very important that those with the least are not expected to pay the most. So,

there's an issue about the progressivity of the taxation system, but, secondly, the self-interest here, not just moral interest. Frankly, if we

don't tackle global problems, they will come and rebound on us.

And for all the people who complain about the number of people who are seeking to move as a result of global economic change, the only way to

mitigate that is to ensure that there is proper humanitarian help globally. And the fractions of sums that are needed for global international health

are dwarfed by the amount they spend domestically in rich countries. It's, in fact, poor countries that bear the greatest burden of supporting

refugees and we need to explain that because it's a self-interest question as well as a moral interest.

GOLODRYGA: I'm glad you brought this up, the broader shoulders carry the greatest weight, because that's not what we're seeing in terms of who is

taking in the most refugees, not just stemming from the Ukraine crisis but that's the latest example. The United States obviously helping a lot of

these countries which neighboring border Ukraine with a lot of financial aid, but in terms of actually taking refugees, the U.S. pales in comparison

to poor countries, like Moldova or even Poland, and I would put the U.K. in the same boat. If you look at, let's say, Turkey, was the home to the

largest refugee population in 2021, it hosted 3.8 million refugees, Poland now hosting 1.2 million Ukrainians. By contrast, U.K. hosts only 137,000

refugees as of last year.

What is your response to that and why do you think that figure is as low as it is?

MILLIBAND: I'm afraid that your question was very much interrupted, so I found -- I only heard fragments of it. But I think what you were asking or

pointing to was the contrast between the European Union's response to the Ukraine crisis than the British one. And you're absolutely right to point

that out.

Britain has been at the forefront of military help for Ukraine but it's been an absolute laggard when it comes to supporting refugees from Ukraine.

I don't think there's any logical reason for that. Britain has a proud history, various parts of its history of welcoming refugees, but the

current government has taken a really minimalist approach. I think there is absolute room for pressure on the U.K. to meet the kind of reception that

European countries have offered. Because, as you say, some of the poor European countries, like Poland, Hungary, even Moldova, which is outside

the European Union, have responded with much more generosity than the U.K., and that's something for those of us who are British citizens to bemoan.

GOLODRYGA: Let's stay in the U.K. because there was another scandal as of late, the Rwanda flight scandal, a last-minute intervention actually by the

European Court of Human Rights. In a controversial U.K. government decision to forcibly send asylum seekers back to Rwanda, that flight was halted.

But I want to play for you sound from Boris Johnson in response to that decision because he seemed to stand by his initial policy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: My message to everybody today is that we are not going to be, in any way, deterred or abashed by some of the

criticism that is being directed upon this policy, some of it from slightly unexpected quarters. We are going to get on and deliver.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Is that a sound policy, in your view? David, can you hear me?

MILLIBAND: I'm afraid I couldn't hear the clip and I couldn't hear your question.

GOLODRYGA: Okay. So, this was in response to the Rwanda asylum plan. Did you get that part?

MILLIBAND: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: And the last-minute intervention by the European Court of Human Rights? Right.

MILLIBAND: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: So, I played sound from Boris Johnson saying that his message, I'm going to read it to you just so you hear it verbatim. My message today

to everyone is that we are not going to be, in any way, deterred or abashed by some of criticism that is being directed on this policy, some of it from

slightly unexpected quarters. We are going to get on and deliver. And I want to get your response as to whether you think that is a sound policy.

MILLIBAND: Well, I'm afraid that this is an example of the British government leading a race to the bottom, not a race to show a purposeful

and progressive global Britain. This is not sending asylum seekers back to Rwanda, it's pending asylum seekers for processing of their claims, and

then to stay in Rwanda if their claims are successful.

The fact that your viewers need to know is that 80 to 90 percent of the people who are being considered for mooting to Rwanda are actually expected

to have successful asylum claims. So, I'm afraid this is an example of the U.K. reneging on some of the most fundamental responsibilities that any

nation has, which is to obey international law.

And I think that at a time when Germany has 2 million refugees (INAUDIBLE), it's high time that the U.K. fulfilled its responsibilities rather than

trying to shove them off.

GOLODRYGA: And this comes at a recent spate of scandals plaguing the Boris Johnson administration. His problems continue to go. He barely survived a

no-confidence vote. And just out this week, we hear of the resignation of Lord Geidt. He is his ethics adviser. He resigned. And he told the prime

minister he was quitting, quote, after being placed in an impossible and odious position apparently related to future decisions on trade tariffs.

Given all of this scandal that plagued administration with Boris Johnson, do you think that he has finally reached the point where he cannot be in

charge and keep the job that he is currently in right now or do you think this is a situation he can once again get out and then manage to survive?

MILLIBAND: Well, evidently, Boris Johnson does remain in office. I'm not sure whether in charge is the right experience but he's certainly in

office. And the conservative party a week ago in parliament, although three-quarters of the backbench members of parliament voted no confidence

in him, he ultimately prevailed by securing about 60 percent of the total number of members of parliament. So, he is going to remain the leader of

the conservative party and, therefore, the prime minister of the U.K.

I think what's very important at the moment is that there are vital decisions that need to be taken both for the British national interest but

also of global import. And these are really quite momentous times that require serious leadership. And anyone who has a link to the U.K. like

myself will want to urge that the seriousness is matched by the policies that are required. At the moment, this is a time for the U.K. to step up in

a serious way, not step back into soap opera.

GOLODRYGA: And in your view, can Boris Johnson continue to maintain serious leadership given all of these crises?

MILLIBAN: Well, he's being given a year's grace by the conservative party. And the truth is that he faces choice. He can have more of this kind of

Rwanda scheme that we've been discussing this afternoon, which breaches international law, which is ineffective in all sorts of ways, which doesn't

solve the problems that it claims to, and which is, therefore, really part of this race to the bottom, or he can choose to match the moment with the

kind of political and policy decisions that are required.

And I think it's very important to say that the choice is his because there's not requirement to race at the bottom. The actual need is to show

the kind of disciplined leadership for the country and, frankly, the world need.

GOLODRYGA: David Milliband, we appreciate the time. Thank you so much for joining us.

MILLIBAND: Thank you so much.

END