Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with IRC President and CEO and Former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband; Interview with Former U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen; Interview with U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Former Commander and Former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Harry B. Harris Jr.; Interview with World Trade Organization Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala; Interview with "Project 562" Photographer Matika Wilbur. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 20, 2023 - 16:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here is what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just want to hear his voice and make sure he's OK, because we are in hell since the day this happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Hundreds of migrants are still missing after their boat capsized in waters off of the Greek coast. I asked the CEO of the International
Rescue Committee, David Miliband, how we can stop people dying in search of a better life.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We now have underwater search capability on scene.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the race to find a missing sub before its oxygen supply runs out.
Also, ahead, navigating the new world order.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Directing engagement and sustained communication at senior levels is the best way to responsibly
manage our differences and ensure that competition does not veer into conflicts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I asked the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mike Mullen, and the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Harry B. Harris, how the
U.S. should engage with a more confident China.
Plus, the head of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, tells me why we shouldn't abandon globalization.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATIKA WILBUR, PHOTOGRAPHER, "PROJECT 562": We are, in many ways, facing an epidemic of hopelessness with our young people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- changing the way we see Native Americans. Photographer Matika Wilbur tells me Hari Sreenivasan why it's vital to challenge Native
American stereotypes.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
On this World Refugee Day, we are more acutely aware more than ever of the risks people are forced to take in search of a better life. A life beyond
war, persecution, climate change and poverty. The U.N. estimates that today, 110 million people are displaced worldwide, more than at any other
time since the Second World War.
Right now, hundreds of migrants are still missing after their overcrowded fishing vessel capsized off the Greek coast. The E.U. says it may be the
worst tragedy in the Mediterranean Sea has ever had. As families wait for news of their missing loved ones, the Greek coast guard and the Greek
government are under intense pressure. And a court case is underway in Athens where nine men are accused of people smuggling.
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is here in London, where he and his British counterpart, James Cleverly, have been at the center
which is set up to help Ukrainian refugees who fled Russia's invasion.
David Miliband is a CEO of the International Rescue Committee. He was British foreign secretary from 2007 to '10. And he's also the son of Jewish
refugees. David Miliband, thank you for joining us.
DAVID MILIBAND, PRESIDENT AND CEO, IRC, AND FORMER BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY: Thank you, Christiane. Great to be with you!
AMANPOUR: So, you know, on the actual anniversary, it's often rare to be faced with such a stark reminder, an ongoing crisis such as the one in the
sea off the Greek coast. And I wonder, you know, what you can tell us? Because you've written about the cruelty of having no migration policy and
keep seeing these deaths. What are you thinking right now?
MILIBAND: Well, obviously, one's first thought is with the people who are on the boat, the people who have loved ones on the boat, as an instant
human reaction that comes as you think about the absolute horror show in the Mediterranean. But the second thought, the rational thought is that
this is what happens when desperate people have no official regulated legal route to find their way to safety.
As you reported in the intro, the vast bulk of the refugee population, that part of the 110 million figure that you mentioned, about 40 million or so
refugees and asylum seekers, 40 to 45 million, half of them come from Afghanistan, Syria and from Ukraine. And we know that reports from this
capsized boat emphasize Afghanistan and Syria as countries of origin.
If there is no legal way for people to find safety, they will put their lives and their cash in the hands of people smugglers. And so, it's the
absence of policy, coherent migration policy, that feeds the people smuggling business. And that's why I've written this piece in "The
Financial Times" today to say that cruelty and cruel rhetoric are actually the best recruiting sergeants of the people smugglers. Its coherent policy,
more humane and coherent policy that's actually the way to put them out a business.
[16:05:00]
AMANPOUR: So, tell me what you mean by cruelty and cruel rhetoric? Do you mean by our public space? Do you mean by governments? Do you mean by the
press?
MILIBAND: No, I mean (INAUDIBLE), Christiane. I mean, Europe has no affective refugee resettlement schemes for the most vulnerable refugees
that the U.N. identifies. In the U.S., the Biden ministration is building it up to 125,000 people a year, people who are widows, people who are
victims of torture, that doesn't exist in Europe. Secondly, the asylum processing system across Europe is a patchwork at the moment. The U.K.
government is trying to make -- even claiming asylum illegal. So, on the asylum front, you've also got this situation.
Thirdly, the aid and support for countries that are hosting refugees, countries in North Africa, countries in the Middle East, countries like
Jordan and Lebanon, that is haphazard and insufficient. So, you've got the absence of safe and effective legal pathways for people to register their
claims. The loss of hope is what makes people think the only way to save my own life or to save the life of my kids is to put my future in the hands of
the people smugglers. That's the deadly trade that is being fed by the absence of policy.
AMANPOUR: So --
MILIBAND: It's practical, and people follow the signals very clearly.
AMANPOUR: So, in that regard, let me just quote to you with the E.U. commissioner for Home Affairs has said, blaming the smugglers, saying,
those smugglers have put these people on these boats, they are not sending them to Europe, they are sending them to death. This is what they're doing,
and it's absolutely necessary to prevent it.
Your statement, along with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others have said, the E.U. should abandon the narrative of blaming
shipwrecks on smugglers and stop seeing solutions solely in the dismantling of criminal networks.
I mean, again, what is going to make them do it? And I say this and I ask it because it was just a few years ago, if you remember, E.U.
commissioners, Italian prime ministers and others would rush to the -- you know, to the tragedy area, they'd express their sympathies and their
sadness. Now, it's sort of desensitized. No E.U. official, or rather government official, has really said anything about this.
MILIBAND: Well, to be fair to the E.U. commissioner, I met her in Brussels last month. I've met her on previous occasions. She's been waging a
sometimes-lonely battle for her three and a half years in office to get a refugee and asylum pact agreed to across the European Union And so, she is
the commissioner for migration policy, but obviously national governments are the ultimate decision makers in this area. And she's been trying to get
this pact agreed.
Now, she's made some progress, but we are still a long way from having a coherent Europe-wide approach that will offer the safe and legal pathways
that give people the sense of hope and then reduces the incentive to put themselves in the hands of the people smugglers.
Obviously, the U.S. version of this is a real one too, because we've had the Trump years where there was an effective ban on all forms of refugee
status. And that -- what happened then? Well, south of the border, you actually had chaos. That's why I write that cruelty leads to chaos. Because
while the policies that say, we're going to seal the border are rhetoric and are sometimes translated into policy, they don't actually bring order.
They don't actually end the chaos because of these actors, the smuggling opportunity that's created when there aren't these legal routes to give
people a chance to start a new life.
AMANPOUR: So, you mentioned, just a little earlier, about how this country, the U.K., your own country, is trying to make the legitimate
claiming of asylum or petition for asylum illegal. But it doesn't match with what people think. Your new data released today shows that 65 percent
of the U.K. public think it's important that the right to seek asylum is maintained in this country.
You know, going back to yourself being foreign secretary, you know, put on that hat again, and tell me what you would do, as a British government
official European heads of government, to do what you're saying now, they need a coherent proper, you know, migration policy. What needs to be done,
A, B, C?
MILIBAND: Yes. Well, they need a refugee and asylum policy. So, A, they need a refugee resettlement. At the moment, Britain is not playing its part
in the international drive to offer refugee resettlement. The planned organized transfer of people identified as the most vulnerable by the
United Nations.
[16:10:00]
When I was a member of parliament, there were more people coming in on that route, but it was still pretty low. Last year's figures or the year before,
six people per parliamentary constituents. No one's going to tell me that's overwhelming in the U.K. So, A, refugee resettlement.
B, clear the backlog. At the moment, there are 190,000 people waiting to have their asylum claim administered in the U.K. Fast processing, fair
processing is also a humanitarian processing. It makes no sense at all to have people waiting for months, or in the U.S., case for years, to have
their claim heard.
Third, absolutely vital path of any effective package is to have coherent collaboration, cooperation across the English Channel. Britain is an
island, but the European continent is a vital part of any effective migration management policy for the United Kingdom. At the moment, the U.K.
is paying France, but only on the policemen and security.
When we were members of the European Union we could return asylum seekers to the continent of Europe, because we are part of the E.U. rules. That
doesn't exist now post Brexit. We need to recognize that the European Union is a vital part of any effective migration management system in the U.K.
There's the final point that's really important, information also disempowers the people smugglers. My organization, the International Rescue
Committee, we have a global system called signpost that is then locally developed to offer and advise information to refugees, administered by
refugees and displaced people. The information undercuts the people smugglers too.
Just one final point if I may, Christiane, thank you for letting me explain the A, B, C and actually, the D as well in this case. I just want to go
back to what you said at the beginning. There is this -- it's very interesting. You said it was my data. It's the International Rescue
Committee's recent polls, which is published today, which shows, as you say, 65 percent of British people want to have properly administered asylum
policy.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MILIBAND: That doesn't mean everyone can come to the U.K. That would be nonsense. It doesn't mean that if you do come you could have your claim
fairly administered. Britain helped create the Refugee Convention in 1951. The idea that we're abandoning it now is shameful.
AMANPOUR: So, for the last question, we know that this is going to get worse. Climate change is going to force people, the state of the economy
around the world is going to continue to push people out. What do you see down the road? I mean, if this doesn't get rationalized, as you've just
laid out, what then?
MILIBAND: Well, the first thing is, we don't surrender. 70 percent plus of the people who are fleeing are fleeing from conflict. So, we don't give up
on diplomacy. It's absolutely vital that, for example, the most recent spillage of people has been -- the most recent exodus people has been from
Sudan, 60,000 Sudanese are now and Chad. The International Rescue Committee, my organization, were trying to help people there. So, let's not
give up on diplomacy.
Secondly, we've got to have fair burden sharing around the world. Responsibility sharing. If only a few countries do this it's not going to
work. There is no refugee resettlement scheme in the Gulf. China is not part of this system. There's got to be a proper global system. Because
we've got a global right to refugee status, but not global contribution. It's poor countries, poor and lower middle-income countries who are putting
the richer countries to shame. And that's what needs to be addressed as well.
AMANPOUR: On this Refugee Day, thank you so much for joining us, David Miliband, from the IRC. Thank you.
MILIBAND: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Meanwhile, the race is on to find a missing sub before its oxygen supply runs out. Rescue teams say it only has around 40 hours of
breathable air left. The vessel lost communications on Sunday, less than two hours after it began its descent to the wreck of the Titanic, which
lies some 13,000 feet below at the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean.
The five people on board are a British billionaire, a French diver, and a Pakistani father and son. We've also now learned that the founder and CEO
of OceanGate is also among the missing crew. Earlier, I spoke with two retired admirals. Mike Mullen was chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of
Staff and Harry B. Harris Jr. was U.S. ambassador of South Korea.
We invited them on the program to talk about U.S. China relations, and the tensions over Taiwan. But I began with a question about the deep-sea search
for this missing sub.
Admirals, welcome to our program. We want to get into the very important issues regarding the U.S. China relations. But first, I want to tap into
your expertise with the news of this submersible.
Admiral Mullen, you know, what must be going on under there? What must be the condition in that submersible, which apparently had enough oxygen,
perhaps until Thursday?
MIKE MULLEN, FORMER U.S. JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: Well, I think, obviously, they will be trying to conserve as much oxygen as possible. I'm not
intimately familiar with the specific capabilities of the submersible.
[16:15:00]
What I worried about initially was possibly that they had just had a problem with their communications gear, but I would assume after a
relatively short period of time with no communications they would actually come back to the surface to make sure that they had that throughout the
voyage. So, it's -- and time is incredibly relevant and obviously, in a way, the enemy. So, the longer it takes the less likely that, you know, a
positive outcome will occur.
I am sure -- I mean, you've seen the U.S. coast guard in charge of this, the U.S. Navy is flying airplanes, I'm sure there was -- there are many,
many people moving as many assets in place as possible to try to find it as soon as possible. But it's very deep and it's a very tough, you know,
submersible to make contact with, certainly at this point.
AMANPOUR: Admiral Harris, I guess many people are asking, this is the -- you know, it's 2023, isn't there, you know, a sound or some kind of, you
know, signal that they could be emitting? How come that something, you know, that difficult to make is now incommunicado, I guess, with all the
technology that we have available?
HARRY B. HARRIS JR., FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. INDO-PACIFIC COMMAND AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SOUTH KOREA: Oh, I mean, yes. Yes. So, it's a two-way
street, as Admiral Mullen said, and I'm with him on this. I don't know the capabilities of the submersible. I mean, it's a private surmountable, it's
not built by any government. So, I don't know the communications capabilities that's resident in the submersible, what emergency
capabilities it has. The fact that it hasn't surfaced on its own is indicative of a problem. Surely the folks that are in the submersible, that
are in charge of it, know that there is a problem.
And as far as finding it, I mean, it's -- to me, it's obviously in the location and the proximity of the Titanic. So, people know roughly where it
is. But because it's probably not making noise, it's probably not under its own loud propulsion to find it acoustically will be a challenge.
AMANPOUR: And of course, it's so dark, and there's thousands of pounds of pressure down there. We understand it's around 13,000 feet down. All right.
Well, look, thank you for your expertise.
Let me now talk about what we need to discuss, and that is the very serious relationship between the United States and China. Both the Chinese
president and the U.S. secretary of state have spoken positively about a constructive visit. Before I play any soundbites, Admiral Mullen, do you
see a change in tone since the visit? What is the most you had hoped for this actual visit and meeting?
MULLEN: Well, I think the most I had hoped is what happened, that one, the secretary of state would be well received. Two, that he actually would be
able to get to see President Xi and to really take this, it's almost a first step, because the relationship is in such bad shape. And obviously,
this comes on the heels of Secretary Blinken who canceled his visit when the balloon incident occurred here.
So, in that regard, I think it's positive. I didn't expect a whole lot of specifics to come out of this visit. And certainly, there will be some
behind the scenes. I actually think the fentanyl issue is a huge issue and a very positive thing. We really need to work together on that, as an
example. But there are many more things that need to be discussed and changed, I think, to move this relationship to a constructive relationship
that is not trying to defeat each other or in any way continue the deterioration, which has occurred over the last many years.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, those are really the important issues right now, reestablishing communications and trying to pull back from the brink of
some kind of accidental or deliberate military confrontation. Let me play for you both the soundbite that -- from Secretary Blinken after his trip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I came to Beijing to strengthen the high level of challenge of communication, to make clear our positions
and intentions in areas of disagreement, and to explore areas where we might work together, when our interests align on shared transnational
challenges, and we did all of that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: OK. That's his side. Now, President Xi Jinping issued a statement also, saying, China respects the U.S.'s interests, and that it
won't seek to challenge and replace the U.S. By the same token, the U.S. should respect China and not undermine its legitimate rights and interests.
[16:20:00]
So, Admiral Harris, in view of the report that you've both just, you know, shared and put out from the Council on Foreign Relations about Taiwan, how
do you read Xi Jinping's statement, that it respects the U.S., not trying to replace it, but by the way, the U.S. needs to respect its legitimate
rights?
HARRIS JR.: Yes. So, there's a couple of things that are, in my opinion, embedded in it Xi Jinping's remarks. But the most important thing that
happened, as Admiral Mullan said, is engagement and communications. We haven't had that in too long of a period. The fact that the secretary went
there, met with the right people, and there was a positive outcome, is good news indeed.
I'm a little concerned, I read -- I heard this morning on the news that Xi Jinping has decided not allow mil-to-mil, military to military
communications at this time. That's unfortunate. Because that's where the rubber meets the road, if you will. That's where ships come in close
proximity to other ships, aircraft in close proximity with the other aircraft. And we must have a way to de-escalate those tensions on the high
seas and in the airspace, above those seas.
And the mil-to-mil communications is the normal 21st century nation-state way to defuse those issues. And if we're not allowed to do that, then those
instances could turn into something bad.
AMANPOUR: So, that's --
HARRIS JR.: So, I'm worried about that.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And that maybe -- who knows, maybe they're just dolling it out piecemeal. I don't know. I would be interested, Admiral Mullen, in why
you think they didn't allow mil-to-mil, and we know their secretary of defense didn't have a proper meeting, maybe a sidelines handshake with
Secretary Austin when they met in Singapore recently.
But your report is entitled "U.S. Taiwan Relations in a New Era: Responding to a More Assertive China." And, Mike Mullen, you say that it's vital for
the U.S. to deter China from forcibly unifying Taiwan. How, when you also say in the report, U.S. military gaps mean that the United States cannot
assume that it would be able to decisively intervene on Taiwan's behalf? How do you then stop this unification?
MULLEN: Well, I think what we say in the report is that the United States needs to make the Taiwan contingency, it's pacing challenge, it's priority.
And that includes training and equipping, in accordance with the law, and supporting the continued evolution of the Taiwanese military. They have not
always been at the top of the heap, if you will, in terms of priority. So, that's one answer to how this gets done. The other is, I mean, the report
very strongly supports on maintaining the One China policy, which is supporting peaceful reunification. And that's really critical as well.
What has happened in the last decades is, you know, the context has changed, the stakes are going up, the risk is getting higher and we need to
strengthen deterrents from the United States' perspective in order to balance that risk.
AMANPOUR: Admiral Harris, you're a former ambassador in the region to South Korea. And America's allies in that region are also concerned about,
as Admiral Mullen described, the increased assertiveness, the changing context since Xi Jinping's accession to power more than 10 years ago. Do
you think, from what you know now, that the Chinese want to by hook or by crook, as they say all the time, even militarily, which would mean
challenging the United States, take back Taiwan?
HARRIS JR.: I do believe that that is China's ultimate goal. And they have been very clear. You know, we talked about strategic ambiguity or strategic
clarity, the Chinese have been crystal clear that their intent is to take a Taiwan back. Peacefully is preferable, but militarily if necessary.
So, the U.S.'s new Indo-Pacific strategy and our new national security strategy specifically supports Taiwan deciding its own future. I mean, what
a concept, right? And so, that's why we are at odds with the PRC, the People's Republic of China, over Taiwan.
[16:25:00]
AMANPOUR: And can I ask you both, this is such a froth and important, and as you've mentioned, potentially dangerous relationship? And yet, there are
many in Congress, particularly republicans, who are already criticizing the secretary of state for having gone to visit to try to thaw these relations,
criticize, you know, Biden's China policy, you know, trying to make him even more hawkish. I mean, where do you stand, Admiral Mullen, on the
necessity for diplomacy, as we've just seen from the secretary of state?
MULLEN: I think it has to lead the resolution of the issue. I think despite the politics that are involved in this the Biden administration has
been pretty stringent with respect to China, particularly with respect to high-end technologies and the economy and in a way, very consistent with
what the Trump administration laid out.
I think the U.S. has tremendous leverage in great part because of the economic relationship that we have, you know, with China in terms of
producing an outcome which would be peaceful in the long run. It's a very - - it's not totally in intractable problem, but the leaders, President Xi and President Biden, have to lead this. And it's getting tougher and
tougher to solve.
So, the first step that Secretary Blinken took and that President Xi took in the last day or so, I think, is really critical. And hopefully, that
will lead to a meeting of the minds between Biden and Xi later on this year. I think it's in November, for the APEC Summit, which is in San
Francisco I think in November. So, it's too everybody's interest to move this in a constructive and peaceful direction.
AMANPOUR: Let me just swerve a little bit over to another, you know, related, at least tangentially, conflict that's actually raging and that is
China's great ally, Russia, and its continued war on Ukraine.
Admiral Harris, when you look at it, what do you see, first of all, even militarily right now, with the counteroffensive? But what are the stakes,
if, as the president says and NATO says, Russia isn't stopped in its tracks?
HARRIS JR.: Well, the implications are enormous for the world, more so if you are a small country next to a large autocratic country, which describes
Ukraine and Russia, it describes Taiwan and China and many other countries in the Indo-Pacific who worry about a revisionist People's Republic of
China.
I think we have to look at the issue of supporting Ukraine. There are very few bipartisan issues in Washington these days, as you know well. Our
national concern for China is one of those and our national concern about Russia's invasion -- illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign independent
Ukraine is another bipartisan issue.
AMANPOUR: Admiral Mullen, Admiral Harris, thank you very much, indeed, for joining me.
HARRIS JR.: Thank you.
MULLEN: Thanks, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And for nearly 30 years, the World Trade Organization has oiled the gears of globalization. But geopolitical tensions between the West and
China, as we've just been discussing, along with the war in Ukraine, the migrant and climate crises, and the rising cost of living have made
navigating the new world order more complicated than ever.
Will the frayed trade ties that bind our economy survive, or are we headed into a new era of deglobalization? The WTO says that its role as global
dealmaker is more vital than ever. And it's director-general, Ngozi Okonjo- Iweala is joining us now.
Welcome back, Director-General, to the program.
NGOZI OKONJO-IWEALA, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So, you just heard that conversation, you know, about trade and all the tensions with -- between China and certainly the United States. We
didn't really get into the trade part of it. It was more militarily. So, what do you think about those tensions and the fact that the United States
still has a pretty hardline tariff laden trade relationship with China?
OKONJO-IWEALA: Well, thank you, Christiane. It's a pleasure to be with you again. Let me start by saying that the trip by Secretary Blinken to China
is very welcome, because any attempts at diplomacy to lower the temperature and the tensions is very helpful to us, at least on the trade side.
And we certainly feel those tensions, I have to admit that. But there are two things I'd like to say. First of all, in terms of the actual trade
numbers, when we look at the trade numbers from last year, you know, the U.S. Commerce Department released numbers that showed trade between China
and the U.S. at about $690 billion, which, you know, is the size, the peak that we saw in 2018.
[16:30:00]
If we look at China E.U., it's over $800 billion. So, in actual numbers, you know, we don't yet see the effects of, let's say, the decoupling and
the tension that we are all talking about. But I -- I will hesitant to say that these numbers are based on past investment patterns.
AMANPOUR: Right.
OKONJO-IWEALA: And that the new investment patterns may lead to new trade flows. And we're already seeing some signs of that.
AMANPOUR: So, look, you know, you just said decoupling. And in fact, it appears that the E.U. Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has used
the word de-risking, and that is translated and traveled across the Atlantic, and that's what the Biden administration are talking about right
now, regarding China, and maybe any other, you know, threatening political, I don't know, challenges they face, that it's de-risking rather than
decoupling.
At the World Trade Organization, how do even define that difference? What does it mean?
OKONJO-IWEALA: Well, the way we look at it, Christiane, is we welcome the de-risking rather than the decoupling, because the decoupling and
fragmentation will be very costly for the world. We've actually calculated a 5 percent loss in real global GDP in the long-term.
So, de-risking it means, to us, that some supply chains are too concentrated. And what we saw during the pandemic that 10 countries
produced 80 percent of the world's vaccines, this does not build global resilience. So, there is some argument to be made that if you want to de-
risk, you may want to make sure that those supply chains are more diversified.
There's also the same thing with the rare earth minerals. There's the same thing with chips. So, there are some sectors and some supply chain, you
really need to diversify the supply chains all over the world or for more countries, I would say, in order to build resilience.
But let me just say that in addition to the word de-risking, we want to put another word out that we've been talking about, re-globalization. And that
is very much another way to interpret de-risking. When you are diversifying supply chains, it shouldn't only be to nearby countries or to friends, it
shouldn't be just China plus one China plus Vietnam or Indonesia or India, although we like those, it should also be China plus Morocco. China plus
Brazil. China plus Bangladesh. China plus Senegal and -- or Kenya or Rwanda. We need to think more broadly when we diversify supply chains. I
think that's the way we can build better resilience in the world.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you actually written a bit about this. Ngozi, you've actually written recently about this, saying, that international
cooperation, including on trade, is necessary to meet challenges in the global commons, such as climate change, inequality, pandemics.
Globalization is not over, you say, nor should anyone wish for it to be. But it needs to be improved and reimagined for the age ahead.
Is that what you mean when you say China plus and, you know, all of that? Is that what you mean? That's how it should be reimagined?
OKONJO-IWEALA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
OKONJO-IWEALA: Yes. We should reimagine globalization into something we call re-globalization. We should use the opportunity we have now to
diversify supply chains to spread them to countries and regions that were left out in the first place of globalization.
You know, we look at rich countries, there were regions left out, people who were left out of the first phase, and that's why you have a growth in
populace, then people don't have jobs and they are sitting in the place where they've lost their jobs. You need to find a way to create new jobs.
And why don't we diversify supply chains to those areas?
There are countries that did not benefit in the first phase of globalization. Many developing countries were left out. Let's use this as
an opportunity to bring them into the global value chain, provided they have the right business environment. And I submit that many of them do.
AMANPOUR: Many of them do. OK. That's interesting. I mean, also, I guess, you're dealing with the headwinds that continue from inflation, the food
insecurity, a lot of it due to the war, climate pressures. Are those things that you can see and you can manage or do you see that just, you know,
alienating people more from the idea of globalization and driving people further into poverty?
[16:35:00]
OKONJO-IWEALA: You're absolutely right, Christiane, that those issues, the high food prices, the high energy prices, are things that, you know, are
very difficult for people, especially people in poor countries. And you've seen African presidents go to Moscow recently to try and talk about the
impact of the war in Ukraine on Africa, because it's driving up food prices. So, those things are difficult, but they are not due just to
globalization, they are also due to some of the things we see in the pandemic, the war in Ukraine.
However, we maintain that an open trading system, the open multilateral trading system is necessary to solve these problems.
AMANPOUR: Right.
OKONJO-IWEALA: You know, one in five calories consumed in the world is traded. So, if you want to make sure that people have food and that food
prices come down, you've got to have an open trading system, otherwise, you won't be able to accomplish that.
So, this is one of the reasons why we say that no matter what happens, supporting the multilateral trading system is key to solving the food
crisis, the climate crisis. Let me just say, Christiane, that when you are talking of spreading technologies and renewables and other types of low
carbon emission technologies, you need trade. How else are you going to spread those technologies? So, we think that the open multilateral trading
system is central to helping solve the problems of the global commons we face today.
AMANPOUR: I have a very quick, in 15 seconds, China got into the WTO. Russia got into the WTO. They're both "bending the rules." One has invaded
a couple of countries. Was it worth the risk? Was it a gamble that backfired, bringing them in?
OKONJO-IWEALA: That's a very loaded question, Christiane. I would say no. That I think the world benefited from the spread of globalization and the
open trading system to these countries.
AMANPOUR: OK.
OKONJO-IWEALA: We do need to solve some of the problems that have arisen, by members, some members not obeying the rules.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
OKONJO-IWEALA: That I admit.
AMANPOUR: All right.
OKONJO-IWEALA: But that has been a benefit.
AMANPOUR: All right. Well, I wanted to get it from you. Director-general of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, thank you.
And now, to one woman's mission to photograph every Native American tribe in the United States. Matika Wilbur has spent a decade documenting
indigenous culture for her photo book, "Project 562." And she's joining Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how social and political issues are affecting
Native American life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Matika Wilbur, thanks so much for joining us.
You are the author of "Project 562." And if I get this correct, this was, what, back in 2012 that you decided to start on this adventure, not knowing
really how big it is going to be, and you have tried to, what, catalog the 562 federally recognized native nations. I mean, I think that number right
there is probably going to be a shock to a lot of people. So, what gave you this interesting idea?
MATIKA WILBUR, PHOTOGRAPHER, "PROJECT 562": Good afternoon, relatives. My name is Matika Wilbur. I'm from the Swinomishand Tulalip tribes where I am
coming to you from today here in (INAUDIBLE) Country.
And, yes. So, I am the creator of "Project 562," which stands for a number of tribes, when I started the project, there are now 574. So, you know,
that number is contentious and always changing based on the plenary power of Congress.
So, yes. I, in a massive effort and undertaking into taking in 2012, left my home and my family and sold everything and hit the road to visit over
500 tribes in what is now known as the United States. And I traveled for eight years. And my big girl. That's my RV. She likes to back it up. And,
yes, we had a great adventure.
I went to over 400 different travel communities. And I -- you know, from the Bering Sea all the way to seminal country, to what is now known as
Florida. I went to every state. I logged hundreds of thousands of miles and made lots of friends and relatives along the way.
SREENIVASAN: And what gave you the interest to do this? I mean, this is a book of gorgeous portraits, but it's more than that. It's also, you know,
thumbnail sketch stories of who these people are that you are taking photos of.
[16:40:00]
WILBUR: Yes. Well, you know, all too often in the public consciousness we have been misrepresented, right, both in textbooks. You know, most
textbooks don't represent native people in a post 1900 context. Therefore, people's first introductions to native identity is either through Disney
representations like "Pocahontas," where people actually leave thinking that native people can hear the colors of the wind, or, you know, from
tales of white male heroism, like Lewis and Clark, who, you know, participated in the sex and slave trade with Sacagawea.
But we've erased these tales the of native women and of native people in general, and we've created this American historical amnesia that celebrates
notions like Thanksgiving, which we do every year. Instead of telling the real history of what happened in this country, the story of indigenous
dispossession of land, of stolen labor, you know, from enslaved people from Africa and instead, we've told a story that completely dilutes the horrible
reality of genocide.
Over 80 percent of college kids believe that Native Americans are extinct. And the extinction narrative has been re-told over and over and over and
over again, right? There's over 10 million native people in what is now known as the United States.
You know, we've done things like -- we've been a part of the growth of this nation. We've contributed to the collective consciousness in more ways than
I can count. And so, many of the -- much of the shaping of this nation was done in concert with indigenous peoples, but that has not been celebrated.
SREENIVASAN: I want to talk -- I'm going to go through a few photographs. Let's just start with kind of the cover here. You've got Dr. Henrietta
Mann, a Cheyenne member. She's the cover of the book. And I have to imagine that this -- writing this and taking these photos was also an opportunity
for you to, well, kind of learn at the footsteps of these folks who were experts in lots of different fields. And even inside, considering you have
another, Dr. Mary Evelyn Belgard. What did you learn from these two women?
WILBUR: Well, both are matriarchs in their own right. Dr. Henrietta Mann is Cheyenne. She's southern Cheyenne. And, you know, she recently was given
-- awarded by President Biden and given a national endowment of the humanities. And in his speech, he said, you know, because of Dr. Henrietta
Mann we teach American Indian studies across the nation
She has been a champion of indigenous education for generations now. And, you know, Dr. Henri went to boarding school herself. She experienced
firsthand the horrific reality of the American boarding schools that, you know, are still operating today. This isn't something that happened a long
time ago. This is something that is still ongoing, which is this idea that indigenous people should assimilate into western culture And, you know, the
boarding schools had a tremendous effect on our people
So, for Dr. Henri to be able to go to boarding school, to experience a place where she remembers marching and never being told that she was loved
and experienced extreme hatred for her culture and for her beliefs, for her to survive that and then go on and become a Ph.D. and a scholar and then
open tribal schools and work towards championing indigenous education is, to me, an incredible feat, as is Dr. Mary Evelyn Belgard, who you
mentioned, who, in our -- my conversation with her said to me, you know, Matika, when are we going to stop asking our children to choose between
cultural education and western education? I think we're ready to stop the assimilation process.
And Dr. Mary was also a champion of indigenous charter schools in New Mexico so that our young people would have the opportunity to learn in
their language, which is so profound.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. You're not necessarily a news photographer, but you also took several images that are in the book from Standing Rock, and there's an
entire section in the book with different portraits. Why was Standing Rock important for native communities beyond just the area affected by the
Dakota Access Pipeline?
WILBUR: You know, one of the greatest realizations that I had along the journey is that I realized that many of our people still identify by their
traditional place-based identities. You know, us, (INAUDIBLE) means the people of or we're the people of the salmon (ph), the people of the tide,
the people of the blue salt water, the people that live amongst the four sacred mountains, and these other land-based identities.
And so, as I went along my journey, I found that all of our people had these traditional place-based identities and a pedagogy to teach our
children how to become a steward and how to be in relationship with that land.
[16:45:00]
And so, you know, Standing Rock was a movement to protect that place-based identity. And, you know, I had this realization along the way that, you
know, our people, in all of these different places, are experiencing this environmental holocaust. And solastalgia, where even though we haven't
moved or been relocated, we feel displaced because the face of mother earth is changing so dramatically around us.
And so, even if we haven't left our traditional territories, you know, in places like Cocopah, you know, where the Colorado River used to once flow
in abundance is now basically dried up from so much diversion and it damning upriver that the people that used to have their coming-of-age
ceremonies by swimming the breadth of the Colorado River can no longer do so. The people that used to irrigate from the Colorado River and grow these
luscious gardens are no longer able to do so because the river no longer flows there.
So, what happens to these place-based identities, who we are as individuals, when modernization is changing the face of earth -- mother
earth so dramatically around us?
SREENIVASAN: We have another section in here that really starts out with striking image of Quinahamdi (ph). She's got a red hand painted across her
face and she is protesting abuses against native women. And you say in this section, you say, if you read nothing else in this entire book, read this,
native women divert deserve safety.
WILBUR: Well, unfortunately, it was a very often that I would meet native women who had told me their stories of survival and their stories of
overcoming some of the terrible things that had happened to them. I remember, you know, one grandma told me about, you know, what had happened
to her daughter. Another told me about when she was in the military and she was raped and she came home and she had a child born of rape. And, you
know, like what was treated unfairly by both the military and by her community because of that, what had happened with that child.
I spent a number of months hearing stories from indigenous women who had been violated, who were -- in those stories, were taken to Congress when
there was an effort to reform the Violence Against Women Act. And so, this is what we know to be true. Three out of four native women experience
sexual assault or domestic violence in their lifetime, you know, that is an outrageous egregious number.
You know, we have thousands of women that go missing every year. And it should be a public health emergency, a public health crisis, you know? But
native women's bodies have been disregarded. And the safety and the health of indigenous peoples is all too often overlooked.
SREENIVASAN: Another stat that kind of leapt out at me as I was thumbing through this was that suicide is the leading cause of death for Native
American youth. And one of the women you profile, Crystalyn Lemieux, she's a suicide prevention coordinator at the Cook Inlet Tribal Council. What did
she tell you about this?
WILBUR: Crystalyn talked to me about the need to create a road to healing for our young people, that it's so important for our young people. One of
the things that she said that really stuck with me is that suicide has a spirit of its own, and that we don't name suicide often in our communities,
because the power of that spirit and the power of naming it, that we've chosen instead to use different language to identify that type of death.
And, you know, we know that young people most -- I think it was pulled like 92 percent of native youth don't believe they're going to live beyond the
age of 25. And so, you know, we are, in many ways, facing an epidemic of hopelessness with our young people. And so, we need positive
representation. Books like this, films like "Reservation Dogs," representatives like Deb Haaland, you know, so that our young people can
see that they can go out into this world and be whomever it is that they want to be, right? But that their reality isn't rooted and their outcome
isn't rooted in this narrative of poverty or this narrative of hopelessness or this narrative of extinction. They deserve more than that.
SREENIVASAN: Tell me a little bit about Leon Grant.
WILBUR: Yes.
[16:50:00]
SREENIVASAN: What a remarkable life. I mean, it's -- it is almost, you know, one of these are Zelig type characters and all the different places
he's been and the kinds of impact that he's had.
WILBUR: Leon Grant is Omaha. I think of him kind of as like the native Forrest Gump in like the best sort of way and that he had many great lives
and many vocations. When he was a young man, he was a champion bronc rider. He once rode for like several -- like over 50 days straight in Madison
Square Garden.
When he went back home, he decided that he wanted to go to college. And he went to his parents and he told them, like, you know, I heard they are
letting native people into college in Arizona. Of course, this was before schools were integrated and before native people were allowed into college.
And he had heard they were allowing that kind of continued education in Arizona. And so, he asked them if he could go to college. And his parents
were like, no, you're going to stay here, you're going to be a rancher.
And so, when they went to town to get some feed, he wrote them a note, he said, I'm going to college. I'll be back in four years. And he proceeded to
walk like over 1,000 miles from Omaha, Nebraska, to Phoenix, Arizona. When he arrived, he didn't have any money. So, he went to that school. He
offered them tobacco. He said, I don't have money, I don't have transcripts, but I swear to God, if you let me in, I'll pay back every red
cent. You know, and they let him in.
He proceeded to graduate and eventually go on to theology school and then, eventually law school. And then, you know, he worked during the civil
rights movement to open the first American Indian center in the country in Phoenix, Arizona at a time when it was very dangerous to be a native
person, when we need public -- we needed public spaces. And Leon championed those public spaces in a lot of ways.
And so, when Leon passed away, the State of Arizona named that day after him for the work he had done for the social justice and civil liberties of
indigenous people.
SREENIVASAN: One of the groups that is under attack right now are LGBTQ people, and one of the people that you profiled, J. Miko Thomas. Tell me,
what is a Two-Spirit perso?
WILBUR: Miko is an incredible friend and a leader of the Two-Spirit Powwow in the bay area. Traditionally, you know, two-spirit has several meanings
depending on which community you would talk to. But colloquially and generally, I might say that a two-spirit person is a person that identifies
with having both a male and female spirit, or maybe an androgynous spirit.
You know, pre-colonization, our communities celebrated several two-spirit, three-spirit or four-spirit genders. We didn't just have two genders in
many of our societies. Many of our languages were not gendered. Many of our languages were defined by spirit, like Anishinaabe, the language is defined
by what has a spirit and what does not, for instance.
So, like the entire world view is fundamentally different, right? But many two-spirit people in our societies held special roles in our communities,
both power holding roles, politically and also spiritually and also familiarly. It wasn't quite as taboo or controversial, as it is in western
society or in western religious belief systems. We had a different belies about two-spirit people.
Of course, colonization changed that. And so, there has been a deep need for us to create safe spaces for our two-spirit relatives.
SREENIVASAN: So, you had this unbelievable opportunity to meet so many different types of native peoples on their land, in all these different
contexts, over several years. Looking back now, was there a common thread to your conversations? Is there something that pulled this book together
for you?
WILBUR: I would overwhelmingly say that the common thread is that I found incredible humanity, right? We are often told that the world is a very
scary place, and this country is a very scary place, right? There's way too many guns in this country. There's way too many things that are happening
that are very dangerous. So, I don't want to overlook that reality and that truth.
But I have found, on a personal level, when I go to a stranger's home and I put my hand out and I bring food and snacks and gifts and come in a good
way in Indian country, that I have been overwhelmingly supported with kindness and love and goodness. And that humanity that exists is worthy of
talking about.
SREENIVASAN: Photographer and author, Matika Wilbur, the book is called "Project 562: Changing the Way We See Native America," thanks so much for
joining us.
WILBUR: Thank you so much. It's a real pleasure to be here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And that was a really eye-opening conversation, packed with so much important information.
[16:55:00]
And finally, tonight, a drought in Mexico has revealed an incredible 16th century church. The resurfaced Temple of Santiago was built by Dominican
monks before being abandoned in the late 1700s. It was flooded around 60 years ago when a dam was built nearby. It's only the second time tourists
have been able to walk around the site. Similar conditions revealed the church back in 2002.
And that's it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:00:00]
END
