Return to Transcripts main page


Interview with Former U.S. National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien; Interview with U.K. Shadow Cabinet Minister for International Development Lisa Nandy; Interview with "Plurality" Co-Author and Former Minister of Digital Affairs of Taiwan Audrey Tang. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired June 18, 2024 - 13:00   ET




CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think Zelenskyy is maybe the greatest salesman of any politician that's

ever lived. Every time he comes to our country, he walks away with $60 billion dollars.


AMANPOUR: What would foreign policy look like in a second Trump term? I ask his former National Security Adviser, Robert O'Brien.

Then --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a serious plan, carefully thought through. It's not about rabbits out the hat. It's not about pantomime.


AMANPOUR: U.K. elections are predicted to usher in a change of government. How would Labour handle international affairs? Senior party member Lisa

Nandy joins me.

Plus --


AUDREY TANG, CO-AUTHOR, "PLURALITY" AND FORMER MINISTER OF DIGITAL AFFAIRS OF TAIWAN: This demonstration is more than a protest. It is a demo. It

shows how democracy can evolve as a social technology.


AMANPOUR: -- using technology for good. Taiwan's former digital affairs minister Audrey Tong tells Hari Sreenivasan how to revolutionize the way

governments interact with technology.

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

For the first time in 24 years, Vladimir Putin is heading to Pyongyang, where North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is backing his illegal invasion of

Ukraine. Satellite images show him preparing a large parade in Putin's honor. A sign of the deepening alliance that's raising concern in


Five years ago, Donald Trump became the first U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader when he briefly stepped across the DMZ. With American

elections five months away, people at home and abroad are starting to consider what a second Trump term could bring. In a new article for

"Foreign Affairs," Trump's former national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, argues his case for a policy of peace through strength.

O'Brien served as Trump's national security adviser from 2019 to 2021, and he's joining the program for an exclusive interview. Mr. O'Brien, welcome

to the program. I think you're in Indiana. Welcome to the program.


AMANPOUR: So, let's start with the news that Putin is headed to Pyongyang. Obviously, President Trump met with Kim Jong Un. But given today's

situation, what would a Trump administration, President Trump, make of such a visit?

O'BRIEN: Well, Christiane, it's obviously very concerning because the North Koreans have a massive amount of artillery shells, and they're providing

those to the Russians who are killing Ukrainians with them, our partners, and you know, we're solidly behind Ukraine, and it's a very concerning


So, it's an interesting meeting, because Russia and North Korea have not been particularly close recently, but I think both of them are trying to

also distance themselves a little bit from Beijing. So, it's an odd alliance, but it's obviously to the great detriment of our friends in


AMANPOUR: So, that's interesting because I wanted to stick sort of with North Korea to understand what, you know, a second Trump administration, if

it comes in, would bring, you know, in trying to deal with some of these very, very tricky adversaries.

So, I just want to read from your op-ed. Basically, you said about Biden- China summits. This is a policy of pageantry over substance. Meetings and summits are activities, not achievements.

But when I spoke to the former South Korean foreign minister, she said that the Trump-Kim summits were very similar. That they was a lot of pageantry,

but very little impact. I spoke to her earlier this year. Take a listen to what she told me.


KANG KYUNG-WHA, FORMER SOUTH KOREAN FOREIGN MINISTER: This is a continuation of a pattern that began after the debacle of the 2019 Hanoi

Summit between the United States and North Korea. After that, they immediately went back to launching the missiles, and that has picked up

speed, more frequency in the recent years. This is the typical Trump leadership on these issues. Will, but very little follow up and support

from the working levels.



AMANPOUR: So, what do you say to that? Because this could come up again. And there was hope that there could be a resolution of a lot of problems

when Trump met Kim Jong Un. But no follow up, even at the working level. Does that trouble you?

O'BRIEN: Well, yes, I would disagree with the foreign minister on that front. I mean, keep in mind, Christiane, when President Trump took office,

President Obama told him that this was going to be the most difficult foreign policy question he faced.

The North Korea was busy testing nuclear weapons. They were launching and testing long-range ICBMs and missiles that, you know, could reach Hawaii,

maybe the West Coast of the United States. And so, President Trump took a peace through strength approach to North Korea. We moved a carrier battle

group into the Yellow Sea and put a lot of pressure on the North Koreans. And when they realized that they weren't going to get away with it. They

changed tacs. And then we had some (INAUDIBLE) diplomacy with them.

And keep in mind, they promised to denuclearize. They promised to end their nuclear program on the peninsula. Now, that didn't, in fact, end up

happening, and President Trump had to walk away from the Hanoi Summit when Kim Jong Un tried to, you know, go back on that deal. But so, we didn't

have much progress after that.

But keep in mind, there was no nuclear testing during the entire Trump administration, because we've showed strength, coupled with some tough

diplomacy. But, you know, North Korea is a very tough nut to crack. It's bedeviled, you know, Republican and Democrat administrations for years. But

we -- I think we had a good run to Trump administration because there were -- there was a no nuclear tests and there was a paucity of missile tests,

unlike what the foreign minister would have you believe.

AMANPOUR: Except that now they have continued their military testing, their military threats, and they are now huge supporters. Some say that Putin

would not do very well without North Korea or Iran. So, this sort of axis has built.

But let's carry on to other areas then, and that would be, let's talk about Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So, you've said the Biden

administration has provided significant military aid to Ukraine, but has often dragged its feet in sending Kyiv the kinds of weapons it needs to


So, yes, and many people have criticized the fact that this foot dragging has happened, and that actually it's shown up on the battlefield and Russia

has made some inroads in Kharkiv and that kind of area. But as you know, many put the blame right at the feet of the Republican Trump allies in

Congress, Speaker Johnson and all the others who basically didn't do it because they were influenced by Trump.

So, again, what do you say to that? Because he had influence that stopped the weapons going for seven months and created a very bad situation for

Ukraine on the -- in the field.

O'BRIEN: Well, Christiane, I think the first thing you have to understand is it was a failure of U.S. leadership that caused Putin to invade Ukraine.

He watched what happened in Afghanistan, the chaotic withdrawal and retreat of American forces from Afghanistan. He heard President Biden loud and

clear when President Biden said that a minor incursion might be OK. He thought he'd have a free reign like he did in the Obama administration when

he invaded and took Crimea the first time and large parts of Donbas. And the U.S. gave no lethal aid. They -- we sent Gatorade and MREs and night

vision goggles.

When President Trump took office, I can tell you it was tough because the Pentagon was, you know, still on the Obama plan. They didn't want to send

lethal aid to Ukraine because they didn't want to provoke Putin. And it was Donald Trump that sent those 600 Javelin missiles, which the foreign

minister of Ukraine and the ambassador have recently thanked him for.

And that three-pronged armored axis attack that took place at the outset of the invasion and was stopped by the Javelins, that wouldn't have happened

if it hadn't been for the lethal aid that Trump sent. And also, the training that we sent. It wasn't just the Javelins. We sent special S.F.

operators, special forces operators, to train the Ukrainians.

So, keep in mind, the lethal aid -- the original lethal aid the Ukrainians got came from President Trump. The Russian attack was stopped and blunted

because of Trump, And -- but they felt emboldened to invade Ukraine because there wasn't strong American leadership.

And this goes back to the outset of the administration. Why did Russia feel that they had a free hand in Ukraine? It wasn't just Afghanistan. The first

step President Biden took was to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline, let our adversaries and our friends know that we were no longer going to pursue a

policy of energy dominance. But he approved the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which we had stopped in the Trump administration.

So, Russia read that as a total green light to go into Ukraine. That would have never happened under the Trump administration, and it did not happen

under the Trump administration.


AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you this then, because, as you know, before the invasion, the Biden administration and the whole of the west was

basically loud and clear to Russia, don't do it. We know what you're doing. We can see it. Don't do it. And then, as you know, they gathered this

pretty big coalition and strengthened NATO and have, you know, helped push Russia back in some of the areas that you were mentioning. But yes, the

Javelins, et cetera.

So, are you saying that a second Trump administration, should it happen, would keep sending weapons to make sure Ukraine wins? Because again, it's

the Trump influence on MAGA Republicans that is blamed for the delay in the weapons. So, what do you think would happen?

O'BRIEN: Well, look, I think we'd send weapons, Christiane, just like we did in the past, but I think part of the problem is we -- America can't

care more about European security than the Europeans. And the Europeans need to play their part. Now, they may not be able to supply weapons, but

they can supply money.

And they're -- the E.U. economy is as big as the American economy, as you know, and they haven't stepped up. They've been doing better lately, but at

the outset of the invasion, it was all an American problem, and the Europeans didn't want to get involved, and they didn't want to provoke the

Russians. So, the Europeans have to get involved.

And the first thing that they can do -- and I've called on this, Christiane, is they need to let Ukraine into the E.U. That would send a

strong message to Vladimir Putin that Europe considers Ukraine part of the west, part of Europe, and they could -- look, there's a bureaucratic delay,

and I know it takes 10 years to get into the E.U., but if Ukraine is that important, and it's that important to the west, and I believe it is, by the

way, and that's why I've called on the Europeans, to open up the E.U., waive the bureaucratic barriers to entry, and get Ukraine in the E.U. right


That's not a military alliance, it shouldn't provoke Putin too much, but it would send a very strong message that Europe cares. And that would start

getting the economy of Ukraine doing better as well. It would start the flow of aid, of trade, of reconstruction money, redevelopment money. And

so, it's time for the Europeans to step up.

And I think when the American people see the Europeans stepping up, they'll be all in on Ukraine aid. What happened with the aid before was, it wasn't

just -- we were told it was lethal aid, but then we found out we were paying for teachers and retirements for government workers and that sort of

thing. That's the sort of thing the Europeans need to step up on. And America needs to be the arsenal of democracy and stick to the lethal aid.

AMANPOUR: Mr. O'Brien, I mean, as you know, the U.S. does obviously supply the biggest amount of weapons, but Europe is supplying the biggest amount

of money, of financial aid. And they are actually --

O'BRIEN: You're right, Christine.


O'BRIEN: That's recent. Keep in mind.

AMANPOUR: Yes, but that's been the pattern since this full-scale invasion. But -- and they are doing what you say, they are opening a pathway to E.U.

membership. But here's the other question. You know, a lot has been said about what Trump might do, say, et cetera. He's already said that, you

know, he has a brilliant plan to end the war in in 24 hours, et cetera.

Do you believe -- because some of the things he said leads people to believe that he would encourage Ukraine to essentially sue for peace which

others, including Ukraine, you know, reject, thinking it's surrender or capitulation. What do you think is a way to end this war? And I guess how

is peace through strength served by essentially, if it did come to that, freezing the current lines or giving in to Putin's latest demands, how

would that serve peace through strength?

O'BRIEN: Well, President Trump has never recommended -- I've never heard him say that we should give in to Putin's demands. I mean, no one is on

board with that. But we've got to -- all wars end around a table. And we have to recognize that. Even in an unconditional surrender situation in

World War II ended around a table on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay and around Admiral Doenitz's table in Germany when the surrender documents

were signed. So, we're going to have to get to the table.

But right now, the Russians have no incentive to come to the table. I mean, Vladimir Putin thinks he's winning the war. He thinks time is on his side.

And I think the biggest reason, Christiane, is because we haven't put full sanctions on the Russian Federation Central Bank.

Russia is still selling massive amounts of oil and gas to the west, more to China and India, and we're not sanctioning those sales. So, they're

producing 12, 13 million barrels a day at $100 a barrel when it used to be $40 or $50 a barrel. So, Putin's actually making personal wealth off this

war. The Russian economy is doing just fine.

So, until we cut off those Russian oil and gas sales, and you'll know it's fungible, I get that, you'll never cut it all off, but if you could drive

it down to -- from 13 million barrels a day or 12 million barrels a day to 8 million or 7 million barrels a day, and really put a dent in the Russian

economy, and Larry Kudlow, President Trump's national economic council adviser, and I called for this before the invasion, if you really sanction

those oil sales hard and put maximum pressure on it, and this goes to your question about Iran and North Korea as well, then you can drive down --

drive Putin to the table, and then it's up to the Ukrainians to negotiate the peace.


We shouldn't tell them one way or the other what they should do. That should be up to the Ukrainians to decide what they want to do for peace in

their country. We shouldn't do -- we should never repeat Munich where we tell the Czechoslovakians to give up the Sudetenland to the Germans and

hope that that'll end the war. It's got to be up to the Ukrainians to decide how they want to get to a peace deal.

AMANPOUR: Again, peace through strength implies that the -- you know, the - - in this case, let's say Ukraine would have the strength to force, you know, some kind of reasonable negotiation around the peace table. Do you

think Donald Trump -- you criticize the Biden administration or the Obama administration and other Europeans for not being strong enough after 2014

and many, many would agree with you.

Do you think that that Trump administration should -- would you recommend a lot more weapons to Ukraine the kind it wants, a lot more anti-aircraft air

defenses, aircraft, long-range artillery, the kind of stuff that actually makes a difference in this kind of war?

O'BRIEN: Well, we should have gotten that equipment at the beginning. Remember, the Poles wanted to send their MIGS to Ukraine, and it was the

Biden administration that stopped them from sending their MIGS to Ukraine. So, absolutely, we should give them the weapons they need to defend

themselves and to, and to fight and win.

But the real thing is the half measures on the sanctions. We've got to do something to bring Russia to the table. Ukraine is too small to ever force

Russia -- to defeat Russia. Russia's a nuclear power. It's a big country. It's four times the size of Ukraine. But if we put heavy duty sanctions on

the Russians and on their oil sales, that might be enough to bring Putin to the table. And I think that's what President Trump has in mind.

AMANPOUR: All right. So, then the question is, who does Trump identify more with? There is a big, you know, body of thought that he identifies

with these strong men, people like Putin, people like Xi. Let me just read you, and I'm sure you've read this before, or had it read to you.

In 1990, President Trump then, he was Donald Trump, gave an interview to Playboy magazine. And he basically criticized Mikhail Gorbachev, who was

the Soviet leader then, for failing to hold the Soviet Empire together, not a firm enough hand. And he simultaneously praised the Chinese communist

leadership for crushing the student uprising Tiananmen Square. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength, is what he


So, there is a real concern in the democratic world about the impact on democracy and the thriving of autocracy and this kind of strongman behavior

under a second Trump administration. Do you think you would stand by those comments? How can people be sure that Trump would protect democracy against

those kind of strongman threats, that you've written about in your new article?

O'BRIEN: Well, Christiane, we've got four years to show why we -- why people should trust Donald Trump. We had no invasion of Ukraine. We had no

massacre in Israel. No invasion in Israel. Taiwan was safe. We ended the war against ISIS with a rare victory in that war. We had peace deals in the

Middle East with the Abraham Accords, in Europe with Serbia-Kosovo, with healing the Gulf Rift in the Gulf.

And so, the strength of President Trump of taking out Baghdadi, of eliminating the caliphate, of standing by our ally, Israel, recognizing

Jerusalem as a capital. And it was unorthodox, but forcing the Europeans to step up to the plate and pay for their fair share for NATO and burden to

share with NATO has actually helped them dramatically in this conflict with Russia and Ukraine.

So, I think when you look at the Trump record, people can have their various views of Donald Trump and what they think of him and his

personality and the way he communicates, but it was an unrivaled record of success, especially the last two years of the administration. So, I think

people can kind of look at the world as it is today and look at how it was four years ago and say, was the world better off -- am I better off now or

was I better off four years ago? And I think the answer is -- especially when it comes to foreign affairs and geopolitics, it's pretty -- it's a

pretty easy answer, if you're an Israeli or Ukrainian or Taiwanese, Chinese -- Republic of China, the world was a lot better four years ago than it was

today, and that's true, I think, for Europe as well.

So, people can express concerns or look at old quotes and cherry pick them, but, you know, if you want to cherry pick quotes, President Biden has lots

of quotes to cherry pick from over his career. I think Bob Gates said he was wrong about every foreign policy crisis in his entire career. So, I

take Trump's record and look at that and be comforted.

AMANPOUR: Well, as you know, and I'll just list them, the -- a lot of the world is very concerned about him pulling out of the climate accords,

pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, at least it was an arms control accord, and, you know, empowering the extreme right in Israel. I just

wonder -- I'm going to play this soundbite to you that President Trump said to -- recently to an Israeli news station about the war.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will say Israel has to be very careful because you're losing a lot of the

world. You're losing a lot of support. But you have to finish up, you have to get the job done and you have to get onto peace. You have to get onto a

normal life for Israel and for everybody else.



AMANPOUR: What would a normal life look like? And I -- and are you concerned that after the horror of what Hamas did on October 7th, Israel is

-- you know, are you -- do you feel OK that the people who President Trump empowered, which were the settlers, which were the -- you know, the

conservatives, who are really running the government there now, know what they're doing in terms of the war against Hamas and in Gaza? Trump didn't

seem to think so.

O'BRIEN: Well, I think President Trump gave great advice, and I agree with everything he said. We want peace in the Middle East. We want peace between

the Israelis and Palestinians. But the way to do it is get the job done quickly and eliminate Hamas, at least the leadership.

I was hoping that Sinwar would show the kind of leadership that Arafat did when he left Beirut in '82 and took his fighters and left to spare Beirut.

But Sinwar and the Hamas leadership is using their civilians as human shields and actually bragging to his political leaders in the Gulf and in

Egypt that the Palestinian deaths are helping Hamas.

So, I think President Trump is absolutely right. The U.S. should take the shackles off the Israeli -- off the IDF and the Israelis, they should

finish the job in Gaza, and then, let's figure out how to get to a real two-state solution, how to get the Palestinians some -- a state of their

own that lives in peace with Israel. Not a situation where Palestinians are saying from the river to the sea, and want the genocide and the death of

every Jew, but want to live side by side in a peaceful existence with Israel.

Hamas isn't there, but I think a lot of Palestinians, especially on the West Bank are. And the sooner we get done with the war, the more we can get

-- the sooner we can get back to the peace process. But Hamas can't be allowed to stay there. There's no peace with Hamas. They've made that

clear. That's not Israeli position, that's Hamas position. They've been told the hostages, so they released, don't go back to your kibbutz because

we're going to come back and get you again. I mean, horrible.

AMANPOUR: Let me just ask you one final question because a lot has been made of, you know, each President Trump and President Biden's -- well, I

don't even know what to call them, but there are concerns right now about President Trump's stability, falling asleep in his trial, reports from a

recent CEO summit that he was rambling and incoherent.

You often talk to him, you know, what is he like and why do you think -- you talk about Reagan republicanism and peace through strength, why do you

think his former generals and cabinet secretaries, Jim Mattis, Mark Esper, John Bolton, John Kelly, McMaster, all the others, basically disagree with

you and they have turned on him and don't want him and would oppose his re- election?

O'BRIEN: Well, first of all, I think you look at John Ratcliffe and Mike Pompeo and myself and Rick Grenell and guys like Senator Hagerty and

Senator Rubio and Senator Cotton, who have all said they'd serve, are all high quality, highly successful guys.

The list you rambled off at the beginning, they weren't peace or strength. They weren't America first folks. They felt they were there to educate the

president and put their vision of foreign policy in place instead of President Trump's. And once they were gone, you saw the amazing success

that we had in the Trump administration as -- getting peace deals done.

I mean, Donald Trump is a peacemaker. He's a deal maker. He's a peacemaker. As far as his energy goes, it's -- I mean, it's absurd. I remember one

morning, Christiane, he called me at 6:00 in the morning. I was national security adviser. He was fully engaged. He was watching a news show and saw

that there was an American hostage that had been taken.

Called me to find out what we could do about getting the hostage home. Had a full day of work. I was at the White House all day. And then we went to -

- we were going to Mar-a-Lago. We went to a rally. And I was at the rally until about midnight. I was falling asleep leaning against the stanchion in

the arena. And President Trump came out, charged up, and fired up.

So, he'd gone from 6:00 in the morning until midnight, having just conducted a two-hour rally. And it was in fighting spirit and fully, you

know, engaged. And, you know, I'm twenty years younger than him. I had a hard time keeping up with him. So, the idea that he's not fit and strong

and ready to lead is kind of absurd. I mean, anyone who watches a rally knows how fired up he can get.

AMANPOUR: Robert O'Brien, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Now, there'll be an election here in the U.K. in just over two weeks, and if the polls are right, the ruling Conservative Party will face a trouncing

by the opposition Labour Party. If it succeeds, Lisa Nandy will likely be in charge of aspects of foreign policy like international development aid.

And she's joining me now on set.

Lisa Nandy, welcome to the program.


AMANPOUR: I wonder what you make of the full-throated defense of Trump's policies on the international stage? Which parts of it do you think were

successes and which not?

NANDY: Well, I think one of the most interesting things about that interview was that there was a difference in tone between Trump's former

adviser and President Trump himself when he talked about the conflict in the Middle East and this concern, a widespread concern that's reflected

across Europe as well and here in the United Kingdom about the proportionality of what is happening in Gaza at the moment.


I think that reflects very much even amongst those who've been the staunchest allies, not just of Israel, but of this Israeli government,

there is a real concern that international law is not being applied, that the civilian casualties are far too high.

And I think with an election happening in the United States and the United Kingdom and in France at the moment, it shows that there'll be whoever is

in the White House, whoever is in Downing Street after the outcome of these elections, there will be pressure on the Israeli government to take a much

more proportionate response to protect civilian lives and to pursue a ceasefire deal. And that can only be good news for the Middle East and for

the world.

AMANPOUR: So, can I -- as I said, you're a shadow minister, you are a shadow -- well, you're now cabinet minister or shadow minister, but you're

not actually -- you're running for the election. So, you still have this leadership position. And I want to play for you what we heard from the

UNICEF global spokesman in Rafah in Gaza yesterday about the humanitarian situation.


JAMES ELDER, GLOBAL SPOKESPERSON, UNICEF: When I was in Al Aqsa Hospital on Tuesday, Christiane, with doctors walking over children missing limbs,

with horrendous burns like we saw earlier in your program, children who urgently need medical attention outside but cannot get it. And if they

cannot get it, they will die.

And at the same time, we will have more bombardments tonight. On top of that, these last two months, continual restrictions and denials of aid,

meaning you have a nutritional crisis on the ground, a lethal lack of water. One or two liters per day, a shower every two weeks. Grandmothers

and teenage girl, Christiane, queuing up all day for a shower. So, we've had two more months of that.

So, the physical and psychological capacity of people has been smashed. And they are just holding on, and I mean just holding on.


AMANPOUR: And you can hear the desperation. And you see the pictures. It's really a horrifying depiction. And over the weekend, you said that if

Labour did win, it would immediately review arms sales to Israel. What would that look like?

NANDY: Well, the U.K. has very clear criteria for granting export licenses. We don't grant them in cases where there's a clear risk that they

could be used against a civilian population. So, we've said that we will immediately review arms sales to Israel to ensure that we continue to

supply weapons that allow Israel to defend itself.

Don't forget that just recently there was an Iranian strike against Israel targeting Israeli civilians, but that we would halt the sale of arms or

parts of arms to Israel that are being used against civilians in Rafah.

AMANPOUR: Do you then disagree with the Conservative government who said they did conduct a review and that it's all -- you know, it's all according

to their guidelines?

NANDY: We've been asking the Conservative government to publish their own review and their legal advice that it's based on for several months now. We

would take a much more transparent approach in government. It's important that people can have confidence in the role that Britain's playing in the

world. We absolutely support the right of Israel to defend itself, but 100,000 people have been killed in Gaza since this conflict began, the

majority of them women and children.

AMANPOUR: 37,000.

NANDY: And we can't afford to allow that to continue. We've been calling for an immediate ceasefire. If we are elected in a couple of weeks' time,

we'll immediately reinstate funding to UNRWA, the U.N. Refugee Agency. So, there are clear differences between our approach and the Conservative


We've got to bring an end to the bloodshed in Gaza and in Israel. There's no future for the Palestinian people or the Israeli people that doesn't

involve two-states living peacefully side by side, and it will be a top priority for a Labour government.

AMANPOUR: And you heard even Robert O'Brien saying that that would be a priority, or something that the U.S., under a Trump administration, also

agreed with, moves to somehow a two-state solution. In your Labour Party manifesto, it says, "We're committed to recognizing a Palestinian State as

a contribution to a renewed peace process, resulting in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign

Palestinian State."

When would you plan to do that? Because as you know, Ireland, Norway, Spain have already recognized and taken this step.

NANDY: Well, it's important that we do so alongside our allies. It has far more international impact if you're able to take steps together to

recognize a Palestinian State, we would do that as part of a peace process, as we said in the manifesto, as a contribution to the peace process, not an

outcome to it. And we want to make sure that we get to a position where people in Palestine, across Palestine, whether they're currently in Gaza or

the West Bank, feel confident that they're working towards something.


One of the major stumbling blocks towards getting a ceasefire and a peace process back on track is that whole generation of Palestinians,

particularly young Palestinians, have lost hope that there is a prospect of a viable Palestinian State. That's in large part due to the settlement

building, which has gone unchecked and unrestrained over recent years. They've watched the prospect of a second state disappearing in front of

their eyes.

So, to get that back on track, we need to have a viable plan for the construction of a Palestinian State, viable economic plan, and we need to

recognize Palestine because you can't have two state if you're refusing to recognize one of the partners in it.

AMANPOUR: And sadly, I know there's a new Labour Party leader who I interviewed in Israel, and they are wanting to move in a peace -- you know,

they wanting to eventually get to some kind of peaceful resolution after this war. But of course, there's been so much move to the far-right, to the

extreme right in Israel.

Just as a sort of jumping off, how did you react to the elections in Europe, the MEP elections in Europe that really brought a huge amount of

far-right parties to the -- in the ascendance, and you've seen the effect it's had? I mean, France, it's called snap elections. And I wonder what you

think that's all about.

NANDY: Well, I think in times of economic insecurity, it opens the door for populist leaders who prey on people's fears. They offer no solutions,

but they do stoke people's sense of grievance and anger. And it's understandable that people turn to those populist leaders at a time when

they feel that their own governments aren't helping and supporting them.

Here in the U.K., we've seen that over recent years. And it's why it's so important for us, as the Labour Party in this election, to be putting

forward real solutions to people's lives that they can believe in. Not just stoking people's grievances, but actually showing that a better future is

on offer than the one that currently people are facing.

You know, this is a generation now who are facing a prospect of their kids being worse off than they were for the first time in my lifetime and we've

got to answer those questions. We won't be able to do everything overnight, but we know that we can make a start on day one to start to turn the

country around and make things better for people. In the end, that's the only solution to far-right populists, is to find real answers to the

problems that people have.

AMANPOUR: I mean, some could have said that this tone that you're talking about was responsible for the Brexit vote and some said it was an early

sign of the global trend toward conservative nationalism. That was a political analysis.

Now, you're running, as we said, for re-election in a pro-Brexit constituency in the north where nearly 64 percent voted to leave back in

2016. So, how has Brexit -- you talk about the hardship, economic, you know, hardship. How has Brexit helped or harmed your own constituents?

NANDY: Well, I think the Brexit deal that we got has not helped the situation facing many of my constituents and similar industrial towns

across Britain. The needless trade barriers that we've erected, the ongoing war of words with European partners, who should be our closest friends and

allies as we seek to deal with challenges like mass migration, climate change, and global conflict.

We're keen as a Labour government to rebuild that, to repair and strengthen those relationships. They've always been incredibly important to us, and

they'll continue to be important to us in the future and to reduce those needless trade barriers.

But we're keen to do something else as well, because underpinning the vote to leave the European Union in towns like Wigan, where I represent in the

north of England, was a feeling. that people are no longer in charge of their own destiny, that the things that most matter, the social fabric, the

good jobs that enable your kids to stay and contribute to the town that they called home and enable you to know your grandchildren and provide the

spending power that sustains high streets and pubs and banks and post offices, all of that has been stripped away from people in recent years.

And so, you'll see running through our agenda for government is very much about putting people back in charge of their own destiny and helping them

to defend the things that matter to them.

AMANPOUR: And it -- I mean, there's really numbers that -- in February, Goldman Sachs estimated the U.K. real GDP has fallen short of similar

countries by about 5 percent since Brexit. Underperformance in trade, shortages in labor due to low immigration from the E.U., et cetera. Brexit,

according to the LSE, was responsible for about a third of U.K. food price and inflation since 2019.

So, we've sort of talked about the hardships. But what does all this mean for Britain's role on the world stage? I don't just mean militarily, but as

a, you know, contributing economy and staying as a real financial center, for instance.


NANDY: Well, we've got to repair some of the damage that's been needlessly done over the last 14 years. I don't think anyone in Britain or in Europe

wants to reopen the question of E.U. membership for Britain. We can build on the deal that we've got as a floor, not a ceiling of what can be

achieved. And strengthen and deepen our cooperation. It'll be in Britain's interests, but also in Europe's interests and in the world.

But there are other areas too, including international development, which I will be responsible for if we're fortunate enough to win in a few weeks'

time. We really did trash our reputation as a long-term, reliable partner. Under the last Labour government, we played a leading role in helping the

world to solve climate change. Problems like global poverty, real creativity, real innovation.

AMANPOUR: But you say you're still not going to put up the budget to that 0.7 percent?

NANDY: We will do that, but we'll only do it as we grow the economy and fiscal circumstances allow. But we're absolutely committed to playing our

full role through 0.7 percent and through boosting the status of development within government so that it sits alongside diplomacy and

defense as the three anchors of how we reconnect to the world and play a part as a long-term reliable partner again.

AMANPOUR: Just one very, very last quick one. One of the big issues is trying to get the Global South to accept yours and Ukraine's narrative. It

hasn't yet worked out. Is that an issue for you as you try to resolve this -- I mean it is also a humanitarian crisis.

NANDY: There's a growing gulf between the Global South and the west, and that is just apparent. We are determined to reset that relationship between

Britain and the Global South based on respect, respect for what our partners contribute, respect for what they hope to achieve. Our message to

them is not that Labour is coming back to save the world, our message is that Britain is coming back to play our part in helping them to achieve

their ambitions, and us all to solve the global challenges that we face together.

AMANPOUR: Lisa Nandy, thank you very much indeed for being with us.

And of course, we've been asking Conservative Party representatives, including the foreign secretary, David Cameron, to come on this program. We

will continue to do so as part of our election coverage.

Now, when it comes to any election, technology is the main tool that's used to share important information. So, how can it be leveraged to tackle fake

content? Our next guest is an expert in this field. Audrey Tang, Taiwan's former digital affairs minister, has used a wide range of strategies to

address this problem with a book called "Plularity." It deals with how the internet, which is a divisive space for so many, can also provide immense

opportunities for bridge building and collaboration. Tang explains how to Hari Sreenivasan.


HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Audrey Tang, thanks so much for joining us. You are the former minister of

digital affairs of Taiwan and you're the co-author of a new book called "Plurality." It's an open-source book. First, what is plurality? Why this

title? Why this idea?

AUDREY TANG, CO-AUTHOR, "PLURALITY": Plurality means collaboration across diversity and the technology that enables this kind of collaboration. Think

about 10 years ago when Uber first came to Taiwan, there's this pro-taxi part, there's this pro-Uber part, but instead of repeating the divisions,

we coded up open-source technologies to that let people see the bridges across the different camps.

And so, we very quickly settled on a -- I wouldn't say compromise, a co- created solution that made it problem solved with the society's input. So, that's plurality. And it's open-source, just like the technology we use.

So, anybody can take a copy online and download at and contribute.

SREENIVASAN: You mentioned this sort of tension between Uber and taxis. How did technology build a bridge or highlight bridges between what would

otherwise be two divided camps?

TANG: In democracies with a lower bitrate and a higher latency, meaning that you have to wait for four years and to cast a vote, which cares, maybe

three bits of information. Sometime you see one side winning for four years and another four years has passed and another side wins, the other side

loses. And so on and so forth. There's very little room for co-creation.

But in Taiwan, we use this system called Polis, which is a Wiki survey. Like survey, it asks you a bunch of (INAUDIBLE) questions. Like Wiki, these

questions are your fellow citizens' feelings. So, everybody can say that, oh, I feel that surge pricing is fine, but undercutting existing meters

isn't, or that I feel that insurance is very important regardless whether the driver has a professional license and so on.

And so, for each and every of these statements, you can unlike you can like, but you cannot reply. So, people's attention is not sucked into this

online flame wars, trolling, dunking, or things like that, but rather it promotes people, because there's a real-time scoreboard that shows the

people's statements that flows to the top, because they're embraced by both sides. So, very quickly, we settle on a very neat package of like 10

recommendations and put that into law.


And so, just by gamifying it a little bit, instead of the one that's more distracting, highlighting the one that is the most bridging. And the same

algorithm also inspired community notes on, previously Twitter, so that you can also, you know, participate in a community notes repository.

But it's open-source. And the notes that end up becoming displayed are the one that speak across the device.

SREENIVASAN: One of the things that you outline in the book is how -- it's called sort of G-zero, V-zero, gov-zero. Explain what you were trying to do

with that in Taiwan.

TANG: So, for example, that's the Taiwan government's website. If you change the O to a zero, then you get into, which is this open-

source civic tech movement. And the reason why is that, for example, 10 years ago, it was the budgets that was very hard to understand. They were

locked in PDFs and so on, or the legislator's debates and so on.

So, part of the promise of the gov-zero movement is this radical transparency, making sure that the everyday people, when they feel that

they want to know more about government function, about democracy and so on the information, even if it's not on their fingertips, they can change the

website and change the O to a zero and get into the shadow websites that explains things better.

And because it is open-source, sometime the government is shamed into merging back this new design. So, that the service experience is better.

So, that started from 2012. And after I became the digital minister in 2016, I have systematically merged all those innovations into the

government, including, for example, contact tracing, visualization of mask availability, so on and so forth during the pandemic.

SREENIVASAN: All right. So, something really important happened between 2012 and 2016, and that was the demonstrations, the Sunflower Student

Movement. And tell the audience a little bit about what your role was during that time.

TANG: In 2014, many students feel that this sudden passing of a trade deal with Beijing regime makes it very difficult for people to understand even

why that is being passed because it's just being rushed through. And so, people thought that we need a real deliberation on each and every aspect,

instead of just a single package.

So, for example, we were building then new 4G core network and whether allowing Huawei or ZTE into that 4G core network. Is that a good idea?

That's probably warrants a debate, right? And so, people just stormed into the parliament during the night when there was nobody there. And I was

there supporting the bandwidth required to live stream this entire event.

And so, I would continue that role with the gov-zero people for the next three weeks. And because every corner is live streamed, it had two effects.

One there's no violence around occupied parliamentary area. And second, it actually converged instead of like most occupied, which diverged over time.

Because if you go to the occupied site, if you enter your company's tax ID number, you can very easily see how exactly does the trade deal affects you

and then join one of those deliberations going on.

And because it's all captured in live stream, summarize, read out the next morning, every day we inch a little bit more toward rough consensus. At the

end of it, people can live with it with a lot of agreements, just like the Uber case. And so, the head of the parliament eventually said, OK, if

that's what people want, we would just do that.

So, the end result is that people do not agree to sign the cross-trade service and trade agreement. People thought that anything like that should

be treated as a treaty with a foreign government, instead of a special constitutionally defined government. And also, people understood that there

needs to be more transparency in the legislative process itself, the party- to-party negotiation and so on needs to be live streamed. There needs to be a lot more accountability in the entire process and so on.

And so, a lot of that ended up becoming the Open Parliament Action Plan, which you can look up in Taiwan's governmental website.

SREENIVASAN: OK. So, through this process, through this demonstration, through these protests, you get to a point that, where you're saying, look,

the people of Taiwan shouldn't sign this trade pact with China. How did that sit with China? The idea that this was not just meeting resistance,

but in such a digital and transparent and public way.


TANG: With half a million people on the street and many more online, this demonstration is more than a protest. It is a demo. It shows how democracy

can evolve as a social technology.

I cannot speak on behalf of the Beijing regime, of course, but we have seen that they -- their reactions towards social media is quite different,

whereas we embrace the pro-social media we just talked about. They seem to, around that time, 2014-ish, think that it is something of grave danger to

their polity, that if people organize this way, with half a million people on the street through social media, the stability of their control on their

population may be greatly threatened.

And so, they invested a lot of money, a lot of resources into so-called harmonization of the internet and making sure that the civil society space

online shrinks year after year ever since 2014. So, I think -- yes, I think this demonstration in Taiwan also showed everyone else what social media

can do, but authoritarian regimes responded quite differently from Taiwan.

SREENIVASAN: I do want to ask a little bit about what you were able to implement during the pandemic. What were some of the policies that you were

able to implement, you know, quickly, that kind of set the tone for how Taiwan was going to manage this global pandemic that literally across the

Strait was doing just incalculable human damage?

TANG: A key is that we responded very, very quickly. So, 10 days before WHO, the World Health Organization, took decisive action. And we ensured

that people knew very early on that mask use is critical. But at the time, people were not very sure about aerosol or mask efficacy and so on. So, our

communication strategy is rather different.

In addition to daily 2:00 p.m. press conferences, in addition to a hotline, 1922, you can call to ask any questions, there are also ways like what we

call humor over rumor, making sure that there's a very cute spokes dog, a Shiba Inu, that puts her paw on the face, saying that wear a mask to block

your dirty unwashed hands from your face or something. And it's very funny. So, it went viral.

And so, making sure that whenever people hear something that they don't quite understand, instead of debunking the rumor, after the rumor already

appeared, we pre-bunk the rumor by ensuring that people understand where it's coming from and how to react to it with a more relaxed attitude or

even humorous attitude.

For example, there was a young boy who called 1922 hotline saying, you're rationing out masks now, which is fine, but all I got was pink ones, which

is not fine. I'm a boy. I don't want to wear pink to school. The very next day, on the daily pandemic conference, every ministers, director generals,

everyone wore pink regardless of their gender. And it's become very fashionable. All the fashionable brands and so on turned pink.

So, imagine if we had to debunk, if the minister of education went on and I say, bullying is bad, that won't work, right. But by having pink being the

most fashionable color, it actually worked and increased people's interest in wearing rainbow mask or all sort of mask that massively increased mask

use. So, is it all of society effort.

SREENIVASAN: Wow. Well, when you talk about pre-bunking misinformation or dealing with the kinds of challenges, it seems that it's gotten much more

difficult since COVID in part, because technology has improved where now it's not that hard for me to create a deep fake of myself or of you.

And I wonder in that -- in this new era that we're heading into, how do you inform and make sure that your population is digitally literate enough

where they might not have to be sort of first line fact-checkers for everything, but how do you prepare them for this new reality?

TANG: What we did in terms of pre-bunking went way before this election, this January. Already in 2022, I deep faked myself in front of a monitor

showing exactly how it's done and share it to the people so that people know that although currently it takes 12 hours, very quickly, this would

just take 12 minutes and very quickly, just 12 seconds. And now, we're at the milliseconds range, which means that deepfake can be in real-time

talking to you now, right? But we have prepared people's minds against this possibility.


And I really think the key is not just literacy. Literacy is when you consume. But starting 2019, we changed in our curriculum all words, digital

literacy, media literacy, data literacy into competence. Competence is when you co-create when you contribute.

So, instead of just viewing the news with a critical mindset, you can contribute to the fact-checking. So, these are the what we call societal

resilience ideas. So, that even if you're a junior high school student, if you're really diligent and you want to contribute to fact-checking, you can

actually be a like a Wikipedia avid poster and add a lot of contexts to what's going on.

And because many people uses that, it let us see in real-time which rumors are trending, which ones having a basic reproduction number of more than

one, which lines are literally going viral, and we get them to ignore the rest and not to spend too much time on it because it's self-limiting.

SREENIVASAN: Audrey, I'd like to ask you maybe a personal question. And, you know, you identify as transgender and non-binary and I wonder -- it's

non-binary not just in gender, it's really in everything. And I wonder how that informs your outlook? I mean, we literally have been talking in this

conversation about, you know, ways where you're building bridges between different parties and so forth. And I wonder if somewhere the work that

you're doing today is influenced, informed by who you are and how you see the world.

TANG: Yes. So, I just recently learned that iPhones, the contact book, there are the pronoun fields. And when a friend asked me to fill in my

details. And so, I said that I filled in that my pronouns are any, or, and whatever. Meaning, that I can't get offended. And so, that's really like

that in my mind. I don't think half of the population is farther away from me and half is closer to me.

On the HR form that I filed in 2016, when I first became digital minister, there were no digital ministers before in Taiwan, right? So, I had to come

up with my own job description and so on. So, I filed not applicable to the gender field and not applicable to the party field. So, I have no party

affiliation. I consider all the different parties, just, you know, parts of the fabric that we can weave trust.

And so, I think it does affect my outlook, because if, at some point, I feel that, oh, these people, the taxi drivers, they're closer to me and the

Uber drivers, they're far away from me, I would then tell myself, I need to spend more time with the other group so that I can also see the world from

their eyes.

SREENIVASAN: The book that you're talking about and the idea that you're talking about of plurality, how's it possible for these ideas to improve

the relationship between Taiwan and China? I mean, right now, there is an incredible source of tension from the United States and lots of European

nations and China right now over Taiwan. And so, if we were able to, you know, take the ideas from your book, distribute them widely to people who

are on kind of different sides of this equation, how can they use that to bring the temperature down?

TANG: Well, first of all, I think it will depolarize effectively a lot of the conversations in the democracies, in the allies that does support

Taiwan. But, you know, sometimes because of election dynamics and so on, the PRC sometimes says that democracy only leads to chaos or democracy

never delivers and so on. They don't quite come out and say that directly, these words, it's my words, not theirs. But they certainly seem to suggest

that the authoritarian way may be more harmonic in many regards.

But if we have implemented plurality widely across democracies, just like Finland, who have also asked what the Finnish people think, and almost 1

million votes are cast on the Polis platform. So, people can, at a glance, seem very clearly what are the bridges, what are the device in the country,

in the society, and then take real actions to address those, then I think it will make democracies much more plural and much less polarized.

And once we have depolarized ourselves, we would have more capacity to also de-escalate many of those international relationship issues.

SREENIVASAN: Audrey Tang, the former minister of digital affairs of Taiwan and a co-author of "Plurality," thanks so much for joining us.

TANG: Thank you. Live long and prosper.



AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, it is never too late to don a cap and gown. At age 105, Virginia Ginger Hislop has just graduated with a master's

in education from Stanford University. 83 years since she first started there in 1936. She quit the studies back then when her boyfriend got called

up to serve in World War II. Now, with her family by her side and wearing a big smile, she has finally got her diploma. My goodness, I've waited a long

time for this, she said, with some understatement.

That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.