Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The Chosun Ilbo International Editor Kenneth Choi; Interview with "Freedom" Author and Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel; Interview with Former South Korean Foreign Minister and Asia Society President Kyung-wha Kang. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 03, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANGELA MERKEL, AUTHOR, "FREEDOM" AND FORMER GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): I think President Trump lives off actually acting
unconventionally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Germany's former Chancellor Angela Merkel opens up in a rare interview about Trump, Putin, her proudest moments and her biggest regrets
as the most powerful leader in Europe.
Plus, "Tsunami: Race Against Time." Hari Sreenivasan speaks to director Daniel Bogardo and seismologist Barry Herschel. -- crushed Asia 20 years
ago.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York. Democracy appears under threat from Asia, where South Korea has announced
martial law to America, where Donald Trump soon takes office again, naming a raft of staunch loyalists to his cabinet, whose credentials and character
for the job are in question.
In a moment, we'll bring you my in-depth interview with Germany's longest serving chancellor, Angela Merkel. But first, to Seoul and the shock
decision by the president to declare martial law for the first time in four decades.
Protests erupted at the National Assembly and within hours, lawmakers unanimously rejected that declaration. Senior American officials say they
are very concerned by what is happening there. Kenneth Choi is the international editor for one of South Korea's major newspapers, and he's
joining us now with an update from Seoul.
Kenneth Choi, welcome to the program. Let's just go to what's actually the latest news, and that is the parliament has rejected this, even members of
the president's own party has rejected it, and it appears that at least some of the military are withdrawing from parliament. What is the very
latest from you, where you are?
KENNETH CHOI, INTERNATIONAL EDITOR, THE CHOSUN ILBO: Actually, the military just retreated after the parliament made a decision that it was,
you know, unlawful to declare martial law. So, at least it was a good thing that we didn't have any bloodshed or violence in that manner.
Yes, it was a very shocking news to all of South Koreans. Nobody expected it. Our journalists were actually informed around 9:30 p.m. that the
president will make an announcement, and nobody knew that it was going to be a martial law thing. And when he was actually saying it, everybody was
so shocked. You know, we never -- I never thought that I would see the day of I'll be living under the martial law since 1981. So, it was a complete
shock.
Korea is like 12th largest economy in the world. We had -- we enjoyed a very vibrant democracy. And all of a sudden, you know, my freedom of
speech, my freedom of expression will be all limited. I don't think any Koreans would accept that. So, you know, a lot of people are scratching
their heads and there's a big question mark why the president, you know, made this, you know, announcement? And what did he really thought through?
So, it's -- it would be a big, big question tomorrow morning.
AMANPOUR: You know, you talk about your freedom of speech would be curtailed because it would. The freedom of speech of the press was one of
those that would have been curtailed if martial law was forced through. When you say, why did the president do it, I'm just going to play a tiny
little bit of why he said he did it. Here's a snippet from that speech you were mentioning it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YOON SUK YEOL, SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I declare emergency martial law to defend the Republic of Korea from the danger of
North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the shameless pro-North Korean forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people at once,
and to protect the free constitutional order.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Kenneth Choi, those are the typical words of anyone who tries to do something, you know, like this, blaming communists, blaming the
enemy, blaming -- you know, trying to say they're protecting their own constitution.
[13:05:00]
Are you surprised that he raised the specter of North Koreans basically affecting his and those in South Korea, in hock to North Korean agents
being a problem here?
CHOI: Well, you know, he could have said that, but you know, I don't think -- probably not that many people in South Korea will believe him that these
North Korean agents are actually, you know, crumbling our society down to, you know, trash. It's a vibrant democracy. We have rules of law. You know,
every institution, you know, do their jobs. So, you know, not many Koreans will buy that argument.
And, you know, I'm really surprised that he actually brought that up because, yes, there's some elements in recent, you know, investigations
that there were some, you know, North Korean agents playing in South Korea, you know, major labor unions and so on, but, you know, it could be
contained. And you know, martial law is not going to be the answer or panacea to resolve all these issues.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
CHOI: So, you know, I think the value of democracy is more important than what he actually believed that he would do.
AMANPOUR: Kenneth Choi, it's the early hours there, and we've had the parliament, as we started saying, has rejected this decree. The military,
apparently, you said, started withdrawing. Is martial law in place? What is the actual situation right now? And without the military, what can the
president do?
CHOI: Practically nothing in my opinion. If you look at -- I just looked out the window, all traffic is going normal. Everything seems OK. So, you
know, the police is not moving. The military is not moving. So, I'm not sure what tool the president has. So, you know, my guess is that he
probably has to accept what the parliament -- you know, parliament's decision and negate the whole thing. And he probably have to go through a
rough, tighter head.
AMANPOUR: And his fate may somewhat be in question. It would be very interesting to watch. Kenneth Choi, thank you so much, from one of South
Korea's most important newspapers.
And later in the program, we will hear from South Korea's former foreign minister about all of this. But first, Donald Trump's return to the White
House signals, in many ways, the decisive end of an era with populist nationalism and a rejection of the status quo ahead.
When Trump first became president in 2016, his predecessor, Barack Obama, privately told Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, that she, was now
having to be the leader of the free world. But eight years later, it seems, all that she worked for, multilateralism, strong alliances, are on the way
out in favor of more hardline movements on trade, migration, and much more.
Angela Merkel was at the helm of Europe's most for 16 years. One of the longest serving and most powerful European leaders. She worked with four
U.S. presidents, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. She grew up in communist East Germany, behind what was then the Iron Curtain. She was a scientist by
training and she governed based on facts, compromise, and pragmatism.
Merkel is now opening up about her time in power, dishing on Trump, Putin, and some of her legacy defining decisions, like welcoming more than a
million Syrian refugees into Germany. And I'm just back from Washington where I caught up with her on her "Freedom" book tour.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Chancellor Merkel, welcome to the program.
When I last interviewed you just before your retirement, it was the heyday. It was liberal democracy. It was doing pretty well. You had invited or
accepted about a million refugees. That was still, you know, considered something incredibly compassionate and pragmatic. You had a very booming
trade. It's almost -- the three years since you've left office, all of this is in question. The refugees have made, you know, a big, big power to the
far-right in your country, to the far-right in this country, and around Europe. Trade is very difficult now. You had yoked your trade to China.
That's a big issue right now. Your energy to Russia. That's a big issue right now.
You said you wanted to talk about what you did well and some of your misjudgments. What would you say the misjudgments you made were in that
group of things that I just said?
ANGELA MERKEL, AUTHOR, "FREEDOM" AND FORMER GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): I think, and I'm trying to do that in this book, we always
have to look at matters as in under the conditions that we were in then. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to say from today's vantage
points in hindsight what would one have done then, because that was not the reality of the day.
[13:10:00]
So, the first thing I'd like to say is that for me it was a very good experience when this mass of. Syrian refugees came to our country, that
there was a great readiness by the people, by the German people to welcome that. But also, obviously, we have to reduce illegal migration. That's a
problem that you have here in the United States as well.
At the time, I came to this agreement with Turkey, which worked very well. Illegal migration was reduced by 95 percent due to this. And then, in the
meantime, we accepted about a million Ukrainian refugees, which was a great achievement. And there was broad -- it was broadly welcomed. But the right-
wing parties, that is true, the AFD, was strengthened due to this.
But I need to point out that when I left office, they hovered around 11 percent now, 18 percent. So, a lot of other things probably happened since
to make them that strong.
And as to Russia, which you mentioned as well, that is sort of separate chapter. 2008, at the very latest. Once we had -- after the Bucharest NATO
Summit, we knew that there were great tensions. And my approach at the time was to try to bring about a prevention of that sort of war that we have now
through diplomatic means. I think the COVID pandemic in a way really was the nail to this coffin -- to the coffin of these diplomatic attempts
because Putin was very -- had a phobia. He didn't want to get infected by COVID. So, he didn't want to enter into diplomatic talks, didn't want to
meet anyone then.
This -- due to the war of aggression against Ukraine, a new terrible chapter opened and something that brought all of us closer to great global
confrontation.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to dig deeper into Putin because it's fascinating, your insights, your meetings, and the things you write about him. I mean,
you're not shy about saying quite a lot of really interesting things that you never would have said in office.
But also, we're in the United States. There's a new president of the United States who will take office in January, Donald Trump. You worked with him
once. I want to start sort of at the beginning, and there's been a lot made and you've written about it, when you were one of the first world leaders
to meet him. You came to Washington.
And out of sight of the cameras, you shook hands. You did your thing, et cetera. In sight of the cameras, in the famous Oval Office with the
fireplace between you, he didn't want to shake hands with you. And even though you asked him kind of discreetly, he just refused point blank and
kept looking at the cameras. And I thought it was really interesting because you said, he wanted to create conversation fodder through his
behavior, while I thought I was having a discussion with somebody completely normal.
Is he not completely normal in your view?
MERKEL (through translator): I think President Trump lives off actually acting unconventionally, and in this way draws the attention of people to
himself. Either he shook the hands of some of my colleagues three times longer than you usually do, or with me, he didn't do it at all. At this
point in time, I had forgotten and normally he would say, well, you shake hands and that's it. But when you're in this situation, you don't -- and
you don't even think about it. But with him, all of these external things, these gestures, all was -- were part of a statement because he wanted to
very clearly show that outside of political talks, in these situations, he puts down a marker, whatever he means with it.
AMANPOUR: You also described him as I dealt in facts, he dealt with emotions. How did that affect some of the key issues that you were trying
to deal with, his emotional view of politics?
MERKEL (through translator): I would say looking back, we, and I'm also speaking here of NATO members and E.U. members, we were actually able to
get to sensible agreements with him. But when you think about tariffs on steel, for example, at first, they were only talking about China and he was
talking about the subsidies that China injects into the steel industry. And then, all of a sudden, we were also covered by tariffs. And these tariffs
are still in place today, unfortunately. But then, he wanted to put down a marker, make a statement on this.
But in spite of all adversity, we were covered by tariffs. NATO members able to pursue NATO in a sensible way, and I would hope and wish that this
happens also in the next four years to come.
AMANPOUR: I remember very distinctly when Donald Trump was first elected, you did one of -- you were the only one to actually welcome his election
conditionally, in other words, based on the respect and the adherence to mutual values, democracy, freedom, diversity, rule of law, human rights, et
cetera. And I just, you know, wonder whether you thought he did act in that way, and especially because you said, he was clearly fascinated by the
Russian president. In the years that followed, I received the distinct impression that he was captivated by politicians with autocratic and
dictatorial traits. How did that manifest itself to you?
[13:15:00]
MERKEL (through translator): Well, in the way that he spoke about Putin, the way that he spoke about the North Korean president, obviously, apart
from critical remarks he made, there was always a kind of fascination at the sheer power of what these people could do.
So, my impression always was that he dreamt of actually overriding maybe all those parliamentary bodies that he felt were in a way an encumbrance
upon him and that he wanted to decide matters on his own and in a democracy, well, you cannot reconcile that with democratic values.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, it just popped into my head, his former chief of staff, John Kelly, who was a marine general, he actually said that Donald
Trump had expressed interest approval of Nazi generals. I wish mine -- my, you know, politicians, my military were like the German generals. Does that
surprise you that he would say something like that?
MERKEL (through translator): Honestly speaking, I never heard this and I wouldn't want to make any comment on this. I said that he was fascinated,
not too much co-determination as it were, or too many other people having a say. He wanted to be the person who makes the judgment and the call.
But I think if you approach -- once you approached him without any fear and with clear -- a clear cut strategy, he listened. And I think he smells when
people are a little bit afraid of him. And when you're not, then you can enter into good talks with him.
AMANPOUR: And you were not?
MERKEL (through translator): No. I was the elected chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. I mean, we're not a negligible country. We
have our own interests, our own vested interests, and I was always guided by these national interests. I think the United States of America are such
an important power, a superpower.
But we in Europe are also important. The United States of America cannot do things on their own completely. We have an alliance. We have NATO together.
So, this is not just something where we owe something to the Americans, as Donald Trump quite often said, but the United States of America, too, must
have a vested interest or should have a vested interest. At least that would be my advice, because when we stand together, we're simply stronger,
and there are so many in the world who do not want democracy. So, strength is important in this -- against this background.
AMANPOUR: You and President Obama did write an op-ed saying when we stand together, we're stronger. But you also have written in your book about what
it was like to negotiate with Donald Trump. And all of this is important, not just to look back, but to look forward. Because you've talked about
tariffs. Well, he has threatened already, not even in office yet, to slap huge tariffs on many, many different countries, including possibly Europe.
And you've described him as a negotiator who didn't see a win-win situation. Tell me how he came across as a negotiator.
MERKEL (through translator): Well, for me, it was clear that with him there will not be a free trade agreement, for example, between the European
Union and the United States of America. With President Obama, we had tried to come to this Transatlantic Trade Agreement. We negotiated that. And I
didn't think that this was possible Donald Trump.
I think at the end of the day, Donald Trump would always weigh what his actions mean for the American voter and for the American citizen and weigh
that in the balance. And one of the issues here are high prices. So, if I were to impose tariffs on countries where I might be able to buy things
cheaply and due to the terrorist prices will rise, then it will be difficult for somebody such as President Trump, and he didn't want prices
to rise, at least not for been years ago.
So, there will be big discussions over tariffs and the impact of that. That's very clear. But President Trump always said to his voters, also
during his first term in office, that he will have a better life due to him if they vote for him. So, there are very good reasons to look at the world
being sort of linked by all of these different bonds, and the United States doesn't have all of these raw materials and raw resources that they need
for production on their own. They need the rest of the world for this.
AMANPOUR: You have said that he has a nationalistic tone, and that a lot of his negotiations involve a zero-sum game, that for him to win, the other
person had to lose, period, end of story. Is that constructive in diplomacy or trade negotiations?
[13:20:00]
MERKEL (through translator): It's not my conviction. I am convinced that through wise compromises, you can bring about win-win situations,
situations where the whole world benefits and when self also benefits from that.
I am someone who actually greatly respects international organizations, the United Nations, the World Trade Organizations and others. I think they're
very, very important. I would like to remind all of us, which has somebody receded into the background that the biggest challenges are climate change
and the loss of biodiversity. A human being gets much more vulnerable due to this.
And China, the biggest emitter, we have to have them in on this because otherwise we will not be able to make progress on climate change. It may be
-- you may, in the short run win, but in the long run, humankind will not be the better for it, will not survive.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you two quick questions? Do you think he will pull out of the climate deal? Do you think he will pull out of NATO? Do you
think he will say more and more of the defense spending and that we won't defend you unless you pay more?
MARTIN: Well, I'm not the Oracle of Delphi, so to speak, in this interview. What I witnessed was that the results of the Paris Climate
Conference, that was something that he withdrew from and the G20 meeting in Hamburg. We then had to adopt a 19 to one statement due to this, whether
United States stayed out of it.
I hope and trust, at least, this was the case last time that NATO will prevail, but the request that the Europeans too or the demand that the
Europeans pay more, will still be out there. Germany is now paying the 2 percent that we agreed on in Wales, but the American defense budget is way
higher. And the challenge for Europe, also with regard to Russia in order to develop a credible deterrence, will be to also increase defense
expenditure.
So, I assume that, I have to say, that 2 percent will probably not be the end of it. And that's what I write in my book too. That's my prediction.
AMANPOUR: Let's talk about the security of Europe and Putin and Ukraine. That's the big issue out there right now. In your book, you write about
Trump's negotiation to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, and you essentially say that the way it was done, with no communication with the
Afghan government, only with the Taliban, the fate of Afghanistan was sealed, that essentially, Afghanistan was given back to the Taliban.
So, everybody's trying to figure out what is Trump going to do when he says, I can end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours or whatever. What do you
think, knowing what you know about this particular individual and knowing what you know about Putin, how do you think, under these two presidents,
that war is going to be ended?
MERKEL (through translator): This war is such an incredible suffering for the Ukrainian population and President Zelenskyy proved to be so courageous
when on the day of the aggression happened, didn't leave the country, didn't flee, but stayed in the country and is fighting ever since for a
sovereign Ukraine.
I don't want to speculate. I don't want to say I can compare this with Afghanistan. I can only say the result of Afghanistan was a disaster.
Because once you have an elected government, such as the Afghan government, and not include them into such negotiations. So, basically, give to those
who actually violate human rights every day, and give them the power of attorney, so to speak, then later on they have all the possibilities at
their disposal to set the conditions.
There was no internal peace process in Afghanistan due to this, and President Biden actually accepted that and that result of the negotiations,
and we saw that this didn't mean anything good for the Afghan people, even until today. But in Ukraine, well, it will depend on how Europe will sort
of -- and this is -- it's sort of due to my successor, how Europe will position itself. I can't say anything on this now.
AMANPOUR: OK. Do you think, as people have said, that had you accepted in 2007 or '06, I can't remember when, but there was that specific NATO
summit, Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, this war would not have happened?
MERKEL (through translator): No. No, that's exactly what I not don't think. I also described this. And it was 2008 in Bucharest. Actually, this
was not about NATO membership, but it was the sort of precursor to that membership action plan. And we knew from the accession of the Baltic
countries and from the accession of other countries that this usually takes three to five years.
[13:25:00]
And during those years they're not protected by the NATO umbrella. I was firmly convinced that Putin would not sort of allow this to happen without
taking action. So, I thought it was wrong to actually put this on the agenda at the time, particularly since the Ukrainian people were split
right down the middle since the Russian fleet was actually located in the Black Sea, and there was a negotiation we had and a contract we had with
Russia. So, so it was not the right point in time.
I was actually not the only one who thought that this was wrong and that the point in time was wrong, the central and eastern Europeans wanted to be
protected and therefore, supporting Ukraine. But we, at the time, that would have led Ukraine into a vulnerable exposure. I would have loved to
have a road taken by them that now is has been taken by Finland and Sweden, and that they would then later on start to accede to NATO.
AMANPOUR: Even in negotiations, the Ukrainian politicians, whether it's President Zelenskyy or others, say, well, how can we negotiate with a liar?
He says one thing and does another thing. In your book, you write point blank that Putin told you a brazen lie when you confronted him about
Russian troops inside Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014. And he also, at one point told you, look at what's happening in Ukraine, this is the 2004
revolution, the orange revolution, I will never allow that to happen.
How can anybody negotiate with somebody who you yourself, who knew Putin pretty well, calls a brazen liar?
MERKEL (through translator): Well, at the beginning of my work as federal chancellor, that was not what he did. He did not say these brazen lies, but
later on in Crimea, he did admit that, that he had lied. And that was a turning point in our relationship, quite clearly, that I had to be
extremely cautious in my approach towards him.
So, you cannot only trust in an agreement with him, that's absolutely correct. So, we have to give to Ukraine, in which form whatsoever, security
guarantees, very clear and absolutely reliable guarantees as we did gave them when they said we're going to dispense with our nuclear power at the
time. But Ukraine cannot be left without any security guarantee in what maybe we think is a peace.
In my book, I write quite clearly that apart from the military support for Ukraine, it is very important to also think now of how a diplomatic
solution can look like after the end of the war.
AMANPOUR: I'm struck in your book, you as the first female chancellor of Germany, you seem to have been heavily challenged by two macho men. I mean,
Donald Trump spent his first campaign, as you write, you know, attacking you, and you were surprised, you say, that he would spend his presidential
campaign attacking a German chancellor. Putin kept trying to test you as well, and there's the famous story about the dog, right? And now, he's
saying that he never knew that you were afraid of the dog when he brought the dog into the meeting the second time that he had that meeting.
So, he said, please, Angela, please know that I didn't do this to frighten you. I'm paraphrasing him. But you thought he knew exactly what he was
doing.
MERKEL (through translator): Well look into that particular chapter in my book. When I made my first visit, my foreign political adviser, Christoph
Heusgen, at the time, said to his interlocutor, his counterpart, that I had been bitten by a dog. So, it would be very kind not to have a dog present.
I didn't like them all that much. And then he gave to me a stuffed animal, a dog and said, this one is not going to bite you.
So, maybe he forgotten -- he's forgotten it. But if you read this whole story, then it's not very probable that he didn't know anything about it.
I'm writing in my memoir how the situation actually was in Sochi. I adopted a brave face and said, well, never as the British royal family says, never
explain, never complain. I survived. The dog didn't bite me. So, let's leave it at that.
But, I mean, there's no other explanation for it. It's a little -- a small attempt to test the waters, you know, how resilient a person is, how
strong. It's power play, basically.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And it appears you met that power and more. You were asked once at a G20 Summit, whether you are a feminist and you just kind of freaked
out. You said no, you didn't know how to answer it.
MERKEL (through translator): Well, you see, that was a strange situation somehow because in preparing for G20, there was a meeting of women and they
all said say it, say it, and I just couldn't come out with it that way. I thought about it later on, and I think I've grown into a feminist, if you
like, over time in my very own way, because there were two differences. I think I was never out there on the front fighting for feminist issue other
women did that and I didn't want to as it were sort of say that I did that.
And in the west, it was always said, for example, that in the GDR, we had actually participation women. There was equal opportunity, but we never
actually had equal participation in power. There had never been a female member in the Politburo. So, I must say that promoting women's issue is
important. And if we want to have equal opportunity, gender parity for men and women, we have to fight for it. And this is what I did over time.
I am a feminist in my very own way, but I never saw it in a way that we need to push men aside. Men have to change, yes, of course, if we actually
want to have a truly a world where there is true parity. They will have to take over jobs that women have done so far.
AMANPOUR: Sometimes I wondered whether being a woman informed your decision, the compassion you showed to so many women, refugees, and
children, as well as the men who you allowed in 2015. In the book, again, you say, there was my career before 2015 and the refugees and after, when
you said, we can do this. You said, I never knew that I would be bludgeoned over the head or such four simple words would be so controversial. Talk to
me about that. Reflect on that.
MARTIN: Well, if I go through my speeches, through everything that I said during my political life, I very, very often, a hundred times, I said,
we'll manage, we can do this. So, I thought this was something quite ordinary, but it does denote that I do see this as a very difficult task. I
mean, you don't usually say I get out of bed today and that's a big task, so I will be able to manage. But I thought that this was indeed a huge task
for us, but I was convinced that we can do this.
And I was, as you say, bludgeoned over the head because of that. And I don't think rightly so, because there was, in a way, created this
impression as if I didn't do anything in order to reduce illegal migration. But I entered into negotiations with Turkey, for example, it was simply
unimaginable for me that people who are in need, in distress, individuals stand at the very sort of border of our country, and we send water cannons
to get rid of them, to keep them away from the German border. And next Sunday, I give a Sunday speech saying, we hold these values of human
dignity and so on. And these people have, after all, been by human traffickers under their -- threat to their lives been smuggled to Germany.
And when we negotiated the E.U. asylum system and also negotiated this agreement with Turkey, people criticized me. They said, how can you
negotiate something like this with President Erdogan? But well, we will have to. Also, in trying to combat this inflow of refugees and deal with it
politically by negotiating with people who are not died in the war -- Democrats, as we see them, it's in the interest of the people because these
days, these particular refugees are closer to their home country. We supported them by money in order to get training, in order to get also
schooling for their children and many other things.
AMANPOUR: You do see the situation everywhere now, which is very anti- immigrant. It just is. It's just very anti-immigrant. Do you think that's a phase, or is this here to stay, this very, you know, right-wing hardness
against immigrants? It affected the U.S. election. It affects elections in Europe.
MERKEL (through translator): Well, that is a phenomenon of globalization in a way. We have climate change. People from Africa, and this will
particularly affect Europe, will migrate. And there will be a flow of migrants because these people no longer have any kind of life, any kind of
basis for existence in their own country.
[13:35:00]
And I hear you have migrants not only from Venezuela, from Latin America, from Mexico, but through very different roots from other countries. And if
we are not trying to help these countries of origin through development aid or whatever, through granting them aid, to give these people a chance, then
we will suffer too. We will have to spend a lot of money to close ourselves off against this.
So, we need to solve this issue with the countries of origin. And of course, illegal migration needs to be combat, needs to be fought against,
these human traffickers need to be fought against. But the harsher we are in trying to shut ourselves off against the rest of the world, the bigger
this issue will become. I'm firmly convinced of this.
AMANPOUR: I was also struck by something that Putin told you at one of these meetings where he said, and I'm going to paraphrase, the collapse of
the Soviet Union was the greatest political -- geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. And it clearly seems like he means it, and I wonder, because
you said once, in one of your speeches, that you did sort of a compromise. One day these two countries will join NATO. And he basically talking about
Ukraine and Georgia. And you said, that he said, I will never let that happen. You may leave, but I will still be coming back. I'll still stay as
president and I won't let it happen. Do you think that he will never let that happen?
MERKEL (through translator): At the time, what he said, he didn't say, I will still be there, but he said something similar to that. I said, you
will not always be president either, which is totally clear. But what's true is that this was actually -- he had a point there. For me, the
collapse of the Soviet Union meant that I was finally able to have freedom as a GDR citizen, but I think Brzezinski did write a book about the Grand
Chess Board, and he wrote that it's going to be interesting to see whether one day Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, and he said that it was,
actually, in America's vested interest. And once Ukraine is in NATO, Russia is no longer a great global power anymore.
And I think that's something that Putin would sign off to, that then Russia will no longer be a great global power. That's exactly what he's aiming at.
And that is a view of the world, which doesn't ask the Ukrainians what they want. I want the Ukrainians, at some point in time, to determine their own
fate. And that must be our goal. And we already paid a very heavy price, and they paid a very heavy price in particular.
So, there's a huge amount of work for those who will then have political responsibility on the one hand, deterrence vis-a-vis Russia, he will not be
allowed to attack us, and at the same time uphold sovereignty for Ukraine, which -- and Ukraine gets certain security guarantees, how they will then
what shape and form they will take is something that I obviously, at this point in time, will not be able to say.
AMANPOUR: And finally, back to your life behind the Iron Curtain the GDR. You said that your mother and your family allowed you some safe space to
let off steam. What were the kind of things you did that got you into trouble, or how did she know that you needed a place to be able to come
and, you know, talk freely because you were so controlled throughout your life?
MERKEL (through translator): Well, this went very quickly. My parents, for example, didn't allow me, when I was in school, to become a member of the
youth organization of the Socialist Party, to become a pioneer. I was then able to choose, after my first grade. And if I didn't, it would have meant
you're not allowed -- if you're not a pioneer, you're not allowed to organize a Christmas party, you're not allowed to be with the others. And I
said, I want to be a pioneer to my parents, and they allowed me this.
But then, it was very clear that I would never become a chairperson, let's say of my pioneer group because my father was a parson. And I was able to
discuss this with my parents. So, I always had this safe haven, if you like, where we could discuss all of these things and actually, were an
exact contravention to common sense where you were able to address these issues and feel free in school, you could not do this.
Even if you had sort of, let's say, a ballpoint pen from the west, because my grandmother from Hamburg had sent me one, and people were looking at
that and we're talking about this, you couldn't talk freely about looking on West German television, for example. What kind of book you were reading?
I learned this step by step. And at home, I could address all these issues freely.
AMANPOUR: What are you proudest of? And what is your biggest regret?
[13:40:00]
MERKEL (through translator): Proud? That's difficult to say. But I'm satisfied that I was able to steer Germany through a number of storms
during four terms. We had the global financial crisis that had dramatic consequences for the world. Just think of the BRICS countries, for example,
and that I was able to navigate the difficult euro crisis waters. The -- actually, I would say also the migration crisis, we did manage, although a
lot remains still to be done. And the COVID pandemic, less people died in Germany than other countries. That, too, I think was good.
I'm not satisfied with climate, with what we -- our achievements there. You know, we did not really take the necessary provisions for the future.
Sometimes we did maybe more than other countries, but it was not sufficient. I must admit that.
AMANPOUR: Chancellor Merkel, thank you very much indeed. You're welcome.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Really important reflections from a leader who interfaced with all the rest of the important leaders and the storms, as she said,
throughout this century, the 21st century.
Now, back to a storm, the South Korean one, where earlier the president made a shock decision to declare martial law. Protests erupted at the
National Assembly and within hours, lawmakers unanimously rejected the declaration. Kyung-wha Kang was South Korea's foreign minister, and she's
with me now in New York.
Welcome to the program, Foreign Minister. I just want to get your immediate reaction, both politically and perhaps even emotionally, since you're far
away from your country.
KYUNG-WHA KANG, FORMER SOUTH KOREAN FOREIGN MINISTER AND PRESIDENT, ASIA SOCIETY: Yes, I was watching this on TV this morning, as I usually do
every morning, watching what's happening in my country and saw the president making this announcement, which was just completely out of the
blue. Nothing in the circumstances around the country warranted this. Yes. So, it was shocking, to put it mildly, but then was relieved to see the
National Assembly acting very quickly to pass a resolution overturning this. And so, the only step remaining in this process is for the president
to accept and acknowledge that the declaration that he made on martial law is now null and void.
But he -- the presidential office, I understand is currently very quiet. Citizens have gathered around the National Assembly to protest and to make
their point that this is completely unacceptable, the way it's been handled, the way it's been announced. So, we'll see -- we'll get a better
sense in the morning hours, but I think, currently, all sides, including some key figures in the ruling party, clearly pressing the point that this
is completely unacceptable. This is an aberration.
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Kang, you're of course now the president of the Asia Society in the United States and you come across so many, you know,
issues of bilateral importance with Asia in the United States and so many other issues. Again, in your early morning tweet, you said, stunned at the
presidential decision. He must accept the National Assembly vote overturning it.
What if he doesn't? What power does he have? It looks like, according to, you know, the information we have now, that the military is following the
parliamentary decree, annulling this martial law and declaring it void. Do you expect that to hold? Do you expect the military to obey the parliament
or to obey the person of the president?
KANG: Well, I think the rule of law requires in accordance with the rule. And the way the martial law itself was declared was not in accordance with
the requirements as far as the constitution is concerned because it was done out of the blue, without going through the necessary requirement of
going through a cabinet decision.
So, it doesn't seem any of the ministers were aware that this was going to happen aside from the defense minister, obviously. It seems that there was
preparation in that side because the tanks were rolling in, the helicopters are in the air minutes after the decree was announced. So, clearly, the
minister of defense and his close advisers were prepared. But on the political side, none of the key political actors, even within the ruling
party, seems to have been aware of what was coming in the middle of the night from the president's office.
The two key political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition party have, after the National Assembly vote, has come up with a statement
that I think is very stabilizing, pointing this out, that the way the law - - the martial law was decreed was unconstitutional. It didn't follow process.
[13:45:00]
So, it is illegal. It is -- and therefore, any order given under the so- called declared martial law is unconstitutional, unlawful, and therefore, any public servant, including the military and police should not be
following any orders coming from that authority, which in itself is unlawful.
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister, the president is from the right-wing People Power Party, President Yoon. And so, you know, the question is, who is he
and why did he do this? The reasons he gave was that he couldn't, you know, do the business of government because of the treachery of North Korean
spies and communist holdouts, you know, inside the body politic. Who is this person?
KANG: I think -- well, there are key advisers, key ministers, who are staunch anti-communists ideologues, I would even call it. And so, the way
his view has been shaped has been very much influenced by these hardline conservatives, anti-communists. But from that to jump to this idea that
there are communist sympathizers, anti-state agents scheming to overthrow the government is completely out of the blue, completely unrelated to
anything I can see happening in the country.
Yes, the politics is very fragmented, very divisive, very polarized, but then, it is the role of the president, the duty of the president to be
trying to bring the country back together, and he has gone exactly the opposite, more polarized, more extremist in the messages that he's been
delivering to the country.
And this is aside from the -- all the all the wrongdoings that are being put to -- before him and his -- and the first lady. And I think that
probably was also a big part of the political pressure that he was feeling that then led to him deciding to go this way.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- as I said, North Korea -- South Korea, sorry, is a very, very, very important ally of the United States. And clearly, the
Biden administration is, as they say, watching all of this unfold very, very closely. What would you say immediately about whether there's any
threat to the alliance structure or any of the issues that the U.S. and South Korea and allies in that region are having to deal with on a daily
basis?
KANG: I would certainly hope not. And I think given that the voices against this out of the blue decision from the president, both from the
ruling side of the opposition camp and a significant part of the ruling party, the party of the president clearly in against this this decision by
the president, I think is something that will add to bringing this back to stability. I certainly hope that this will end up as being an overnight
happening.
But there are signs that this could go -- this -- the chaotic developments could continue for a while. But I certainly don't think that this will have
any effect on the alliance. I think the support for the alliance is solid, on the part of the United States. I think on the Korean side, also, both
the ruling and opposition, the central importance of the alliance to the security and the wellbeing of the country is bipartisan. So, I'm not
worried about the effect of this on the alliance, and the deterrence that the combined forces have.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and of course you do have North Korea, quite an emboldened North Korea, partnering with Russia now, just across that DMZ.
KANG: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Very quickly and finally, we've got about 30 seconds. You know, you said it was unconstitutional. Is there any way the president can come
back and do it in the constitutional manner or is this president potentially finished?
KANG: I think this move has only further undermined his authority. I don't see how he can find his way out of it and I think the only thing that
remains for him to do -- the minimum thing, and the final thing he must do is to accept the decision of the National Assembly and call this off.
[13:50:00]
And that would also require the procedures of going through the cabinet meeting and then posting this publicly.
AMANPOUR: What incredible chaos, as you said, the first time since 1980 that martial law was declared in your country.
KANG: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Kyung-wha Kang, thank you so much for joining us. Really important insights.
KANG: Thank you for having me, Christiane. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, with the holiday season just around the corner, the world is getting into the festive spirit. Across Europe,
enormous trees and twinkling lights are dazzling cities like Brussels and Ljubljana. And in the U.K., Keir Starmer lights the tree outside Downing
Street for the first time as prime minister. While here in the United States, the Bidens have been preparing for their last Christmas in the
White House. Organizers have gone all out, taking 300 volunteers a full week to deck the halls with 83 Christmas trees, over 28,000 ornaments, and
almost 10,000 feet of ribbon, making it a Christmas to remember.
First Lady Jill Biden has this to say as she kicked off the holiday season.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JILL BIDEN, U.S. FIRST LADY: So, as we celebrate our final holiday season here in the White House, we are guided by the values that we hold sacred,
faith, family, and service to our country. Kindness toward all of our neighbors, and the power of community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Kindness and community. Holiday spirits indeed. That is it for now. But tune in later this week for my interview with the actress Demi
Moore. She reflects on her 40-year career. From her days as a member of the Hollywood Brat Pack, to her famed role in "Ghost," and now. to her most
recent performance in the new critically acclaimed body horror film, "The Substance." We talk about her legacy and the painful process of aging in
Hollywood, while female, of course. Here's a snippet from our conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: First, I want to ask you about "The Substance."
DEMI MOORE, ACTRESS, "THE SUBSTANCE": OK.
AMANPOUR: Because it is extraordinary body horror. It's been out for several months, and it's had a range of critiques. Some have said it's like
really deep. Others have said it's really shallow. You yourself said that this could be an absolutely amazing thing, or it could be a disaster.
MOORE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Now, that it's been out for a few months, is it amazing or a disaster?
MOORE: I think it's amazing. I mean, it's really, in truth, I think, hit a certain kind of zeitgeist in popular culture that is even beyond what I
could have expected. but all that I had hoped for. And I think for those looking just for something that's a visceral, entertaining experience, it's
all there. And I think for those -- and more so, I find people who -- where it's deeply resonated, it's touched them in a place of their -- kind of
their own truth, and that's really like the greatest hope.
AMANPOUR: It obviously got this phenomenal buzz out of can when it premiered and it got a 13-minute standing ovation. It won the biggest
prize. And I think everybody was surprised. Were you surprised? I mean, you just said it's got a buzz beyond what you -- were you surprised by its
initial reaction?
MOORE: I'm shocked. I -- because I truly did go in with no expectations. And because it has such a mix, there's really nothing like this film. And
so, I didn't know if the extreme nature of where it goes would either kind of work, connect, what it would do. I really had no idea. I -- truly, I
kept looking over at Margaret Qualley, my-co star, going, like it's working and people -- and in fact, the craziest parts of it, I think allowed for
enough of a -- you know, of a reprieve, the laughter to kind of step back and actually take in the part that's so intense.
AMANPOUR: And it really is intense. You mentioned Margaret Qualley. She plays Sue, who is your younger alter ego.
MOORE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You are Elizabeth Sparkle.
MOORE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And at a famous, you know, scene of a lunch or a dinner with I think the boss of your show, Harvey, by the way, called Harvey, he
essentially told you that you've just hit 50 and you've aged out and maxed out of Hollywood.
MOORE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, that's the paradigm. Just give us the story. I mean, it's a very visceral story about something that's a big deal in -- for women in
Hollywood and elsewhere.
MOORE: I mean, I think it's -- again, for me, the setting is, you know, heightened by the mere fact that it's -- you know, Elizabeth is somebody in
the public eye, she's an actress, but it's -- and so, there are greater expectations and challenges that come when you are out front facing and
with judgments and criticisms that come from the outside.
[13:55:00]
The fascinating part for me with this was not the circumstances, but it's the aspect of what she was doing to herself. The value she was placing on
what other people thought and cared about. Her value on whether she was successful being the very crux of whether she was worthy or not. And I
think that's the piece that really moved me because it explored that violence that we can have against ourselves, that harsh criticism, that
compare and despair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And as I said, much more of that conversation later this week. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it
airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from
New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
