Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis; Interview with BFMTV Senior International Correspondent Thierry Arnaud; Interview with "Tsunami: Race Against Time" Director and Executive Producer Daniel Bogado; Interview with American Seismologist on Duty During Tsunami Barry Hirshorn. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 06, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Shifting diplomatic sands. As Trump returns to the stage, one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters exits. In what may be his last interview as
Lithuanian foreign minister, I speak to Gabrielius Landsbergis about the future.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABU MOHAMMAD AL-JOLANI, LEADER OF HAYAT TAHRIR AL-SHAM (HTS) (through translator): Now, we're talking about a larger project. We're talking
about building Syria.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- an exclusive interview with Syria's rebel leader who tells correspondent Jomana Karadsheh about the goals of the rebel coalition as
they sweep rapidly across the country.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): They only think about one thing, about the presidential election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: French President Macron vows to carry on amid deadlock. What's behind the political turmoil? I ask veteran French reporter Thierry Arnaud.
Also, ahead, "Tsunami: Race Against Time." Hari Sreenivasan speaks to director Daniel Bogado and seismologist Barry Hirshorn about the 2004 tidal
wave that crushed parts of Asia.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianca Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
President Biden's days in the White House may be numbered, but his administration's support for Ukraine is showing no signs of slowing. The
latest is a $725 million security assistance package and a pledge to deliver thousands of artillery rounds and thousands more rockets before
mid-January.
Now, it comes as likely policy change looms on the horizon in the form of President-Elect Donald Trump. But the challenges in Eastern Europe extend
beyond Ukraine's borders. Romania's constitutional court has annulled the first round of its presidential election, won narrowly by a far-right,
ultra nationalist candidate amid allegations of Russian interference. And in Georgia, a week of antigovernment demonstrations has been met by a
brutal police response.
Amid all of this, one of Ukraine's most vocal supporters is leaving office, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, his political party was
defeated in October elections, and he is now stepping down as both his country's top diplomat and chair of his political party. He joins me now
from New York. Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you so much for joining the program.
First and foremost, what are these political changes in Lithuania signal and mean in terms of let's start with Ukraine? Lithuania's policy towards
its support for Ukraine, which has been staunch since Russia's larger invasion in 2022. Are there any changes ensuing in that policy with your
departure?
GABRIELIUS LANDSBERGIS, LITHUANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, first of all, it's very good to be back at the show. Thank you so much for having me.
Well, as with any new government, the government will have to prove that the direction is not changing. But I think that Lithuania's position when
it comes to the war in Ukraine does not come from a single politician. It does not come from a single party. It comes from the people who do
understand what's at stake in Ukraine.
So, I have -- at this point, I have full confidence that Lithuanians will remain committed to Ukraine's victory in the war that has been waging for
three years.
GOLODRYGA: I know you've spent time now in the U.S. and Washington, D.C. as well. As you reflect back in your time in office what are your views,
your concerns perhaps going forward in terms of NATO's alliance and the stability of the E.U. itself? As you know, we've spent a lot of time
covering, both the political weakness now in France and Germany, two of the largest countries within the European Union.
LANDSBERGIS: Well, it's a great time of instability. Honestly, when we see the picture, the whole picture, you know, so many countries are undergoing
transition either just out of the election or going towards election, like Germany. And when we see what Russia is currently doing, with an enormous
pressure on Ukraine, with the terrorist activities around Europe, especially in the eastern flank, meddling in elections, pressure in the
countries that are outside of European Union, such as Moldova or Georgia, we're clearly -- clearly, it is now time, but we need to have leadership.
We need to have a clear position that we have the ability to push back.
[13:05:00]
And it definitely starts in Ukraine. I see that as a culprit. If Ukraine is put in a stronger -- you know, strongest possible position and is able to
push Russia out, I think that this is where Russia's influence on the whole -- I would say even on the whole continent will diminish. It will get
weaker. They will not have enough time to retain pressure that they currently do have.
And one of the things that we're seeing, I think it's also connected to what I'm saying, is Syria. You know, it's not completely out of out of the
blue that Syrian rebels are able to push Assad's regime out, you know, every single day. It's because Russians are no longer supporting as they
did in the past, because they're too busy fighting in Ukraine. So, we have to win Ukraine in order to win it elsewhere.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, two monumental events really led us to where things stand now in Syria. And that, as you note, one is Russia's invasion in 2022,
withdrawing a number of its forces there in support of the Assad regime in Syria. And then, obviously, the second being October 7th, and the weakness
now upon Hezbollah, which had been a large supporter of Assad as well.
Let me get you to react to what we heard from Ukraine's former military commander in chief, and that is General Valery Zaluzhny, in comments he
said two weeks ago about the fact that -- in his view we are already in World War III with North Korean soldiers now assisting in the fighting in
Russia, obviously Iran assisting Russia as well. Do you agree with that assessment, or do you think that it's more hyperbolic at this moment?
LANDSBERGIS: Look, I mean, you know, the way that we classify Russian activities outside of Ukraine, and I'm -- I see that we're struggling,
right? Some people call it hybrid activities when a cable is torn, when a building is -- you know, or a shopping mall is being burned down. But we
know who is behind it. We know what goals Russia has when they do this sort of things, it's to put pressure on us, to achieve political goals. So, what
it is if it isn't a war?
And I believe and I have a sense that the reason why we are not admitting these -- you know, the conditions that we're currently in is because we are
worried as what we would need to do in turn. If we say, OK, Russia is fighting a war, you know, hidden, covert, but still a war against those who
support Ukraine, well, then we need to fight, we need to fight back.
GOLODRYGA: What does resolution look like? I mean, from the most optimistic standpoint, given that we have a Trump administration taking
office in just a few weeks' time, Donald Trump has said, as he was campaigning all along, that he would bring this war to an end on day one.
It would probably, one would assume, take a lot longer than that. But that having been said, some of his top advisers, including retired Army
Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, we're seeing more of what a potential Trump policy and plan may look like. And that would entail a carrot and
stick approach.
I'm just going to give you a bit more insight into what that looks like. And that is halting military aid, perhaps, to Kyiv unless it agrees to
basically freeze where things stand right now with Russia controlling nearly 20 percent of the East and the Crimea as well and agreeing to go to
negotiations. On the flip side of that, they say that they would boost assistance if Vladimir Putin doesn't agree to those terms either. What do
you make of this plan?
LANDSBERGIS: I think it's -- look, first of all it's rather an illusion that we can have any sort of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia if
Ukraine is not put in a stronger position. Otherwise, it's a call for capitulation. So, you know, the incoming administration and President Trump
have all the instruments that they need in order to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.
There -- you know, it's just a question of, you know, administrating support, you know, providing assistance in a way that would suit their
program and ideas that they might have. Otherwise, if anything else, it's a continuation of a very slow process that has been ongoing for basically
three years where Ukraine is weaker, Russia is stronger.
And that leads to the only one thing, that leads to an -- you know, what would be called an unjust peace. Yes, you could have a situation where guns
are no longer firing, but it's not an actual peace that Ukrainians would want, or that would give the stability to European continent.
And honestly, I mean, my country was occupied for 50 years by Soviet Union. And I call that also an unjust peace. The guns were not firing, but we were
not free. We cannot allow that to happen in Europe again.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Is it capitulation in your view if, ultimately, we do see President Trump force Ukraine to agree not to pursue NATO membership?
LANDSBERGIS: I think that anything that doesn't guarantee Ukraine's freedom and security long-term does not work in favor, neither for Ukraine,
nor for Europe, nor for United States. And we have to see that as a connected picture. Because now the geopolitical theaters in Europe,
especially in Transatlantic and even in Indo-Pacific, they are connected.
If we cannot secure Ukraine, you know, then the dominoes will continue falling. And I sure know that, you know, that the people in Taiwan are
watching how the -- you know, how the war will end in Ukraine. And they're calculating this, you know, what it means to them. Other democracies in the
Pacific are doing exactly the same thing. Other countries in Europe are doing exactly the same thing.
So, you know, it, it is clear that in order to make Ukraine safe and secure, it has to get security guarantees. And what other security
guarantees, you know, work in Europe? The only ones that work is Article 5 from Washington Treaty, from NATO.
GOLODRYGA: Finally, I would like to ask what we've seen now take place in Georgia, specifically in the violence there on the streets, following their
prime minister announcing that they would delay their government's E.U. accession bid to 2028. Obviously, this is something that Moscow views
favorably. Many, many, many Georgians do not.
Since then, the Baltic states, including Lithuania, have agreed to impose national sanctions on Georgian officials, cracking down on these protests,
as I noted, have grown increasingly violent. What do you hope that these sanctions will actually produce, aside from the symbolism itself?
LANDSBERGIS: Well, first of all, it's -- I agree that it's rather symbolic, right? It sends a message to Georgian people that they are not
alone, that there are politicians in Europe who are closely watching and taking decisions. It's a signal to the leaders of Georgia that they will
not go unpunished, because what they are doing to Georgian people is completely unacceptable.
And lastly, I truly hope that this will work as an inspiration for countries in Europe and United States as well to take similar decisions.
And I'm very glad to hear that the administration -- outgoing administration here in, in Washington is already thinking about the ways
how to put additional pressure in order to stop the violence, to stop the unacceptable violence.
And one of the things that could be discussed as well in this in this perspective is in 2010, when Belarusian government, you know, cracked down
-- one of the first times that they really cracked down on the protesters in Minsk, the -- there was an embargo, issued embargo, European embargo on
all the equipment and weapons that the government uses against its citizens.
I think we really need to start thinking about the same thing. If government is using western equipment against its people, why are they
still exporting it?
GOLODRYGA: Gabrielius Landsbergis, thank you so much for your time. Best of luck to you and your future endeavors. We've always appreciated your
candor and joining us on the show over the years. We appreciate it this time as well. Thank you.
LANDSBERGIS: Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Well, turning now to exclusive reporting from inside Syria, where rebels are advancing further south towards the key city of Homs, just
a day after capturing the major City of Hama. A new uprising is also underway in the Southern Syrian province of Daraa, where a separate rebel
group says its destination is Damascus.
Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh secured an interview with the militant leader of the main rebel group known as HTS. She talks about the primary
goals of this offensive and his first major sit down with a TV news organization in years.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Taking Hama, after taking Aleppo, I mean, how significant is this for you right now?
ABU MOHAMMAD AL-JOLANI, LEADER OF HAYAT TAHRIR AL-SHAM (HTS) (through translator): From a military perspective, what comes after Hama will not
be the same as what came before. However, I prefer not to be overly optimistic during the battle. I like to remain cautious and vigilant to
avoid complacency and ensure we don't suffer losses while believing we are safe.
KARADSHEH: What comes after this? What's after Hama?
AL-JOLANI (through translator): The course of the battle, as for the secrets of the battle, let's leave them to the unfolding events. You will
witness them in reality, which is better than discussing them now.
KARADSHEH: In a matter of days, you have taken major cities. What's changed? How are you able to do this now?
[13:15:00]
AL-JOLANI (through translator): In recent years, there has been a unification of internal opinions and the establishment of institutional
structures within the liberated areas of Syria. This institutionalization included the restructuring within military factions. They entered unified
training camps and developed a sense of discipline. This discipline allowed them, with God's guidance, to engage in a battle in an organized manner.
The progress and execution of plans have been swift, with clear communication and adherence to commands. They stop where they should stop
and withdraw where they should withdraw. The revolution has transitioned from chaos and randomness to a state of order, both in civil and
institutional matters and in military operations alike.
KARADSHEH: Some believe this is happening because the allies of the Assad regime, the Russians, Hezbollah, Iran, that they're weakened, they're
preoccupied with other wars, and this is why we are seeing this happen right now, and the Syrian regime itself weakened. Is this what is happening
right now? Is this why you chose to launch this offensive right now?
AL-JOLANI (through translator): As you know, we are still in the midst of the battle, and discussing such details at this time is not wise.
KARADSHEH: But you faced more of a resistance in Hama than you did in Aleppo. What do you think happened? Why did the regime withdraw like it
did?
AL-JOLANI (through translator): The seeds of the regime's defeat have always been within it. It has been effectively dead since that time.
However, the Iranians attempted to revive the regime, buying it time, and later the Russians also tried to prop it up. But the truth remains, this
regime is dead.
KARADSHEH: In the last year, it seemed like Bashar al-Assad survived the war. He was welcomed back into the Arab fold and on the world stage.
AL-JOLANI (through translator): The Arab country's evaluation of the situation was mistaken. Some Arab countries try to separate the regime from
Iran's project. This is impossible. Even if the regime wanted this, it can't implement it. It's a subservient relationship. Iran can disengage
from the regime, but the regime can't.
To describe the regime as victorious is deeply unjust to the many children, people, women subjected to rape in prisons, displaced individuals scattered
across the world, those drowning in the seas and those living in tents on the borders of other countries. What kind of victory are we talking about?
KARADSHEH: In the past, you have talked about strict Islamic rule. Is that still the plan?
AL-JOLANI (through translator): People who fear Islamic governance either have seen incorrect implementations of it, or do not understand it
properly. We are talking about something that aligns with the traditions and nature of the region. The most important thing is to build
institutions. We are not talking about rule by individuals or personal whims, it's about institutional governance. Syria deserves a governing
system that is institutional, not one where a single ruler makes arbitrary decisions.
KARADSHEH: Many Syrians are happy and will be happy to see the end of the Assad regime, but they're also worried about what HTS rule would mean,
including minorities.
AL-JOLANI (through translator): No one has the right to erase another group. These sects have coexisted in this region for hundreds of years, and
no one has the right to eliminate them. There must be a legal framework that protects and ensures the rights of all, not a system that serves only
one sect, as Assad's regime has done.
KARADSHEH: You know, listening to you speaking, you've gone through quite the transformation, once an Al Qaeda leader, your group has had
affiliations with Al Qaeda, with ISIS, and now, you are projecting this image of a moderate leader and a moderate group. What is HTS right now?
AL-JOLANI (through translator): Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is one of the factions in the region, just like all the others. Now, we're talking about
a larger project. We're talking about building Syria. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is merely one detail of this dialogue, and it may dissolve at any time.
It's not an end in itself, but a means to perform a task confronting this regime. Once that task is complete, it will transition to a state of
governance, institutions, and so on.
[13:20:00]
I believe that everyone in life goes through phases and experiences, and these experiences naturally increase a person's awareness. A person in
their 20s will have a different personality than someone in their 30s or 40s, and certainly, someone in their 50s.
KARADSHEH: So, are those days behind you?
AL-JOLANI (through translator): Sometimes it's essential to adjust to reality. And because someone who rigidly clings to certain ideas and
principles without flexibility cannot effectively lead societies or navigate complex conflicts like the one happening in Syria.
KARADSHEH: People listening to this are going to wonder why they should believe you. You are still specially designated global terrorist by the
United States with a $10 million bounty on your head. Your group is a prescribed terrorist organization by the United States, by the U.N., by the
E.U. and others.
AL-JOLANI (through translator): I say to people, don't judge by words, but by actions. I believe the reality speaks for itself. These classifications
are primarily political and at the same time wrong. I defined a terrorist as someone who intentionally kills civilians, harms innocents, or displaces
people. If we're being honest, many of the wars waged by major powers in Arab, Muslim, and even non-Muslim countries have involved the deliberate
killing of thousands, the destruction of homes, and the displacement of millions. Even the regime itself is guilty of such actions.
KARADSHEH: What the U.S. and others would say is that you were part of groups that did exactly that?
AL-JOLANI (through translator): Personally, I have not done these things. The situation must be understood in its historical context. There was a
massive war in Iraq that deeply stirred people's emotions, prompting many to go there. The circumstances of that war led people to various places,
and my path led me to one of those locations.
Given my level of awareness and my young age at the time, my actions evolved to where I am today. I didn't go to Iraq with those intentions. I
went to defend the Iraqi people. When I returned to Syria, I didn't want to bring what happened in Iraq into Syria. That's why there were disagreements
between us and ISIS.
KARADSHEH: People would be wondering why you've agreed to speak with us.
AL-JOLANI (through translator): What is happening in Syria is significant for the entire world. This event has positive repercussions globally
because under the regime's rule, Syria became a source of concern and trouble for everyone.
Stabilizing Syria will bring many people back. Today, in the liberated areas, about one-third of the population lives in camps, approximately one
and a half million people. I believe we can soon reach a point where there are no camps. With the rehabilitation of the liberated areas, people will
return to their homes. Many refugees in Turkey will likely return, as well a significant number of refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. Even refugees in
Europe may return to rebuild their country.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Jomana Karadsheh again with that incredible exclusive reporting from inside Syria. Well, next we turn to France where
President-Elect Donald Trump is headed to attend the reopening of the Notre Dame Cathedral tomorrow. But aside from that restored beauty, he will
arrive to a scene of political turmoil. Opposition lawmakers from both ends of France's political spectrum have joined together to oust its prime
minister in a no-confidence vote.
President Macron is resisting calls to resign and says he will soon nominate a replacement. So, what does this instability mean for France and
for Europe more broadly? Thierry Arnaud is a senior international correspondent for French channel BFMTV, and he joins me now from Paris.
Thierry, welcome to the program.
So, if you can just explain to our viewers, walk us through what got France and Parliament to a situation they have not seen in some 60 years' time.
THIERRY ARNAUD, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, BFMTV: Well, the political equation is quite complex, but the math is quite simple. To push
legislation through, to carry out a budget, you need a majority in parliament, which comes to exactly 288 seats. The parliament that came out
from the president's decision to call for a snap election in late June, early July resulted in three groups that are far short from this threshold,
about 200 or between 160 and 200.
So, nobody has a majority and the National Assembly, as we call the parliament, is pretty much evenly divided between those three groups that
are fighting each other. So, nobody has a majority and the only power that can be found is found in a negative way, when two of the three groups
decide to form an alliance to topple the government that was carried by the third group, which is essentially what happened two days ago.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: So, the parliament is essentially paralyzed and many are blaming the president himself for taking the risk of calling for snap
elections last summer. Now, there can't be more elections or future elections until next July. So, there will be a caretaker government
appointed and the budget from 2024 carried on until the new elections. But that leads to just continued instability and a ballooning deficit as we
know now that has surpassed that of the likes of other countries that we have seen in the past struggle economically. I'm specifically referencing
Portugal, Greece and Spain. So, what is the economic forecast for the country right now?
ARNAUD: Well, when France is boring money today, it's boring money at the same rate as Greece. And much more -- with much more higher interest rates
than Germany, for example, what that means is that France will have to pay between 50 and 60 billion euros in terms of servicing its debt over the
next year and probably 70 billion euros after that.
It is likely to lose the confidence of financial markets, it is likely to have to raise taxes. It is likely to raise -- to have to raise the cost for
the French people. The budget being sworn out means that there has to be a caretaker budget to finance health insurance, to finance pensions. It is a
big economic mess right now that the next government is going to have to carry on his shoulders.
GOLODRYGA: And we've seen a strange alliance here, strange bedfellows coming together for that historic decision to oust the prime minister this
week, and that is the far-right and the far-left coming together. What are the motivations here, specifically for someone like Marine Le Pen, who is
now, I've seen, has been described as a political kingmaker of sorts?
ARNAUD: Yes, she is. She is essentially the political kingmaker today. Well, it's very clear, Marine Le Pen wants to be the next French president.
And the whole strategy is based on how she can achieve that goal. So, she thinks the best way to do this is to exercise power, unlike any power she's
had so far, which is the ability now to topple any government.
And she's hoping, without being explicit about it, but without excluding that option, that toppling one government, toppling a second government,
maybe toppling a third one will lead President Macron to the conclusion that he cannot carry out the rest of his term up until 2027, and that he
has to resign and call an early presidential election. That's basically the scenario that the far-left and the far-right are working on right now.
GOLODRYGA: I think we have sound of Marine Le Pen where she's justifying the no-confidence vote saying that, for her, came on the grounds that she
was defending France from the budget that Barnier had proposed. Let's listen to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARINE LE PEN, FRENCH FAR-RIGHT LEADER (through translator): I am not pushing for, I am not asking for the resignation of President Emmanuel
Macron. I am saying there will come a moment when if we don't take the route of respecting the voters and political forces and elections, well,
then the pressure on the president will of course be stronger and stronger. But he's the only one who will make the decision, who will have the last
word on whether he wants the French people to vote again before 2027, or whether he wants to stay on the horse at any price, so to speak.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, I understand the point of respecting the voter's will. Obviously, that's how democracy works. But voters also have to respect the
economic reality that they appear to be just kicking the can down the road in terms of an aging demographic, a GDP growth that is slow to about 1
percent a year, and the fact that that they've been dealing with this issue of ballooning deficit and not wanting to give up any of their entitlement
programs now, something that Macron has been aggressively trying to address too, to no success. At what point do you think the reality ultimately will
set in for French voters?
ARNAUD: Well, I think it will have to come to that point at some stage. But what is very interesting and very concerning at the same time about the
way things are working these days is that everybody agrees to topple a government or at least those two sides agreed to topple the government
because they said they could not accept the spending that the government was planning to cut in as part of the next budget.
[13:30:00]
But nobody is saying where money has to come from in order to be able to reduce the budget deficit or to reduce the debt, which now is over 3,200
billion euros, and which, you know, slowly but surely is leading France ever closer to a financial crisis. So, it's very easy to be against, you
know, anything that's going to be -- you know, going to make people's life harder. It's much more difficult. It may be a little more courageous from a
political standpoint to decide where the money has to come from, and that's where we stand today, because nobody is making clear calls as to the
measures that need to be taken in order to you know, redress this financial situation.
GOLODRYGA: We're seeing similar political instability in European stalwarts, some -- like Germany, for example, as well, where we're expected
to see new elections in the coming months. What does that say specifically about France's role as a European leader on larger issues, specifically as
it relates to support for Ukraine, for example?
ARNAUD: Well, it makes obviously the voice of France carry far less weight today on the European scene. Clearly, three, four, five years ago,
President Macron appeared as the leader of Europe, the one who had so much political capital and so much political weight, he could carry Europe
forward and push really important decisions.
He has spent and wasted, to be honest, so much of this political capital today, that it's much more difficult for him to play that role today. And
if you take a very simple, concrete example, the budget was planning to spend an extra 3.3 billion euros on defense in France, for example, and
that was -- that money was to be spent to modernize defense equipment for France. And the consequence of that equipment being modernized what the old
equipment was available to be transferred to Ukraine.
So, the fact that the budget has been toppled and won't be able to be replaced with a new one for the next few weeks and months prevents France
to carry on with the planned -- you know, or a supply of defense material to Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Has this political crisis domestically overshadowed the upcoming visit now of Donald Trump for the reopening of Notre Dame
Cathedral?
ARNAUD: Well, I think the -- you know, the news obviously over the next couple of days would be all about Notre Dame. And it will be kind of a
breather in between what happened last week, which was a toppling of the government and what will happen next week. But it's clearly a difficult
situation to be in for the French president -- the French government.
There's no government to speak of other than in a caretaking role. President Macron will be in a position that is not very easy for him, at
this point in time, and one coming all this out of state and government is today deeply unpopular president. And indeed, between 60 -- over 60 percent
of the French people today would like to see him resign.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. It does appear the takeaway that -- is that centrism, at least for the time being, is dead in France and other countries in Europe
as well. Thierry Arnaud, thank you so much for the analysis. Appreciate the time.
ARNAUD: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: Well, it was one of the deadliest natural disasters in modern times. 20 years ago, a massive tsunami in southern Asia triggered a 9.1
earthquake off the coast of Indonesia, killing more than 200,000 people in 14 countries.
A new documentary called "Tsunami: Race Against Time" looks back at that devastating day, the 26th of December, 2004, with never-before-seen
footage. Here's a bit of the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People were on the street. Suddenly, I can see this really high water. And I just like, what is that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Hari Sreenivasan sits down with director producer Daniel Bogado and seismologist Barry Hirshorn for more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Daniel Bogado, Barry Hirshorn. Thank you both for joining us. Your new documentary, "Tsunami:
Race Against Time," it's about the devastating tsunami that came across a huge swath of the planet about 20 years ago. Daniel, I guess first, what
drew you to this topic?
DANIEL BOGADO, DIRECTOR AND EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "TSUNAMI: RACE AGAINST TIME": Well, I suppose it's the 20th anniversary. So, it's difficult to
believe, but it's been 20 years since it happened. And I remember at the time it happens waking up on the 26th of December and the scale of the
tragedy.
[13:35:00]
A lot of people forget we lost nearly a quarter of a million people in one day. So, we had this idea of doing one series, which would be focusing on
the day, only with video archive of the day, and just basically mainly listening from survivors and people who experienced that. And it took many
years to put together, but we thought it was something that was very important to do.
We traveled to Indonesia to Thailand, Sri Lanka, we knocked on a lot of doors, TV stations, and we found hundreds of hours of video footage that
had never been shown before anywhere. But that was only the first part of the job, because after that, we saw people in the video archive and we
wanted to find them and track them down so we could hear directly from them their story. So, that was a whole separate challenge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then there was a shout, the sea is coming, the sea is coming. But it looked like it's coming gently. Suddenly, everybody started
running. And then --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: Barry, you were working in Hawaii at the time, you know, 8,000 miles away from where this earthquake that triggered the tsunami
happened. You're working at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARRY HIRSHORN, AMERICAN SEISMOLOGIST ON DUTY DURING TSUNAMI: We have a magnitude eight and we're trying to reanalyze the magnitude with more data.
And then, we got a magnitude 8.5. And although you think of 8.5 versus 8, so what, .5, right? The earthquake magnitude scale is a logarithmic scale.
And each difference in magnitude is about a 30-time increase in energy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: So, we're talking about something that is almost the length of California under the sea, that essentially two big plates are shifting
up. And so, when this part of the Earth goes up or down, that means, what, the wave, that's a column of water super high was all that energy lifts up
those millions and billions of pounds and whatever of water and makes them fall over. Is that what's happening in a tsunami?
HIRSHORN: Yes, it essentially lifts them and then lifts in a gigantic pulse. But one of the things I think very important to understand when you
get to earthquakes of this size is there is a fairly common perception that earthquakes occur at a point in the Earth. And the reality is --
especially, they occur along rupture zones. For example, this one, a rupture zone, the length of -- roughly the length of California.
So, if you can imagine that gigantic column of water that you mentioned lifting, keep taking successive columns of water comparable to that over a
period of nine or 10 minutes, successively lifting -- as the fault ruptures to the northeast, successive columns of water. So, you've got multiple
tsunami sources that all combine coming from this gigantic fault.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw an elderly couple. So, I thought that, oh, I have to go down there and to help them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's (INAUDIBLE) a good 15, 20 feet tall. Easy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This elderly couple were hanging on to a railing. I tried to reach them. And they just disappeared.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: Barry, there are periods in the documentary where you can see how really anguished you and your staff are realizing that you just don't
have the information from the other side of the planet that could help you help more people. What was -- what were the things that started to -- you
know, what were the pieces of information that started to trickle in where you understood really the magnitude, for lack of a better term, of what was
happening so far away?
HIRSHORN: The one that really drove the point home to me was a train, which is not a featherweight object. A train is a very massive, massive
thing. Inland, from the tsunami, in Sri Lanka, something like three or four -- two or three hours travel time away from the source, that drove the
point home that we were dealing with something extremely -- I would say that was an order of magnitude jump in a nerd science speaking, like in our
awareness.
And I'd like to point out that at that time the director did something which I suppose was an advantage of having scientists on duty for these
events. He's a seismologist and a water level person and he was able to generate on the fly a map that showed the tsunami travel times every hour
for the Indian Ocean, which of course we did not have.
And so, this combination of this Uber realization, if you want to call it, this step-in realization of the magnitude combined with a tool that value
was hard to -- is infinitely valuable in that situation because you can now focus the energy and personnel you have on places ahead of the wave
critical. Now, we knew roughly where the wave was with time.
SREENIVASAN: Daniel, Barry mentioned this train. I want to touch on it for a second. But the story of the train Sri Lanka is so fascinating, partly
because just -- you know, we take for granted that you and I can text each other today and give each other a warning about something that might be
down the road or ahead of you, but this is one of the worst train disasters in human history. And so, few people actually made it out of there. And
yet, you were able to track down one of the survivors and really have her share this incredibly powerful story of her own.
BOGADO: Yes. I mean, an interesting detail about that train is that they actually did get warning about it, that they were heading straight to the
tsunami. But unfortunately, by the time they got the warning and they tried to call the train, there was no way to communicate with anybody on the
train. So, the people in the station, just as it left, had a warning. And you're right, if it happened today, they would be able to mobile phones to
pass on that communication.
And yes, we interviewed Eranthy (ph) who was -- who gave us -- so many of these contributors, you know, just an incredibly contribution that came
from the heart. Talked about her relationship with her mother, who was in the train and the events that transpired. And so, in a way, the whole
project, really -- because it's largely voices just from people survived who run you minute by minute, the events that happens to them, it takes for
them a lot of courage to do that. A lot of courage to go back and revisit what is the worst day of their lives, without a doubt.
And I guess that the pitch we gave to them was that what we were trying to do with this series, we were trying, first of all, for -- to create
something for the historical record. You know, to -- for future generations to be able to look back and understand this is what happened that day.
And then, the second reason was for it to serve as a memorial for the lives that were lost, and hopefully, for people to become more educated about
tsunamis, because I think if there was greater knowledge about the red flags, about the warning signs many, many more lives could have been saved.
SREENIVASAN: The layer of catastrophic damage that came after the first wave, in these subsequent waves, and you were able to capture that in so
many different locations.
BOGADO: I think there are a lot of myths and misunderstandings surrounding tsunamis from what we see on television, what we see on films. We --
imagine it's just one wave, a gigantic wave, the size of a city coming. And it's just simply not like that.
[13:45:00]
We follow the experiences of a woman who wakes up, and when she goes up out of her hotel room, the first wave has arrived already. And so, there's just
water everywhere. People are confused. And a lot of people don't understand as the water is heading back that that means another wave is coming, and a
lot of people congregate on the beach wondering what's going on when all of those are red flags that they should leave. They should find higher ground
because another wave might come and then another one and another one.
And by taking the audience through that journey so, they see minute by minute how it played out, we hope it's in a way educational for people. And
when they encounter the same thing, they have a much better idea what to do.
SREENIVASAN: Barry, how are we today as a planet compared 20 years ago if right now a tsunami was to be happening because of an earthquake somewhere
far away?
HIRSHORN: Better than we were then. This earthquake sparked a revolution in seismology, a revolution in seismology science, which is also coupled
with a revolution that would have happened anyway. As we all know, in communications, telemetry in sensor technology and computer technology, we
have very, very fast methods based on geodetic and seismic instruments and advances and all the above that use the initially arriving energy and the -
- we can now tell you it's a nine.
We could have said that was event was a nine before it was complete, before the event was over, which would have given the -- even the closest coast
some warning, maybe five or 10 minutes, which is completely unheard of back then. I mean, it's just no comparison.
Now, the other case besides this far field is the much, much more difficult near field problem, where most of the casualties, of course, are. And
there's been tremendous progress there too.
SREENIVASAN: Daniel, you were able to find survivors, first responders in these places. Some of them are so far off where even the people didn't even
know whether they were going to be rescued or not, whether they were going to be stranded. What stood out to you as you listen to their stories, you
looked over their footage?
BOGADO: Yes, well, I think that there's a number of things. What was quite interesting is that, you know, this was a cataclysmic event, which affected
so many people in so many different countries, some people with very, very different backgrounds. And so, it was an opportunity for the series to just
explore the perspectives of all of these different people. Many times speaking in their own language directly to the audience.
And then you start seeing some commonalities, all these people who get so close to the line separating life from death. And, you know, on those last
moments, a lot of people, what they're thinking of the -- you know, they're thinking of their loved ones, right, or all the small trivialities of life
to just fade away. And that's something that you see across countries and across different backgrounds.
But then, the other thing that people saw in the aftermath was the way just that people came together to help each other. And again, that was a
commonality wherever you saw, these were all the stories, in Thailand, in Sri Lanka, and Indonesia. So, there's something about these events that
just really make clear for people what really matters. And also, that just really show that other side of the human condition, this drive that we all
have to want to help one another. And that just becomes very, very clear in situations like the day of the tsunami.
SREENIVASAN: All right. Seismologist Barry Hirshorn and filmmaker, director, and executive producer, Daniel Bogado. The film is called
"Tsunami: Race Against Time." You can watch it streaming now on national geographic or Disney Plus. Thank you both for joining us.
BOGADO: Thank you very much.
HIRSHORN: Thank you. Take care.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And now, to London, where a new exhibition at the Lightroom is taking visitors for a catwalk down memory lane. The new show, called
"VOGUE: Inventing the Runway," looks at a history of fashion, with narration from designers and images from the archive, all in collaboration
with the Fashion Bible.
Back in 2019, Christiane sat down with the magazine's longtime editor Anna Wintour, just ahead of the biggest fashion event of the year, the Met Gala.
Here's some of their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Anna Wintour, welcome to the program.
ANNA WINTOUR, VOGUE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: Look, can I just address the elephant in the room? You are wearing your dark glasses. I'm - I'm not sure that I expect you to wear
them during the interview, but I know that you do --
WINTOUR: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- wear them inside. I just want to know --
WINTOUR: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- because everybody wants to know.
WINTOUR: Well, today I'll be brutally frank because I've been unbelievably ill all week and -- plus, I just had eye surgery. So, those are the real
reasons I'm wearing today; otherwise, I would brave you without them.
[13:50:00]
AMANPOUR: But, they are -- are they an inscrutable protect -- because you wear them in the front row fashion as well.
WINTOUR: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You're right there sitting next to the queen.
WINTOUR: They're incredible useful because you avoid people knowing what you're thinking about. They avoid -- they help me when I'm feeling a bit
tired or sleepy. And I don't know, maybe they've just become a crutch and part of who I am, but today I really did need them.
AMANPOUR: Your magazine, the most important fashion bible in the world, does profile some very, very important women who are in politics. Tell me
about that. I mean, you're overtly political in your profiles and in what you stand for.
WINTOUR: I think one has to be fair. One has to look at all sides. But I don't think it's a moment not to take a stand. I think you can't be
everything to everybody. We profile woman in the magazine that we believe in the stand that they're taking on issues. We support them in the fact
that we feel that they are leaders. That particularly after the defeat of Secretary Clinton in 2016 that we believe that women should have a
leadership position, and that we intend to support them.
AMANPOUR: I was really interested to hear that -- I believe Secretary Clinton, when she was first lady, was the first lady to be on the cover of
Vogue?
WINTOUR: She was.
AMANPOUR: Not even Jacqui Kennedy was on the cover?
WINTOUR: No. She was photographed many times within the magazine with her husband and her children and I think with her sister, iconic pictures, but
I think it was a time when I felt that the first lady at that time had behaved in a very brave way.
AMANPOUR: Was this in surviving the slings and arrows of her husband's accusations and the impeachment --
WINTOUR: Slings and arrows of misfortune, yes. So, I -- we felt it was the time to, you know, to support her and to stand up for women and it was --
we were very honored that she agreed to be our cover at that time. And we were also very honored obviously. I think Mrs. Obama was on the cover three
times while she was in the White House.
AMANPOUR: What does she mean to you? I mean, she's not just an amazing role model.
WINTOUR: I think Mrs. Obama redefined the role of the first lady. I mean she was so open to everybody. She made the White House a place for
everyone. I mean, and she was just so, I think, inspiring to so many women and obviously on a very selfish note speaking as the editor-in-chief of
Vogue, she did wonders for fashion. She loved fashion. And --
AMANPOUR: And high and low, right?
WINTOUR: -- she mixed high and low. She supported designers that one has never heard of. And, you know, we have always had the tradition at Vogue to
photograph first ladies when they first came in to office and some extraordinary wonderful women. And it was an honor to photograph them, but
they were always super cautious about what they wanted to wear and the image that they wanted to present, nearly always a jacket, you know, maybe
some pearls if you are Mrs. Bush. But, with Mrs. Obama, you know, she was fearless. And it was such a joy for all of us that work in fashion.
AMANPOUR: Vogue is sort of the cultural bible, the touchstone. And yet, online is sort of really, obviously, way overtaking print.
WINTOUR: I think we're so fortunate today to have so many different channels in which to speak to our audiences. If you go back to when I was a
young girl growing up in Britain, and I went for my first job, and it was, you know, considered a great thing if we reached an audience of 90,000
people with a monthly magazine. Now, we have, I believe, it's 22 million follows on Instagram alone at Vogue U.S.
So, we are talking to men, women all over the world in a way that we couldn't possibly have imagined even 10 years ago, 15 years ago.
AMANPOUR: Do you think the magazine will last, will stay?
WINTOUR: I do. I do. I feel that there is an engagement with a glossy, rich magazine like Vogue, that that experience, you -- it isn't the same
when you look at something online. I mean, it peaks in a day, it trends in a day, and it's great, the news gets out there, and we're so excited to see
it, but there's something about sitting with a magazine and luxuriating in it that is very special.
AMANPOUR: Anna Wintour, thank you very much indeed.
WINTOUR: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a toast to the end of the week. Why not grab yourself a glass of sake? Well, the famous Japanese rice wine has earned a
spot on UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage list. All down to centuries old brewing techniques. What better way for these delegates to celebrate
than an announcement that, when -- with the very drink itself.
[13:55:00]
Cheers to that, or as the Japanese would say, kanpai. It's a new word I learned today, by the way, from our producer, Harry.
Well, that is it for now. 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. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye to New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
