Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba; Interview with "Mediha" Subject and Co-Cinematographer and Held Captive by ISIS Mediha Ibrahim Alhamad, Interview with "Mediha" Director Hasan Oswald; Interview with U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 16, 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. Diplomacy may end the war
in Ukraine, but at what cost? I ask its former foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba.
Then --
MEDIHA IBRAHIM ALHAMAD, SUBJECT AND CO-CINEMATOGRAPHER, "MEDIHA" AND HELD CAPTIVE BY ISIS: I want to inspire like other girl and then other woman,
like around the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- free after years enslaved by ISIS, Mediha shares her own story of resilience and survival in a new documentary with filmmaker Hasan
Oswald.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: Across America, we're going to see the benefits of this administration bleed over into the next.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- outgoing U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm tells Hari Sreenivasan why she thinks President Biden's climate legacy is safe from
Donald Trump.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. The defense of Ukraine is top of the agenda for European foreign ministers
meeting in Brussels today. Russian forces are reportedly just three kilometers, that's under two miles, from the key Ukrainian City of Pokrovsk
in the east. Meantime, Kyiv says this graphic video shows dead Russian and North Korean soldiers in Russia's Kursk region, where they are still trying
to repel Ukraine's summer incursion.
With a new year ahead and a new American administration too, the urgent question is how to end the war in Ukraine soon. Few know better what those
negotiations would look like and the cost of such a deal than former Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba. And he's joining me now from
Kyiv, the capital. Welcome to the program.
DMYTRO KULEBA, FORMER UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: It's good to be back.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I want to ask you because, first and foremost, what do you think is the outcome or should the outcome be of the European foreign
ministers meeting about your country? What do you think they are in fact discussing right now?
KULEBA: Well, I'm pretty certain they were discussing new sanctions against Russia, but also, the way forward, what Europe has to do against
the background of the changed environment, political environment in the United States. This is the biggest question that has arisen in Europe, what
to do next and how to proceed. And these discussions are taking place at different levels at -- in various capitals.
AMANPOUR: That's right. And even in Europe, there's a little bit of wobbliness, if I could say. I mean, you just saw, you know, the German
political situation has been thrown into some disarray with the new election. And other leaders are saying all sorts of things about
potentially, you know, pulling back aid. But most importantly in the United States.
I want to play for you the answer Donald Trump just gave to a question as to what should Ukraine be prepared to give up in any negotiation. Here's
what Donald Trump, the president-elect, said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: We should be very prepared to make a deal. That's all. There's got to be a deal. Got to be a deal. Too many
people being killed. That is a war. That's all -- too many people -- got to make a deal. And Putin has to make a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, I don't know whether you could hear it. He was off mic, but he said Zelenskyy's got to make a deal, got to make a deal, too many
people being killed and Putin has to make a deal, too. What is your reaction to that at this point?
KULEBA: Well, I didn't hear anything new. I think it's too early to say how President Trump sees the deal that can be feasible. I believe that the
deal is not the question -- it's not a question. The question is fair deal, a deal that will not only introduce a ceasefire that is highly likely to be
broken within the first 24 hours after being introduced, but the deal that will actually end the war and prevent new war from happening. This is the
real task for statement.
[13:05:00]
But what we see around is a word game like a politicians and leaders, they play with words and constructive messages, indicate their readiness to
engage. But the moment they go down to the very substance of the conversation, this will be a very tough moment for all stakeholders.
AMANPOUR: Tough. OK. Tough. Let's take your own country's stake hold. President Zelenskyy met Donald Trump in Paris last week at the opening --
or the re-opening of Notre Dame, and indicated some flexibility, that he would accept a ceasefire with Russia if his country can obtain NATO
membership.
But, you know, that -- anyway, we'll talk about that. But he also said that they would be potentially accept the idea that some land has to be, you
know, transferred or, you know, potentially that Putin would keep some of the land. Donald Trump's sort of envoy for Ukraine, Kellogg, has talked
about that as well, and talked about potentially freezing the conflict and putting peacekeepers in.
Give me some of the -- your reaction to that. What do you think is happening, first and foremost, in your capital? What is Zelenskyy prepared
to do?
KULEBA: Well, Zelenskyy is implementing the only viable strategy, which is to be constructive and engaging with President Trump. And it makes a lot of
sense to take this line. But as I said before, and as you just confirmed with the examples that you brought up, when people -- when leaders are
saying we want peace, that's easy. When you get to defining the terms of this peace and the specific solutions that have to be implemented, it gets
really difficult.
Like, take the NATO issue. We hear different opposite views on that. Take the land issue, no leader of Ukraine can legally concede territory of
Ukraine enshrined in its constitution. So, we cannot speak about any transfer. Diplomats will have to find a Delphic language to describe this
territorial status quo. But it's very difficult to do because both Russia and Ukraine believe that this land is legally theirs. The difference is
that Ukraine does that in a rightful way, and Russia is unrightful in this. But it will be a very challenging exercise.
And most importantly, you know, you can ask hundreds of questions of what Ukraine should do, but the key to peace is in Moscow. And as long as Putin
is not part of negotiations in good faith, everything else -- the importance of anything -- everything else diminishes.
AMANPOUR: So, it appears that Trump is trying to put some pressure on Putin. I mean, I don't know. On the one hand today, he said Ukraine should
never have been given the permission by the U.S. to use their ATACMS and to strike I think -- I don't know 200 kilometers he said inside Russia. On the
other hand, I assume you believe that Russia's relative weakness was demonstrated when it refused, or didn't, or couldn't come to the help of
its client in Syria, Hafez Assad.
I wonder how you are assessing that. What do you think it means? Do you think it means that Russia actually now, particularly with Trump in office,
who says he'll give more weapons to Ukraine if Putin doesn't come to the table, whether you see that as sufficient pressure on Russia?
KULEBA: Well, first, Putin is not as strong as he pretends. And the involvement of North Korean troops his failure in -- his shameful failure
in Syria speak for this fact. Second, this is the worst moment for Ukraine's partners to falter. Because we have to stand united -- we have to
stay united, we have to stay strong and resolved to defeat Putin. The moment Putin feels weakness in Ukraine or in its partners, he will spend
his last resources on hitting the target, and this is not a moment to engage in discussions on weakening support.
Third, and this is the lesson that I think we should all take away from Syria. Putin cannot sustain war effort on multiple fronts. He can fight
only one war at a time. Second, he -- when he has to choose, he chooses the war in Ukraine. And third, if he wins in Ukraine. He will start --
immediately start another war, and that will be the war against E.U. and NATO members. And I'm not -- trust me, I'm not exaggerating but
decisionmakers have to understand the detrimental consequences of their wobbling.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: So, more and more anecdotal evidence or interviews with ordinary people, even people on the frontline who are obviously seriously committed
to what they're doing, your people, they're tired. You know, this has gone on for so long. There's so much killing. Russia is making incremental
advances. We just said it potentially could get close to -- or it is close, very close to Pokrovsk. They're tired.
Again, it's also, as you've seen and we keep reporting, Russia has really sent some very, very, very heavy missile and other strikes on your grid,
your infrastructure, energy, et cetera. Again, how long do you think people can sustain this?
KULEBA: I believe that although Ukraine suffers more than anyone else in this war, and you are right, we are not just tired, we are exhausted. But
we endure more and more hardships for only one reason, because we understand what will be the consequences for us if we withdraw from the
fight. If we lose, it will be the end of our statehood. It will be the end of our identity. And most importantly there will be Buchas, Mariupol, and
all other places where heinous massacres were committed by Russian forces all over Ukraine. This is something that people should not forget what the
Russians were doing in the occupied cities, all the acts of genocide and massacres that they committed. So, this was -- this is what keeps us
fighting.
But don't forget that Russia is also tired. And we started this war with Russia being capable to fight this war on its own. But today, it cannot
uphold the effort. It cannot keep up the fire without the support of its partners, primarily North Korea and Iran.
So, we are in a completely changed environment now. You know, it's conventional to speak about Ukraine not being able to fight without its
partners. But Russia cannot fight without its partners either. So, this is not -- this should not be underestimated. The one who blinks today, loses
the war. So, we have to keep strong and we have to keep fighting.
AMANPOUR: You mentioned Iran. Obviously, analysts say that Iran also has been weakened by the Israeli attacks that have weakened its proxies,
clearly disrupted them, and the fall of its main ally, which is Syria. And you mentioned North Korea. Well, there are North Korean troops in in Kursk
fighting, and Reuters is saying that they have sustained at least 30 soldiers killed in the Kursk region.
I mean, have you been able to -- I mean, the people you talk to there militarily, how much of a help for Russia have the North Koreans been in
Kursk?
KULEBA: Well, I believe that, militarily and politically speaking, it's not about the volume of help, it's about the principle. And I feel really
sad to say this, but the truth of the war is that Ukraine -- Russia has a friend who is sending its troops to die for Russia in its aggressive war,
and Ukraine has friends who are wobbling, as you mentioned, as we already said, or discussing whether to send, which weapons to send, and what will
be the rules of the use of these weapons. This has -- this is very, very weird and unfortunate to observe that.
But what is important is that today, I'm pretty certain Putin is -- has instructed his people, his intelligence and his diplomacy to double down on
sowing divisions and hesitation and fear in among Ukraine's partners, because he knows how weak he is and he needs to push our partners to the
edge to make them falter, and this is what we should not allow.
AMANPOUR: So, I spoke to the former German chancellor, Angela Merkel, a couple of weeks ago. And she was recollecting what she's written in her
book talking about how, for instance, after 2014, around the invasion and annexation of Crimea and in parts of Eastern Ukraine, that she said that he
had basically lied brazenly to her, that there were no Russian troops there. And she kept pushing him on it, and this is what she told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANGELA MERKEL FORMER GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): 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 secure -- and clear and
absolutely reliable guarantees.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: So, basically, she's admitting that Putin lied, that you can't trust his word. You actually have to get clear guarantees to make sure
that, you know, any deal that struck sticks. What is a security guarantee for Ukraine, as you look at it right now, with all these pieces on the
chessboard moving? There have been suggestions, and you know that NATO is speaking with President Zelenskyy this week and European leaders, and
there's a thought that maybe European forces, you know, I don't know whether Trump would agree to U.S. forces, but peacekeepers along the line
of conflict. Is that something that's being raised seriously, entertained seriously?
KULEBA: Well, I'm not a part of internal discussions anymore, but from what I see and understand is that different options are being considered
with only one goal, to find something that will replace NATO membership for Ukraine with something else, which is exactly this -- which is exactly what
constitutes one of the reasons why Putin decided to wage this war in 2014 and then large-scale invasion in 2022.
The moment our western friends and partners, whom I support and appreciate very much, will stop inventing the will for Ukraine, the security will for
Ukraine, and will offer to Ukraine what guarantees their security, which is NATO membership, then we will have strong and streamlined security
architecture in Europe and Euro-Atlantic space as a whole.
Trust me, the conversation on security guarantees will end up with nothing really serious, nothing that Ukraine has not seen or received yet. There
will be some additions, but I just don't see what else can they offer to Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: So, you talked about, you know, what you wish Ukraine's partners would take. You were shuttling and doing so much of this diplomacy
throughout the war, what are your takeaways? You know, can you tell us? I'm asking you to name names, but what do people say when you were trying to
give this message?
KULEBA: Well, the good news is that Ukraine is now widely considered as part of the western family, and it's a huge breakthrough because for
decades we were seen by our own friends in Europe and North America as a bridge or a road or anything, but always something that is lacing in
between Russia and the west. So, now it seems to be fixed. We are -- our comeback to Europe has taken place. This is the good news.
The bad news is that there is one big fundamental outstanding issue, which is NATO membership. And exactly in the same way as Ukraine was proposed
alternatives to future -- to membership in the European Union some years ago, we are now being proposed alternatives to membership in NATO. And the
only reason why this is happening is, of course, because politicians stick to the old Cold War concepts, and they are feeling that they will have to
rebuild bridges with Russia one day. Once this prejudice -- with these prejudices and stereotypes are out, things will get very clear.
AMANPOUR: And in 20 seconds, how do you think this is going to go in the first month of Trump's presidency?
KULEBA: Many statements, a lot of shuttle diplomacy, a lot of agitation in very different places, but I don't see real peace being re-established
soon.
AMANPOUR: Dmytro Kuleba, thank you very much for your frank assessment. Former Ukrainian foreign minister, thanks for joining us.
Now, survival and resilience are instincts embedded, of course, in Ukrainians and most victims of war, like my next guest who had a terrifying
experience in Iraq, Mediha Ibrahim Alhamad was 10 years old when she was kidnapped by ISIS as they swept through and conquered large parts of that
region. She was one of thousands of the Yazidi ethnic minority taken like this, separated from her family, held captive for almost four years.
[13:20:00]
Now, she's telling her story in a new documentary, "Mediha." I've been talking to the film's director, Hasan Oswald, and Mediha herself, about her
recovery and pursuit of justice.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Mediha and Hasan Oswald, welcome to the program.
MEDIHA IBRAHIM ALHAMAD, SUBJECT AND CO-CINEMATOGRAPHER, "MEDIHA" AND HELD CAPTIVE BY ISIS: Thank you.
HASAN OSWALD, DIRECTOR, "MEDIHA": Thank you so much for having us on.
AMANPOUR: Mediha, let me just ask you first, how do you feel as a young Yazidi woman to know that your story is out there and you're able to make
your case to the world?
ALHAMAD: When I saw like a lot of people see my movie, and then support my story and then -- because it's such a powerful story, you know. It's sad
and then it's a happy too. And then, it's great. Yes. It feel like very successful. I think so. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Good. Well, I'm glad to hear you're feeling good because you went through hell and that hell you documented with the help of Hasan. So,
Hasan, tell me, how did you even hear about Mediha?
OSWALD: Yes. So, I had actually heard of the Yazidi story back in 2014, '15, right after the genocide. And my translator on a previous film was
Yazidi. So, after we were done filming, I would, you know, have tea, meals with her and her relatives. And that's where I first learned of, sort of,
the tortured past of the Yazidi people. Because, you know, by their count, this is the 74th genocide committed against them.
And in 2018, I read an article that, you know, it angered me, it frustrated me that there were still 3,000 plus Yazidis in captivity or otherwise
missing. So, I wanted it sort of an alternate creative path into this story, but I knew I needed someone truly special to help carry that
collaboration, and that ended up being Mediha.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you because you just sort of, by the way, brought up something very, very significant, and that is how you did this film. You
did something completely different with Mediha. So, what did you do to re- establish that balance?
OSWALD: Yes, I'm not Yazidi. I'm not from the region. And it was important for me to provide the tools for Mediha to tell her story, to tell her
community's story, rather than just be an outsider who parachutes in and, you know, tells a story how I see fit.
It was, you know -- we had hoped to also instill some semblance -- return some semblance of agency to Mediha after she returned from an unspeakable
five years -- four years with -- in captivity with ISIS. It turned out to be, you know, I had thought, hopefully, that these would -- this home video
type self-filmed Mediha footage would be transitions or some kind of creative vignette or online material, I couldn't have dreamed of how
intuitively she would take to cinematography and just what an incredible storyteller she was. And it ended up being, you know, she filmed 40, 50
percent of the movie. So, she took the reins of the narrative and also the filmmaking from -- sort of, from the start.
AMANPOUR: and that is really remarkable. So, well done, Mediha. Let me play this first clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALHAMAD (through translator): I can't speak easily about my captivity and what I suffered there. My family and community tell me not to talk about
it. To pretend it didn't happen. But there are things I'm not ready to talk about. When I take a shower, I'm afraid to look at myself. Those who didn't
go through this tell us we are lying. They don't believe our stories.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Mediha, you obviously remember that. Tell me as much --
ALHAMAD: Yes, I do.
AMANPOUR: Yes -- as much as you can and you are willing to tell about what happened to you. What did people say to you about what had happened to you?
ALHAMAD: When I was speaking my story for the people, like they don't believe to me. But ISIS did a lot of bad stuff for me and for my like
community, and then for girls, too, and then women, like, rape stuff, you know, and then -- the -- for example, they raped me, and then, they broke
my hand, and then -- that's a lot of stuff. And then, they sold me like four times.
[13:25:00]
OSWALD: And I think also just the stigma within the community surrounding what happened to these women and girls in ISIS captivity. When they return,
that, you know, it's a culturally and religiously ancient and conservative community that it's just not encouraged to speak out. And that is not --
you know, that's not exclusive to the Yazidi community or communities within that region. That is worldwide where this is not encouraged to speak
out. Gender-based violence is an issue that, you know, plagues much of the world.
AMANPOUR: It's interesting to listen to Mediha right now, Hasan, and you jumped in to explain, obviously the societal context, because in the film,
she doesn't say that. She doesn't go that far as admitting. So, do you feel that Mediha, and does Mediha feel that she's getting better, that she's
healing, that she's able to be, you know, more whole, so to speak, after that terrible experience?
OSWALD: Yes. I -- so, I think I -- you know, I've known Mediha five years. We were just reminiscing of, you know, how five years ago, now we're -- you
know, today, five years ago, we were in the camps, and now we're in studio. And I've seen her grow in this incredible way. And I think most of that
growth comes from the beginning stages of a healing process. And of course, this is going to be a lifelong process. But I have seen a change in her,
and I saw the change when we first gave her the camera.
AMANPOUR: So, Mediha, what was it like to be a camera woman, to film a movie?
ALHAMAD: When I first I got a camera, it made me feel so nice and feeling so better. Because I was -- don't have a therapy, don't have a trusted
friend and don't have a, like, best friend. I was speaking in camera. And then, I call the camera, she, like a girl. Like a girl friend. And then --
because she was listening to me. She was like -- I was telling my feeling. And then, it's -- yes, it was great. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Let me play this clip, because it's so great to hear you, you know, talk like this now and to see you smiling and in a different state
that you were in, obviously, when you were there. This is a clip where you're filming and you're feeling really terrible because you hear planes
overhead and you hear the call to prayer and it reminds you of the attacks, it reminds you of ISIS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALHAMAD (through translator): When I hear airplanes, I don't know where to hide. I won't be abel to say what's in my heart, even if I speak until
tomorrow. It's not like I am -- I'm having -- it causes pain here. I can't. I can't speak.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It is really an amazing scene. Do you remember that?
ALHAMAD: Yes. Yes, I do remember that. We were like walking around. And then, it just like, happened, you know. It just like -- it was real. It was
not like fake, as we say, like -- not like a movie stuff, you know, like a show. When I was in with ISIS, and I was listening to sounds like praying.
And then, they was saying to me, you have to pray now. You have to do this. And then, I was -- remember, I was reading Quran. I was kind of reading
Quran because it's not my village, it's not my culture.
I almost don't know like read Quran. And then one ISIS woman she got the stick, and then she -- like broke my hands and then -- with the stick. And
then, like my finger, it's like it seems bad now. That's why.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
ALHAMAD: Like it was Ramadan, too. I was fasting, too. I fasted like whole Ramadan with them. And then, I was 13 years old. And then, I was so like
young, so baby. Yes.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: 13 years old. It is awful what they did to you and to so many people like you, including your brothers.
ALHAMAD: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Hasan, you know, Mediha, when you first met and you first started this process was underage, right? I mean, she wasn't an adult. But
you're very clear about how -- about the agency that she -- talk to me about what you've said to people who've questioned the age thing.
OSWALD: She was 14, 15 at the time. And of course, you know, there is a code of ethics that we followed. But we used that as a baseline. There was
so much more that we put into making sure that, you know, it wasn't just consent, it was continuous consent. It was constantly checking in with
Mediha, keeping her, you know, in the loop as far as the edit, watching scenes, potential distribution, film festivals. We wanted to make sure that
if this was a collaboration, that it was a true collaboration. Because, after all, this is her story.
And then, adding to that, we also -- you know, the do no harm, that was, again, our baseline. We wanted to make sure that we put on guardrails and
we put in protections from day one of production that made sure that Mediha was OK at all stages. So, that was giving her the opportunity to walk away.
That was -- at any point, if she felt uncomfortable, you know, if tomorrow she no longer wanted to continue, we would honor that, of course.
After -- you know, workshop after workshop about all this, she -- Mediha, asked, why do you keep asking me if I want to be in this film, if I want to
share my message? This is my story and you're -- you know, I'm going to share it. So, that's sort of where we ended up.
ALHAMAD: Yes. He told me, are you sure? I say, yes, I'm sure. I want to do this. I want to share that around world. Like, yes. It was my dream. And I
was -- I want to make something for my people so bad. Yes. And then, it's happened. Like, it's crazy. Yes.
AMANPOUR: You have become very American. What is it like, Mediha, living in New York where you are right now?
ALHAMAD: Oh, my God, New York is a very fun place -- a city, sorry. It's very nice. I love it. I enjoy New York so much. Like, take a subway, go to
school, and then soon maybe I'm going to get my GED diploma. It's a surprise. I didn't tell Hasan, but now he knows. But --
OSWALD: I knew.
ALHAMAD: No, you don't know, Hasan. But now, you know. A surprise. It was a surprise.
AMANPOUR: And you guys have built a relationship. I mean, Hasan, you still feel kind of protective over her, right?
OSWALD: Yes, we've built quite a relationship. And it's trust. It has to be mutual trust with this kind of collaboration on a film like this, but
it's been sort of the honor of a lifetime as well to have, you know, someone who's very much become a little sister figure to me on the road.
She's an amazing road warrior with all these festivals and everything. But also, she's just, you know, someone I look to for strength because,
obviously, she's you know, probably the most resilient person on planet Earth.
AMANPOUR: I want to end with this clip, which actually demonstrates how brave you were to speak because you were warned not to or else. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALHAMAD (through translator): I'm always living in fear. My captor told me that if I told anyone what he did to me, he would find me wherever I go. I
wish I could do something to forget what happened to me. I want to talk about my story. And the stories of other girls who have suffered like I
have. Who have suffered like me in ISIS captivity. I'm scared, but I'm trying not to be. It's my dream to speak freely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, that simple desire to speak freely is so important and you can see it happening, unfolding in Syria right now after 50 years of
that dictatorship. And I just wonder --
ALHAMAD: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I wonder whether you feel free now.
[13:35:00]
ALHAMAD: Last night, by the way, I was seeing Syrian video, I cry a lot. It's like I was happy and then I cried a lot too. And then, when I was free
too, like, it was so nice. Yes, I was feeling so great. But it was sad too, because I didn't have my father. Yes. I thought when I go to my -- like
country, you know, like Iraq, and then I going to be free, I thought when I going to go to like hug my father and my mother. But I didn't hug my mother
and father too.
It was sad, but, you know, it's life. We have to just keep going, and then we have to like be strong, I all the time say. And then, why I was want to
share like a girl and a woman's story for the people? Because I want to inspire like other girl and then other woman, like around the world, not
just Yazidi too. We have in Syria, for example, like Gaza, and then Ukraine, and then Lebanon, you know, we have a round world, like, girl,
women, they are not freed. I want to, like, inspire them.
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm sure you've inspired a lot of people who know your story. So, Mediha and Hasan Oswald, thank you both so much indeed.
ALHAMAD: Thank you so much. Thank you.
OSWALD: Thank you so much for having us on.
ALHAMAD: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And "Mediha" is out now. You can also find out about screenings online at www.medihafilm.com.
And now, to the United States, where an incoming Trump administration is vowing to unravel parts of President Biden's climate legacy. But outgoing
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is optimistic about the lasting impact of what they've done to protect the environment. And she joins Hari
Sreenivasan to discuss it now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Secretary Granholm, thanks so much for joining us. At the beginning of the
Biden administration, the president set out some fairly ambitious goals. He wanted to be cutting gas emissions, greenhouse gas emissions in half by
2030, reaching net zero carbon emissions by no later than 2050. Here we are at the end of his term, kind of progress report. Where are we?
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: Yes, we are on track to -- he had another big goal, too, which is to get to 100 percent clean electricity
on our grid by 2035.
So, by 2030, we will have cut just because of the two basic laws that were passed during the Biden administration, the Inflation Reduction Act and the
bipartisan infrastructure law, those two bills will mean that we are on a path to cut by 40 percent our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and we will
be at 80 percent clean electricity by 2030 on our electric grid.
That doesn't account for, of course, what the private sector is doing separate from that, what governments, local and state governments are
doing. So, we're very, very confident and honestly very excited that we have seen so much progress in this brief four years, thanks to the
president's agenda.
SREENIVASAN: So, a lot of times people forget that the impacts from one administration will likely be felt in the next one because it takes time to
get things started and running. So, what are the kind of ripple effects that you see Americans benefiting from in the next couple of years?
GRANHOLM: The Inflation Reduction Act, for example, was only passed two years ago. But since that time, and since the passage of the bipartisan
infrastructure law, we have seen over 900 announcements of factories that are coming to the U.S. or expanding in the U.S. Those announcements, some
of them have been has -- have moved to ground breakings. Some of them have moved to ribbon cuttings where they're actually opening up and hiring
people, but the vast majority of them are still in track. So, we will see.
And this is -- obviously, this happens, this -- the announcements continue to happen and continue to roll out. So, the Trump administration -- under
the Trump administration, they will see a huge number of ribbon cuttings of people being hired because of the laws that were passed. And, you know,
that's good for America. It's good for the planet because those particular investments, 81 percent are going to communities that have below average
weekly wages, and 86 percent are going to communities that have below average college graduation rates. So, across America, we're going to see
the benefits of this administration bleed over into the next.
SREENIVASAN: There's also sometimes a gap between what a policy does or how it's framed versus what people actually see. And we saw this election
was, you know, inflation and the cost of eggs was really the thing that was on top of mind for so many people. And I think one of the questions that
people might have is OK. fine. So, you've got this sort of big ideas, but why is the price of my energy going up, right?
If you look at the stats, I mean, the retail price is up about 20 percent or so over the last four years. And when will we see that turn the corner
and come down?
[13:40:00]
GRANHOLM: We know that demand for energy is increasing and when demand increases and the generation doesn't increase as fast, you have price
increases. So -- and that's going to continue because, first, all of these data centers that are coming online, which will require a huge amount of
energy from our grid. Second, the transportation system is being electrified, and that means more electricity demand from the grid.
Third, all those factories I'm talking about, all that economic activity, is going to cause the demand for electricity to rise. So, this is the
question is how can we keep up with that? So, the good news is that, again, these laws have created a huge amount of incentive for the build out of
clean electricity.
So, this year alone, we will be adding 60 gigawatts, which is effectively 30 Hoover dam's worth of clean power to our electricity grid because of
those incentives. That's more than double what we have ever added to the grid. That trajectory will still go up. Clean power is the cheapest form of
power. You don't have to pay for the fuel of the sun or the wind. And therefore, we get more clean energy, prices will begin to stabilize.
But it is true that the demand will cause upward pressure on pricing. It's one of the reasons why we've asked the hyperscalers who will be building
out these data centers to BYOP, bring your own power. If you're going to build out a big data center, bring the power and bring clean power with it
so that the rest of the world -- the rest of the country doesn't have to pay for your power needs.
SREENIVASAN: I know we have a goal to try to move towards renewable energy. But when -- what -- when will that mix significantly change?
Because right now, even -- we still seem to be in the investment phase, you know, renewable still account for an incredibly small fraction compared to
all the oil and natural gas that the United States uses.
So, as we move into this more energy intense times, and let's say people have more electric cars and they need to plug in, is the primary source of
that energy still going to be fossil fuel driven?
GRANHOLM: Well, fossil fuels will still play a part, clearly. We -- our goal is to get to net zero by 2050. So, we have 26 years to be able to get
there. And at the rate we're going in terms of adding clean power, we will be able to meet that moment. We also have technologies to reduce the carbon
emissions from fossil fuels, and that's part of what the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law have been incentivizing
as well.
But as I said, we're going to get to 80 percent clean electricity on our grid by 2030, and then 100 percent by 2035. That's because, again, of these
incentives. So, we're -- we are moving in this direction, and these laws, which were the biggest and the most -- I don't know the most comprehensive
energy -- clean energy laws in the world, certainly in the U.S. history, but in the world, to cause all of this investment and all of this
generation to come online.
So, people should feel comfortable that we're moving in the right direction. And I don't think we're going to see Congress pull back on them
because of these 950 some odd factories, 80 percent of them are in red districts.
So, once members of Congress see people being hired for future facing jobs like building solar panels or electric vehicles or the batteries for
electric vehicles it's difficult to undo that. It would be political malpractice, frankly, to undo that.
SREENIVASAN: That's probably an accurate assessment given where the money has gone. But we also have a president-elect who has said, in his words, he
wants to terminate the green news scam and rescind all unspent funds from the IRA and redirect energy incentives into, quote, "real infrastructure."
I don't know how much of that is -- you know, what he likes to say on Truth Social or his social platforms and how much of this will translate into
policy.
But how do you ensure that the work that you've been doing for the last three or four years is not overturned by Congress, which seems pretty happy
to go with their candidates?
GRANHOLM: Yes. I mean, I understand the political rhetoric, but the reality on the ground is much more difficult to undo. So, for example, 18
members -- Republican members of Congress have sent a letter to the incoming administration saying, do not undo the incentives in the Inflation
Reduction Act because our districts are seeing so much activity and our people are benefiting from it.
One portion of the of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act included rebates to citizens. It goes through the states. 49
of the 50 states have said, we want these programs and they have gotten their administrative funds and put in their applications to make it happen.
So, it will be difficult to undo those.
[13:45:00]
And we're also making it -- I mean, we're trying to get as much of the funding out the door as possible. The Department of Energy was given 60 new
programs to administer, over a hundred billion dollars. 98 percent of those programs will have had at least one round of funding. Once that funding has
been committed, legally it's very difficult to undo as well. So, both from a legal point of view as well as a political point of view, I think -- as
well as just common sense.
I mean, we've got now industrial policy that is doing a lot of what the Republicans in Congress have been talking about, which is bringing back
supply chains and manufacturing in the United States, making sure we're doing the critical minerals for those batteries that are necessary. All of
this economic activity from soup to nuts upstream, downstream of the economy, it's happening now. And so, undoing that would be really unwise.
SREENIVASAN: You mentioned that there were a lot of different programs that were authorized in the last three or four years through these
different pieces of legislation. And, you know, there has been some concern of whether or not these funds are going out the door too fast and whether
there are enough checks and balances, your own office of inspector general they said in a recent report that there was a -- that you rescinded a
hundred-million-dollar infrastructure investment and jobs act grant award after you found that the grantee was under investigation for exporting
equipment to a Chinese company.
I mean, how do you make sure that as you are sending large sums of money to different places that it isn't going into the wrong hands?
GRANHOLM: Yes. No, this is a great question. We have a really rigorous process that has been set up to make sure that we are not benefiting China,
for example, in any of the grants that are going on. It is set up -- it was set up at the time at the start of the deployment of these funds. This is -
- every -- it's not just the Department of Energy, but every agency inside the federal government has really got a close relationship with their
inspector generals to make sure the processes are in place to ensure that no monies are misspent. And that is what we have done.
There's been no finding of any misspent money. We -- part of the process is to pull back funds if you find out later on that there is a problem. So, no
taxpayer dollars have been spent in a way that benefits our economic adversaries.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there are technologies that we know and understand now, and then one of the things that the Department of Energy has been able
to do through the national labs is invest in research of some things that we don't yet understand. And so, it -- traditionally, government has taken
that risk where the private sector would not. And I wonder how is it -- how do you convince kind of a very market sensitive public and a kind of
politically sensitive public that it is worth making investments in the study and pursuit of technologies of something that might not deliver you a
return this quarter or even this year or this decade, but it's -- that it's still important?
GRANHOLM: Yes, really important. We have had long bipartisan support of our labs. We have 17 national labs that are pursuing the most fundamental
questions of science to ensure that we have the best and most efficient materials to manufacture these products that we are going to be using to
bring down the cost. To do modeling. We have the fastest computers in the world.
It is really a competitiveness issue. We do not want to cede the territory of research and discovery to our competitors across the world. We're really
proud of the fact that we have the best and tools in the world for research and discovery. And it's not just in the energy space, these same tools,
like the Exascale computers, which are the biggest and fastest in the world in the Department of Energy Labs, they're also discovering ways to cure
people of significant illnesses, helping to find the best strategies for reducing -- you know, for COVID, for example, that was part of the --
vaccine discovery was made in the Department of Energy labs because of our tools.
So, both from an economic perspective, competitiveness perspective, as well as to finding the solutions to the deepest problems of our time, really
important. One of the things the labs have been working on are ways to bring down the cost of some of these clean energy technologies. So, we've
launched a series of Earth shots to bring down the costs, for example, of clean hydrogen or offshore floating wind platforms or, you know, enhanced
geothermal technologies. These are all, you know, ways that we are looking at.
So, that maybe down the road, to your point, we're going to see the price drop by 90 percent for these technologies, which in turn will make sure
that we have the power we need to move forward. And the final thing I would say about this is our labs -- one of our labs was the -- it was the first
lab in the world to prove that we can achieve fusion ignition.
[13:50:00]
Fusion is nuclear. When you put -- you know, we shove atoms together and atomic particles together to achieve energy as opposed to fission. When you
split atoms, which is our traditional nuclear power comes from fission, but if we can achieve fusion at scale, that is a huge solve for our clean
energy. It's basically represent -- replicating the sun on Earth in a way that's contained, but produces no atomic, no radioactive waste. It's really
exciting the breakthroughs that are happening in our labs.
SREENIVASAN: The person who's coming into the job right after you, President-Elect Trump has nominated Chris Wright, who's an oil industry CEO
as his nominee for energy secretary. And there's some things that he's said explicitly in the past being kind of a climate change skeptic. He's, you
know, said there is no climate crisis. And I wonder what makes you think that some of these steps that your Department of Energy has taken will not
be rolled back? What's your advice to him just to make it very simple math to continue on this trajectory?
GRANHOLM: Yes. I mean, he comes from the fossil fuel industry. So, he's going to be supportive of drill, baby, drill and what the president has
said on that, and I'm sure that's why he was nominated. But he's also been -- he's played a role in investing in geothermal, which is exciting. He has
sat on the board of a nuclear startup. That's exciting. I've read that he has done some work in solar as well.
So, if the Republican strategy is really -- as many Republicans will say, and all of the above strategy, then that would -- and one would expect that
both the opportunities that have been built around renewable energies as well as what they will continue to do on fossil fuels, both sides may
coexist.
I will say I do have optimism about this. I think that there are certain areas where we do have this bipartisan support, and that tells me that a
lot of the work that the department has been doing and a lot of the support that the department has in the Republican Party. We have a huge -- you
know, we -- the National Nuclear Security Administration is under the Department of Energy. And that means all of the nuclear stockpile occurs
under the DOE's ambit. There's support for that on both sides of the aisle. There's support for our labs on both sides of the aisle. There is support
for a lot of the clean energy technologies on both sides of the aisle.
So, I am optimistic that much of this will remain. And I think that it's true that the support of Congress will have -- will remain bipartisan for
the Department of Energy.
SREENIVASAN: I know the Nuclear Security Administration is under Energy, and the START Treaty between the U.S. and Russia, I mean, that's one of the
last remaining ones, and that's supposed to lapse in February of maybe next year -- or '26. So, what are the consequences if it we're -- if that does
lapse?
GRANHOLM: Well, clearly, we need to have a global nuclear control system, regimen, and it starts with the United States and Russia. Although, of
course, there are other countries who are very much active as well. But if the U.S. and Russia can demonstrate that responsible nuclear caps
validation inspection, can keep our -- that we're confident as countries, as we have been, that our control will keep the world safer, that we have a
mutually -- a mutual interest in making sure that it doesn't get out of control. So, both from just you at a bilateral political point of view, but
also as an example on the multilateral front. I think that everybody wants to see that happen.
And, you know, hopefully, the incoming administration, they have a different relationship with Putin. Hopefully, they'll see the benefit of
renegotiating -- of restarting negotiations on the next new start or whatever the version is that they see as important.
I have some -- you know, I'm hopeful because I think at the end of the Trump administration, last time we -- it was -- the new START agreement was
extended for five years in 2021 by President Biden. But at the end of the Trump administration, there was some discussions beginning to be able to do
something like that. So, I'm hopeful that really rational minds understand the importance of nuclear safety, nuclear security and caps on nuclear
weapons.
SREENIVASAN: Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, thanks so much for joining us.
GRANHOLM: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Ending on that important note of hope and rationality. Finally, tonight, if you're ever in Bend, Oregon and feel like you're being watched,
you wouldn't be wrong.
[13:55:00]
Since August, someone has been sticking these googly eyes onto public art sculptures around the city. Orchestrated by the so-called Googly Eye
Bandit, otherwise lifeless works have been injected with an extra dose of liveliness.
Prank favorites include a six-foot sphere and a deer that looks caught in the headlights while also actually enjoying it. But not everyone is
chuckling at the whimsical ploy. The city government wants it to stop, grumbling that taking off the googly eyes is expensive. There's an awful
lot more that can be said about that, but not now.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Thank you for watching, and
goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
