Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk Interview with Actress and Activist Jane Fonda; Interview With SHINE Collab Director Mela Chiponda; Interview with Task Force on Nuclear Proliferation and U.S. National Security Co-Chair Meghan O'Sullivan; Interview with Task Force on Nuclear Proliferation and U.S. National Security Co-Chair Ernest Moniz. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 02, 2025 - 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.
Ukraine under constant bombardment as Putin tries to break the people's spirit. But are his troops in trouble on the front lines? I'm joined by the
former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
Then, another blow for Afghanistan's women after the Internet was shut down for days. A special report on the exiled girls fighting for freedom through
football.
And the actor and the activist, legendary Hollywood star Jane Fonda joins me, along with human rights defender Mela Chiponda on their new climate
fund, and Fonda's fond memories of Robert Redford.
Plus, the nuclear threat amid changing geopolitical landscapes. The co- chairs of a new task force make another case for stopping the spread of these most deadly weapons.
And finally, a hero for our planet and the natural world. A tribute to the great Jane Goodall.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
It's been a deadly few months for the people of Ukraine under massive aerial attacks since the summer, civilian casualties have reached a three-
year high. Last week, Russia bombed the country continuously for over 12 hours. President Zelenskyy called it vile. Vladimir Putin is trying to
break the nation's spirit, likely because he's not actually winning on the front lines. His soldiers' advances there have slowed by almost half in
September.
Today, President Zelenskyy is in Copenhagen meeting European leaders as they pledge to again boost support for his country's defense.
Here with me now is Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who served twice as Ukraine's prime minister, and he was a leading figure during the pro-Western 2014 Maidan
revolution. Welcome to the program.
ARSENIY YATSENYUK, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF UKRAINE: Such a pleasure, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Are we right? Is there a noticeable slowdown in what Russia is achieving on the front lines?
YATSENYUK: Yes, absolutely. Russia is gaining in incremental gains, but the pace has decreased severely. And, you know --
AMANPOUR: How do you account for that?
YATSENYUK: Let me remind you what's really happening. This war has been going on not for three and a half years. It's been 11 years since
designated war criminal Putin waged the war against Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: When he captured Crimea?
YATSENYUK: Illegally annexed Crimea.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
YATSENYUK: Then he sent his troops to the eastern Ukraine. Then he said to the entire world that it's not his troops without insignia. So, he lied as
always in the bare face. So, everything that is happening in the last 11 years is just astonishing.
Armed to the teeth, Russia didn't manage to take over Ukraine. Russia with the nukes, with 140 million population, didn't manage to take over Ukraine
of 40 million people. So, Russian forces have lost around 1 million in death and injured. Ukrainians --
AMANPOUR: That's just in these last three years of the full-scale invasion.
YATSENYUK: Correct.
AMANPOUR: Or since '22, yes.
YATSENYUK: Ukrainians severely degraded Russian land forces by half. NATO has expanded. And we, as Ukrainians, show our resilience. I've got the
latest polls. And you know what? More than 74 percent of Ukrainians still believe in the military victory of Ukraine over Russia. And we are sitting
under the never-ending shellings, under the barrage of Russian missiles.
So, the thing is that whether we can win, yes, we can, Christiane, but it all depends on the political will of our allies. Because we have guts, we
have strength, I mean, the Ukrainian people. And we have shown it to the entire world. Now, it's time to action.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, at the U.N., at the UNGA, this past week in New York, there seemed to be a shift, certainly from President Trump, who, if you
remember, earlier this year, shortly after his inauguration, hosted President Zelenskyy and essentially told him he had no cards to play and
needed to, you know, sue for peace one way or the other. Now, fast forward, he's saying, with the right help, you can win. And essentially told him he
had no cards to play and needed to, you know, sue for peace one way or the other.
[13:05:00]
Now, fast forward, he's saying, with the right help, you can win, you can even win back Crimea and the other territories. And he seems to be talking
about boosting Ukraine's military potential as well, along with European and other NATO allies. Do you see that as an actual shift? And how do you
account for it? I mean, do you see it's real? Is it more than just words?
YATSENYUK: Look, I really welcome, strongly welcome this kind of verbal U- turn of President Trump. It is important because it's an important sign to everyone that President Trump has realized that designated war criminal
Putin tried to play him. He wasn't just tapping along Trump, he wanted to humiliate President Trump.
Because Trump, in an Anchorage, expected to get some kind of concessions out of Putin. In the end, what he got? He got a next wave of never-ending
shelling of Ukraine. He got a very strong stance against the Western world. He got an incursion of drones into the NATO airspace. He got Russian
fighter jets in Estonia. He got a new wave of cyberattacks against NATO allies. And my gut feeling is that President Trump has realized that
something is wrong with that.
So, this kind of verbal U-turn is strongly welcomed. But you know that matters -- words matter only in one case. If they are supported by actions.
AMANPOUR: Right. So, there are reports that they plan to, you know, restart or boost intelligence sharing with Kyiv to hit oil refineries in
Russia, also weighing deliveries of tomahawks and barracudas, tomahawks or cruise missiles, and other American-made ground and air-launched missiles.
They have a range of up to 500 miles. What do you see as the military posture of Ukraine now? Apparently, it's having a huge effect on Russia's
energy capacity and its installations.
YATSENYUK: Absolutely. Due to Ukrainian attacks, Russians lost around 20 percent of their oil refinery capacities. So, they are facing right now a
deficit of gasoline on their stations. So, this kind of actions that have been undertaken by Ukraine cause severe damage to Russia.
So, if Trump administration decides to make a very bold decision to provide an additional security supplemental for Ukraine, to green-light tomahawks
or another type of long-range missiles, and if the German chancellor, Merz, is to deliver his promise -- he has made this promise on the campaign
trail, saying that he's ready to deliver Taurus missiles to Ukraine, this would be a game-changer. So, we desperately need it.
AMANPOUR: And he's also said, Merz told the FT, that Europe should, in fact, start taking those frozen assets of Russia's and actually help
Ukraine defend itself with them.
YATSENYUK: Absolutely. Look, let me remind you that the European Union, the U.K. and the United States seized around $30 billion of Russian
sovereign assets.
AMANPOUR: 30 or 300?
YATSENYUK: Sorry, $300 billion.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
YATSENYUK: So, the thing is that there are kind of different deliberations over the legality of how to confiscate these assets. Well, with all due
respect, Russia has violated an international law. Russia has committed an act of aggression. Russia is committing crimes against humanity. And there
is only one way to make Russia accountable.
AMANPOUR: You know, it's interesting, because Yuval Noah Harari, the famous public intellectual, and he's been to Ukraine, he's written a lot
about it over the last several years. He's the author of "Sapiens," as you know. He wrote in the FT this weekend, and he essentially said, in 2025,
the weakest link in Ukraine's defenses still lies in the minds of its Western friends. Russian strategy seeks to outflank the Ukrainian position
by attacking the will of the Americans and Europeans.
So, I'm wondering, A, whether you think, you know, that's now, you know, strengthening, stiffening, all the things we've just talked about, and also
what Merz is saying about the funds and all the rest of it, it's basically showing that they don't expect Ukraine to just give up. Do you think that's
-- is that a legitimate analysis?
YATSENYUK: We will never surrender. We will never give up.
AMANPOUR: But do you see that there's a stiffening of resolve?
YATSENYUK: There is a kind of stiffening of resolve, but here is the thing. Putin closely watches and follows only actions.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
YATSENYUK: Not statements, not summits, not different types of coalitions. And that's what we are looking for, strong and bold actions. Because, you
know, if we get this kind of talk shops or hot air released from different high-profile politicians, it doesn't work. So, clear, cut-and-stroke
actions are needed.
[13:10:00]
The first one is new security supplemental from the U.S. Congress. The second one, secondary sanctions, both imposed by the United States and the
European Union. The third one, financial support for Ukraine, because we are -- we've got the budget gap of around $150 billion in the forthcoming
three years. The fourth one is we need urgently to confiscate Russian assets. This is the source how to offset all these losses. And the fifth
one is China and India. So, we need to prosecute the pressure, actually, on China and to get along somehow with India.
AMANPOUR: For their support of Russia, you're talking about?
YATSENYUK: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
YATSENYUK: Because China is an accomplice. China provides a lifeline to Russia. China provides a lifeline to North Korea. North Korea deploys its
troops against Ukraine. So, it's a new kind of axis of evil under the umbrella made in China.
AMANPOUR: Now, interestingly, again, in terms of these shifting sort of sands, we read that, I think, the Russians, Putin, is having to cut the
military expenditure also. They seem to be feeling some financial pain right now.
YATSENYUK: Here is the thing, Christiane. I have slightly different reading. So, he presented a draft budget a few days ago. And if you look
into this budget, so the military expenditures are practically flat. It's just 5 percent decrease. It's nothing. It is nothing.
So, it means that he has shown that he is ready to prosecute the war further. He hasn't changed his ultimate goal. And his ultimate goal is to
take over the entire Ukraine and undermine the European Union and NATO. And look at the other expenditures that he has appropriated for the next year.
So-called information campaign. It's not an information. It is disinformation campaign. So, both of these budgetary expenditures clearly
shows that he hasn't changed his mind.
AMANPOUR: So, maximalist demands still on the table. Analysts in the Western NATO nations have said, at least some, that it will take maybe even
five years for Putin just to take the Donbas, the entire Donbas, at this current rate. So, he is in it for a long, long time. And in the meantime,
Zelenskyy seems to get more support.
He has also told reporters that he plans basically, probably he is ready to step down after the war ends. What does that signal to you? Is that an
important statement to say now in the middle of a war?
YATSENYUK: Look, right now the nation has rallied around the flag. He is the commander-in-chief. And, you know, it is important to support this kind
of institution. So -- and I wish the time will come when President Zelenskyy is to decide whether to run for the second term or to skip. And
you know why? Because it means that Ukraine is to get durable ceasefire, at least, or fair and just peace. We need to win the war and to save the
country. And democracy will always prevail in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: I was going to ask you that as the last question because we introduced you as one of the main, you know, figures during the Maidan. And
that was about democracy and it was about sovereignty and it was about moving towards the West, the E.U. accession. Do you think that will
survive?
YATSENYUK: Absolutely, definitely, we will survive. We will join the E.U., we will join NATO, and we will defend Europe and the free world. Just help
us.
AMANPOUR: Got it, Prime Minister. One more last, very, very quick one. Who do you talk to to get these points across? And are they making headway or
are people getting tired?
YATSENYUK: Look, I am talking to everyone. I am right now on an advocacy mission. France, Sweden, U.K., Washington, Brussels, everywhere. We have to
talk to both politicians and ordinary people. We need to get everyone on board in order to win this fight. This is the war of autocrats and
dictators against the democracy. This is the war against the free world, against our liberties and against our life. We will win this war.
AMANPOUR: All right. Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, thank you so much indeed for joining us.
YATSENYUK: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, stay with CNN, we'll be right back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: In Afghanistan, cell phone and Internet service has been restored days after it was abruptly shut down, causing nationwide chaos and
cutting off an education lifeline for teenage girls and women who are banned from going to school. Afghan women and girls continue to put up a
brave act of resistance whenever they can in the face of brutal oppression by the Taliban, including in the world of sports, as Correspondent Amanda
Davies found out when she met a group of exiled players here in England.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm going to start.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, congratulations to the 23 players.
AMANDA DAVIES, CNN SPORT ANCHOR: 7:00 a.m. on a Friday morning in the northwest of England. A milestone moment after a sleepless night, awake
with nerves.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You should feel so proud.
DAVIES (VOICE-OVER): Susan, Sevin, Elaha, Najma and Zainab, all named as part of the squad for the first FIFA-backed Afghan women's refugee team.
Said to be reunited with fellow Afghan players scattered in exile around the world to represent their country at last.
ELAHA SAFDARI, AFGHAN SOCCER PLAYER: Obviously, just an amazing moment for all of us. I can't wait to share it with my family. They're probably going
to see me from TV, but the thing is, it's how sad it is that I don't have them by my side to celebrate them like other -- my teammates who are going
to share with their family.
DAVIES (VOICE-OVER): In 2021, Elaha was 17 and had earned her first call up for the Afghan women's national team as a goalkeeper. She never got to
play. For her and her teammates, their role as footballers and what that meant in the eyes of the Taliban meant they were forced to flee their homes
and country. Elaha's father was ill, so her parents were unable to travel. She and her brother had to leave without them.
DAVIES: I feel very honored being your passenger after you just passed your test. Am I safe?
SAFDARI: Yes. I feel like you guys should trust in me.
DAVIES (VOICE-OVER): For everything they've lost, there are so many ways this group live in defiance of the rules the Taliban have imposed on women
in Afghanistan. Learning to drive, gaining an education, securing jobs and playing football.
DAVIES: The only thing they've not been able to do is go from playing their football here in Doncaster to representing their country, wearing the
shirt of Afghanistan on the international stage.
NARGES MAYELI, AFGHAN SOCCER PLAYER: FIFA has said that Afghanistan's women national team title should come from Afghanistan Football Federation
which we do not accept, and it is running by Taliban now. And we do not recognize Taliban.
ZAINAB MOZZAFARI, AFGHAN SOCCER PLAYER: We want the people to recognize us as an international women's Afghan. And we are tired of calling -- get
called refugee. We've been called refugee for four years now.
DAVIES (voice-over): Because the Taliban believe women playing sport is against Sharia law and have refused to acknowledge the women's team, their
ability to play internationally has depended on the intervention of world footballs governing body, FIFA.
It has taken until now for them to create the Afghan women's refugee team. Set to take part in a four-team tournament in Dubai in October.
None of this would have been possible without Khalida Popal, the first ever captain of the original Afghan women's side, founded in 2007.
KHALIDA POPAL, FORMER AFGHAN SOCCER CAPTAIN: We have been screaming out loud. We have been knocking every closed door to listen, to get FIFA's
attention, to listen to our voices. And we have really faced silence. For four years, these girls lost their time.
[13:20:00]
DAVIES (VOICE-OVER): FIFA did not respond to our questions about the desire of some of the players to be referred to as the national team. It
did, however, stress in a statement that its financing, facilities and personnel, in what it called a significant and landmark step forward in
giving Afghan players the international platform and recognition to which they aspire.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Amanda Davies shining an important spotlight there. Now, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore recently recalled that the famous Joan Baez
line that the antidote to despair is action and so the antidote to climate despair is climate action. And our next guest embodies that spirit. She's
one of the longest acts in showbiz and one of America's best-known activists. She's now upping her cause to save the planet. We're of course
talking about the legendary Jane Fonda.
We recently sat down in New York joined by a Zimbabwean activist, Mela Chiponda. They're both working on the Jane Fonda Gender and Climate Justice
Fund for Women which raises money for women who often bear the brunt of the climate crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Jane Fonda, Mela Chiponda, welcome to our program. Great to talk to you actually about the climate because we're in New York at UNGA and
President Trump has delivered a broadside against climate calling it I think green energy, a giant con job, a big scam and telling all countries
who implement climate change mitigation that they will fail. Your reaction to that first and foremost?
JANE FONDA, ACTOR AND ACTIVIST: Well, we just have to talk to him. He just needs some education. He doesn't understand. And so, we will talk to him.
AMANPOUR: Will you?
FONDA: I'll try. I've been trying for -- since 2017 to talk to him about it. He just needs some education.
AMANPOUR: So, since 2017, you say, was that the period when you were in every Friday protest, get arrested?
FONDA: No, that was two years later. That was 2019.
AMANPOUR: OK.
FONDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: All right. Are you still doing that?
FONDA: No. Here's why. After years when everybody's part protesting and lobbying and writing and getting arrested and so forth, and we didn't have
still the right legislation commensurate with what science is saying. We weren't getting it. And we realized the reason is that so many people
elected to office in Washington take money from the fossil fuel industry.
And so, we thought, well, if you can't change the people, change the people. So, we started the Jane Fonda climate PAC, and we elect climate
champions all over the country, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, everywhere.
AMANPOUR: Red and blue states, so to speak.
FONDA: Yes, down ballot.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: Because we're building a firewall. We're building a wall to protect. And these down ballot positions really matter to climate. They
have huge decision-making powers that affect climate and pollution in your community. And it's really hard right now to get things done --
AMANPOUR: At the federal level?
FONDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: And that was very serendipitous that we did that because the fact is that now we're facing two existential crises, climate and democracy.
That was very serendipitous that we did that, because the fact is that now we're facing two existential crises climate and democracy.
And we can't have a stable climate unless we have a stable democracy. And you can't have a stable democracy unless you have a stable climate. They're
interrelated, and they have to be solved together.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, Mela. How do you react to that? You have the SHINE Collab, what does that do? And what is your interaction with Jane on
this new effort?
MELA CHIPONDA, DIRECTOR, SHINE COLLAB: The Shine Collab is a collaboration because we are working together with governments, with women-led power
enterprises, and of course, with people like Jane, because the climate crisis is not just one issue. It is connected to gender, to the gender gap.
It is connected to all the other sectors because this crisis is not a single-issue thing that we can say we're just fighting climate only. This
is why it's Shine Collab. We're working on the intersection of gender, of climate and energy as well.
AMANPOUR: And how does your government deal with climate mitigation? You've seen here at the federal level, the president of the United States
has rolled back, you know, very significant climate and EPA and environmental programs and pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords again.
What is your country doing?
[13:25:00]
CHIPONDA: I would say for my country, and I think for a lot of countries in Africa as well, we have 600 million people in Africa living without
access to energy, living without access to electricity. And therefore, it becomes very difficult for us to say, let us close all the coal mines
because we are having people living in extreme energy poverty. And then the argument comes to say, we are not the biggest polluters. Africa only
contributes to less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions.
But our argument still is that fossil fuels driven energy systems are very harmful, not only in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions, but in terms of
the health of our ecosystems and in terms of the health of people.
AMANPOUR: And democracy, and your democracy.
CHIPONDA: And democracy as well, and our democracies as well. So, our governments are not really working on closing down the coal mines, which we
wish they should do. But they're actually working on how do we make sure that people have access to energy services.
AMANPOUR: You know, Jane, President Trump, and frankly, many American administrations, and frankly, the E.U. as well, has not paid sufficient
attention to Africa, and they're always -- you never get the impression that they're actually doing enough. And President Trump has said that
climate science is from stupid people. He's before called Africa certain -- you know, he's used expletives to describe certain nations in the world.
What do you think Africa can tell us, given the fact that they produce 4 percent only of climate pollution and the Caribbean countries, which are
the biggest victims or the low-lying island countries produce almost no pollution? What do you think we should learn and how to harness and work
with continents like Africa, which you're doing?
FONDA: 15 years ago, at the Ford Foundation, we created the Frontline Women's Fund, because we know that it's women that harvest the food, that
plant the seeds, that fetch the water, that chop the wood, that raise the children, that cook the food. They hold -- they're the glue that hold
communities together. And you have to empower them, you have to put resources into their hands, so that they can do it in the best possible
way. Then along comes the climate crisis. I mean, it's been -- it was there all along, but now it's really being felt.
The brunt of the climate crisis is felt by the women, because their job gets so much harder. They can't find water. They can't find wood. And so,
they're the -- 80 percent of them are displaced. It's women mostly who are displaced by climate crises, and they're the last to be rescued. And so, we
realized now that what we have to do is, if we're going to confront the climate crisis successfully, we have to send resources directly to women.
You know, most of the big funding organizations, the big governments, they give it to these, I don't know how you describe it, it's -- it doesn't get
to the grassroots, it's all up here.
AMANPOUR: Where does it go, the funding?
CHIPONDA: I think women's labor is taken for granted.
FONDA: That's right.
CHIPONDA: And this is why when big funders focus on government, I feel they know that women are going to rebuild economies anyway. Women are going
to subsidize through their unpaid care work, provision of water, provision of energy, and any gap that the government is not doing, particularly in
Africa, women are going to do it for free. This is why the climate -- the money intended for climate ends up just up there with governments and not
with the people.
AMANPOUR: Our statistic is that only 2 percent of all funding for climate crisis is given to women-led groups. So, you're --
FONDA: Right. But it's women who really do the work.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: They're the brunt of the climate crisis, and they're also the leads in terms of coming up with solutions. So, today, at the Ford Foundation, 15
years later, after the founding of the Frontline Women -- and the Frontline Women Fund give -- it gives money directly. There's no middlemen, there's
no trickle-down, straight to the women on the ground.
AMANPOUR: Is it a little bit like, you know, the great Muhammad Yunus and microfinance and Grameen Bank? I mean, not exactly, but they found that
whenever they gave a loan, the people who would pay them back in spades was women, always on time.
FONDA: When you give it to the women, then the community benefits. We launched the Jane Fonda Gender and Climate Justice Fund in order to try to
mitigate the climate effects for women on the ground. And to --
AMANPOUR: Including in the United States?
FONDA: This is all Global South.
AMANPOUR: This is all Global South.
[13:00:00]
FONDA: This particular -- the first cohort today, it was Ecuador. Indigenous people in Ecuador. It was Zimbabwe -- no.
CHIPONDA: Nigeria.
FONDA: Nigeria.
CHIPONDA: Senegal.
FONDA: Senegal, and one more.
AMANPOUR: Indonesia.
FONDA: And Indonesia.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I got this. So, look, you know, you have always been an activist. You've always been passionate. Are you -- I mean, how do you feel
about this literal global superstar who's really devoted, I would say, an equal, maybe more amount of her work to activism than just film?
CHIPONDA: This is what we need. We need more Jane Fondas of the world. We need more Frontline Women Defenders. We need such organizations because the
climate crisis is not a crisis that can be done by just women in Africa, women in the global majority. This is a crisis that is global in nature.
And therefore, this is the time for all people who care, for people and the planet to come together and say we have to do something. And this is the
time when we need to acknowledge that the people who are carrying the severe burden of the climate crisis are women who are living on the front
lines of these climate disasters.
AMANPOUR: And the U.N. says when disaster strikes, climate related or not, women and children are 14 times more likely to die than men. I want to
focus a little bit on the democracy part of it that you spoke about. We are right now in a situation in the United States where the very idea of
democracy and free speech every day, and especially this week, has been -- you know, is a major issue. What do you think about what's going on in your
country? Did you sign the Hollywood letter about Jimmy Kimmel bringing him back?
FONDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: That was the ACLU.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: Yes. We're -- you know, all governments and regimes, be they fascistic or democratic, they're held up by pillars of support. The
military, the media, art, et cetera. So, if you organize within the pillars of support, then you begin to affect the regime. And the way -- you know,
one of the things that became very clear with the Kimmel being brought back on air by Disney, don't you think it has to do with the fact that so many
people were canceling their Disney subscription?
We have to find ways to affect the pocketbook. That -- we have to use that. We have to use democratic means to affect what's happening and win our
democracy, and we have to do it fast.
AMANPOUR: What do you think, as an activist and a counterculture member of the '60s, while you were being a great actress as well, you were also right
in the middle of the counterculture. There doesn't seem to be an evolved counterculture in the West anymore. The '60s, whether it was in Paris when
you were living in France, whether it was in the United States, all over, it was somehow people responding to what was happening to threaten their
freedoms. Why --
FONDA: Well, right now, if -- you know, the counterculture, it's not like it was in the '60s, because this is -- the needs are different right now.
But we can't allow the people who are kind of counter to be called domestic terrorists. Greenpeace was just -- they were sued at a trial in North
Dakota. They were sued, and now they have to figure out what to do about it. $660 million, it's called a slap suit. It's using Greenpeace as an
example to silence public protest. We can't allow this to happen. We just have to fight it.
AMANPOUR: Can I take a hard left or right right now?
FONDA: I hope it's left.
AMANPOUR: Robert Redford, a co-star of yours, so close. Tell me about him.
FONDA: Four movies.
AMANPOUR: I had the opportunity and the privilege of interviewing him several times.
FONDA: I made four movies with him. Probably the most gorgeous of men. Oh, I loved him. You know, the first movie that we -- no, the second movie we
did together was "Barefoot in the Park." He had just purchased the Valley in Utah. So, excited, talking about what he was going to do with it and,
you know, and all that. He had a vision. He changed moviemaking. He's made a huge difference. And there's a great hole in my heart, along with a lot
of other men and women.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: He was loved and respected.
AMANPOUR: You said when you posted, I think you couldn't stop crying.
FONDA: Oh, God, the morning I heard, I just cried all morning. I couldn't believe it. He was such a presence. I was always in love with him.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: Did you have a favorite movie that you played with him?
FONDA: Well, I think --
AMANPOUR: What were the four? There's "Barefoot in the Park."
FONDA: There was "The Chase" first.
AMANPOUR: "The Chase."
FONDA: And then "Barefoot in the Park" and then "Electric Horseman" and "Our Souls at Night." And my favorite is "Barefoot in the Park."
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FONDA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you, I don't know how old you are, but you are remarkable.
FONDA: I'm almost 88.
AMANPOUR: OK. That's remarkable. And you are active as anything. How is it getting roles?
FONDA: I haven't worked in two years. I'm scared to death. I shouldn't say this, I know, but I made three movies in one year and then I haven't worked
since then. And I want to work and I need to work. I miss the craft. It's a noble profession that we're in, getting into the skin of another human
being. That's why we tend to be very empathic actors too. You know, you have to get to know the person intimately to become them.
AMANPOUR: Jane Fonda, Mila Chiponda, thank you both very much indeed.
CHIPONDA: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And Jane should still be being cast. So, fiery, so passionate, so talented. Since we spoke, Jane Fonda is taking her activism into another
important realm, protecting free speech from government censorship. She's relaunched the Committee for the First Amendment, the McCarthy-era
initiative that was started by her father, Henry Ford. We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Welcome back. North Korea vowed to never give up its nuclear arsenal at a rare address to the United Nations General Assembly on Monday.
The announcement comes at a politically unstable time with growing international concerns around nuclear proliferation. Amid these threats, a
bipartisan task force has urged the United States to reconsider how it intercepts the expansion of this destructive industry.
Ernest Moniz and Meghan O'Sullivan, co-chairs of this task force, joined Walter Isaacson with their recommendations.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Meghan O'Sullivan and Ernie Moniz. Welcome to the show.
ERNEST MONIZ, CO-CHAIR, TASK FORCE ON NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: Pleasure to be here.
MEGHAN O'SULLIVAN, CO-CHAIR, TASK FORCE ON NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: Nice to be here.
ISAACSON: Meghan, you and Ernie were among the co-chairs of a report that just came out, and I think it's published recently, the Task Force on
Nuclear Proliferation and U.S. National Security. What was the point of that, Meghan?
O'SULLIVAN: The origins of the task force, I'd say, go back even just as far as 1964. And we think about at that time, China detonated a nuclear
weapon. And President Lyndon Johnson brought together a group of foreign policy experts to say, what does the next phase of potential nuclear
proliferation look like? It was called the Gilpatrick Commission, and they came out with a number of recommendations and considerations that were then
implemented and led to 60 years of essentially a period of minimal proliferation of nuclear weapons.
We're now at a period where Ernie and our other co-chair, Tino Cuellar, from the Carnegie Endowment, we assess that we're at a moment where the
potential for greater nuclear proliferation has not been greater in decades. And so, again, we are faced with a very rapidly changing
geopolitical environment, one that we think lends itself to much greater proliferation of nuclear weapons.
[13:40:00]
So, we convened this bipartisan task force in an effort to, again, look at the question, is this a national security priority of the United States to
advance non-proliferation? And if so, are the tools and the architecture that have withstood the test of time for 60 years, are they still well-
suited to today? And that was the reason that we convened that task force, and the results, as you said, were published just last week.
ISAACSON: Ernie, as Meghan said, it was chaired 60 years or so ago by Ros Gilpatrick, who was deputy secretary of state, but it was a Lyndon Johnson
presidential commission. You all were self-organized. Is there a problem that we don't have, you know, the government, the president trying to
figure this out?
MONIZ: Well, Walter, I think clearly -- well, first of all, let me just say that this task force today came to the same high-level conclusion of
the Gilpatrick Commission, namely that nuclear non-proliferation is indeed central to our security and should remain a priority. But this commission
was a non-governmental commission, and one of our recommendations to -- and I'll come back to your question, for example, was about the need to really
rethink extended deterrence, how our allies consider U.S. security guarantees.
There have always been uncertainties, but I would say now, going back to your question, today, some of the directions being taken in the United
States by the administration, for example, they do elevate some of those concerns about reliability of U.S. commitments. So, I would say that that
distinction really did come into play in our considerations.
ISAACSON: So, Meghan, Ernie just talked about extended deterrence, which those of you in the foreign policy business know what it means. But
basically, it means don't get nuclear weapons of your own. Don't worry, we, the U.S., will use our deterrent capability so that you don't particularly
need them. Do you think that's believable these days, Meghan? Is that still a good policy? Why are you all supporting extended deterrence?
O'SULLIVAN: Well, there's two important points here, Walter. The first is, yes, the task force was unequivocal in saying that developing, maintaining
a robust extended deterrence is absolutely essential to a successful continuation of nonproliferation objectives.
Now, we recognize that it is harder today to make that a credible argument to many of our allies. And it's not just at this moment in time, it's
really over the span of, you know, multiple administrations that I think many of our allies are questioning America's commitment and reliability.
Some of this just has to do with -- you know, it goes back to, is America overextended? And I would say, particularly now, there are many allies who
are questioning whether or not the United States will be willing to use the extended deterrent or to provide the extended deterrent.
I think that was one of the reasons why we created the task force is to say, it's a changed geopolitical environment. You have China becoming, you
know, a country that has a very large nuclear arsenal. You have Russia now threatening the use of nuclear weapons. You have Iran, a proliferation
threat like we haven't seen from Iran before, the current military force notwithstanding, and the questions over extended deterrence.
ISAACSON: Ernie, we just heard Meghan say that Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has been throwing around the implication that he could use
nuclear weapons. In a speech that President Trump gave to the military this week, he kind of addressed that. And he was talking about Putin saying --
and President Trump said he had moved two submarines because of it. And he says, we cannot let people throw around that word, the N-word. And by N-
word, he meant nuclear.
Do you think that President Trump is on this page that we really have to keep a deterrence and also keep a non-proliferation policy?
MONIZ: Yes, I do, actually. And in fact, just to elaborate slightly on what Meghan said in this context, part of the extended deterrence is, in
fact, the idea that our allies need to, frankly, strengthen their military postures and then have those postures integrated with our nuclear
deterrent. Strengthening their conventional postures is, of course, very consistent with what the president has been advocating.
[13:45:00]
I would also say that, with regard to Russia specifically, but also, I would say, China, clearly, a lot of the success has been advocating. I
would also say that, with regard to Russia specifically, but also, I would say, China, clearly, a lot of the success in nonproliferation during the
Cold War and beyond the Cold War came from great power relationships, the U.S. and the USSR and then Russia working together despite disagreements on
a shared interest in nonproliferation. That continues today. It's a little bit creaky, shall we say, the great power coordination, but it's something
where we, again, recommend reengaging in that despite the differences with both Russia and China.
Now, President Trump -- one other thing, Walter, I'd just add is that President Trump, long before he was president, going back to the 1980s, in
fact, was speaking out against nuclear weapons. He has spoken many times about trying to decrease their role in our security posture.
And in fact, it was just earlier this year, in May, where Vice President Vance explicitly said that the president, I think, to use his words, hates
proliferation, and I hate proliferation. So, I think there are elements there to build on, and that's exactly what our report tries to address and
to make suggestions.
For example, I'll end by just saying that one of the recommendations is that the three countries, perhaps even expanded to other nuclear weapon
states, at least the five original weapon states, if not more, could, for example, collectively commit to not threaten or use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear weapon states. Well, that would be an incentive for them, in fact, to stay -- non-nuclear.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Well, Putin just did the opposite.
MONIZ: I'm sorry?
ISAACSON: Well, President Putin just did the opposite.
MONIZ: No. So --
ISAACSON: Not nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, Ukraine.
MONIZ: Exactly. And that's one reason why we have said, I have said for sure, that President Putin really crossed a line there and did something
unprecedented. The idea here is it would be great to put that genie back in the bottle. It's not easy, but that kind of negative security assurance
would be, we think, quite effective if we can get there. And I think the president would be interested in going in that direction.
ISAACSON: Meghan, talking about Ukraine, Ukraine had nuclear weapons when it ended up not being part of the Soviet Union anymore, and we convinced
them to give up the nuclear weapons by saying, don't worry, you don't need them, we'll defend you. Boy, that doesn't make me feel very confident that
we can talk other countries into doing that.
O'SULLIVAN: Well, I think there's, as you know, Walter, a very long history there and contested in some ways. But I think the big point that
you're making is a very valid point, that many countries around the world not only look at Ukraine and giving up nuclear weapons that were on their
soil when the Soviet Union dissolved, but they also look at the Libyan example or the Iraq example, and they think, you know, countries that give
up nuclear weapons or don't have nuclear weapons are ones that are subject to aggression. And they look at other countries, the most obvious one being
North Korea, which is the only country in this century to have acquired nuclear weapons, actually, you know, against perhaps all odds, you see, you
know, the leader of North Korea comfortably in place.
And so, I think the lesson that many countries have is that pursuing a nuclear weapon could be in their national security interest. And again, the
purpose of the task force is to ask how we can recalibrate our policy and upgrade our tools and the architecture that the International Community has
to make sure that countries aren't making those kinds of calculations, so that they have, you know, new or more credible incentives to stay non-
nuclear.
So, one of the findings of the task force, which I think is very significant, particular in this political moment, is that, again, a
bipartisan group of foreign policy national security experts all agreed that even the U.S. allies should not be in a position to gain a nuclear
weapon, that that's not in the U.S. interest, that it is in the U.S. interest to convince them not to pursue one.
And the reason why this is so significant is some of your viewers may know that there's an active conversation in Washington about, well, maybe it
would be cheaper and more efficient and easier for the United States if some of our allies had their own nuclear weapon, we wouldn't have to
provide that extended deterrent in the same way.
[13:50:00]
And this group really concluded that's a very risky approach to take. And we need to invest, again, in finding a way to ensure that our allies, that
they do not need to go down this road in order to guarantee their own security.
ISAACSON: Ernie, how could you say with a straight face to the people of South Korea that now that we've allowed North Korea to get a nuclear
weapon, they aren't safer and better off with one?
MONIZ: We think that we need to maintain our alliance, if you like, with South Korea. We continue to provide a nuclear deterrent, but what's really
important is, in an integrated way, improving our conventional capabilities.
As a reminder, and you well know -- you know this quite well, Walter, that the threats to South Korea are not simply from North Korea's nuclear
capabilities, they have artillery lined up, essentially, along the border with South Korea that could pretty much annihilate Seoul. So, it really
comes down to an integrated regional strategy for security, and that's what we would advocate.
ISAACSON: Do you think the Trump administration will want to extend this, what's called the START Treaty, the Strategic Arms Reduction Talk Treaty?
O'SULLIVAN: Yes, I can't speak for the Trump administration, but it would make, to me, and I think -- well, I'll speak for myself at this moment, it
would make to me a lot of sense to take Vladimir Putin up on that. I think there might be other motivations that Vladimir Putin has in extending that
offer. Perhaps he's looking, you know, to try to muddy the water between be tough on Ukraine and nice on nuclear matters, or perhaps he's looking for
limitations on the Golden Dome project that the Trump administration is committed to, but, you know, without commenting on what other elements
might come into that conversation.
I would imagine the Trump administration would find it very much in its interest to have more time to be able to develop a follow-on to the new
START. And this goes back to Ernie's point about how President Trump has been clear that he is not interested in seeing any more nuclear
proliferation around the world.
And so, this is -- you know, this would be something that we should recognize as a positive step, although not mistake it for any kind of, you
know, warming of our relationship with Moscow.
MONIZ: Walter, can I just add that I think the -- it's easy to, you know, be somewhat cynical about the offer. For one thing, the Russian economy is
in no position to greatly expand its nuclear arsenal. Frankly, neither are we in a position to expand our nuclear arsenal right now, given some of the
challenges in terms of so-called modernizing the arsenal.
Nevertheless, completely agree with Meghan that having those guardrails at least extended is a very, very good signal and one that has to be
capitalized on by having other discussions start. Despite the Ukraine situation, we can have other discussions. And by the way, new START, of
course it puts these quantitative limits on, which is what Putin offered to extend. But there are other elements as well in terms of inspections, very,
very tricky in this current environment, in terms of data exchange, which could be still possible, certainly alerts in terms of missile tests.
So, I think the issue is, I very much hope the president will accept the offer, but accept it with the statement, and let's keep talking and get
some other things in place.
ISAACSON: Megan O'Sullivan, Ernie Moniz, thank you both for joining us.
MONIZ: Thank you, Walter.
O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, interesting. And finally, we remember the life of the conservationist and primatologist who bridged the gap between humans and
the animal kingdom. Jane Goodall died this week, age 91, leaving behind a towering legacy of understanding of our closest primate cousins. Her
research at the Gombe National Park in Tanzania led to a groundbreaking discovery, proving that contrary to all scientific assumptions, chimpanzees
were capable of making and using tools just like humans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You are not a scientist, and you come back with this revelation. I mean, how did you stick to your guns? Did people say, excuse me, who are
you?
JANE GOODALL, BRITISH PRIMATOLOGIST: The scientists did. You know, fortunately, I'd loved animals all my life, had an amazing supportive
mother, and I had a great teacher when I was a child who taught me absolutely, these professors at Cambridge may be very knowledgeable and
learned as an erudite, but this teacher taught me that when it comes to animal personality, mind, and emotion, they're wrong, and that was my dog.
[13:55:00]
You can't have a dog, a cat, a bird, a horse, I don't care what, and not know that, of course, we're not the only beings with personality, mind, and
emotion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And she's right, of course. Her love and knowledge of the animal kingdom helped us all transcend the too often vicious human world we
inhabit. As an advocate for our natural world, she will be sorely missed.
And 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 for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
