Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna; Interview with U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher; Interview with Centre for Liberal Strategies Chairman Ivan Krastev. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 23, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARGUS TSAHKNA, ESTONIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Putin is playing with our fears. What we see is, of course, more attacks, terror attacks, this kind
of hybrid attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: NATO on alert amid fears Putin is planning to test his resolve. I'll ask Estonia's foreign minister how they plan to protect their border.
And wars, inequality, humanitarian catastrophes all on the rise. I speak to the man tasked with delivering lifesaving aid to those in need, the U.N.
relief chief, Tom Fletcher.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IVAN KRASTEV, CHAIRMAN, CENTRE FOR LIBERAL STRATEGIES: This type of not understanding what was moving people in one direction and the other and
reducing history to the lessons of history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- from never again to a surging far-right. Is Germany increasingly detached from its painful past?
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour at the United Nations.
The fault lines in our world are widening. Cracks have become canyons. Those are the words of the departing U.N. secretary-general, Antonio
Guterres, to the leaders who are filling the corridors behind me as they attempt to face up to the world's many challenges, including the
increasingly dire threat posed by Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Fears have been mounting that he intends to push further into Europe to test NATO's unity and to foment chaos and fear amongst populations, from
Poland's Donald Tusk saying, we all have difficult weeks and months ahead of us, to France, where Macron holds an emergency meeting. Europe has been
on edge now for over a week. Kyiv itself came under heavy Russian bombardment yet again today, just as President Zelenskyy was addressing the
United Nations General Assembly here.
But today, the U.S. decided to invite Putin in from the cold. Here's U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaking earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: So, we've invited President Putin to the G20. We think it's an opportunity for him to engage not just with the
president, but with other world leaders. We hope that's an invitation he'll accept, that there's an opportunity in December if that happens. If there's
another opportunity for them to meet and there's a purpose behind the meeting, that would be good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, the countries most at risk from Putin's posturing are the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which border Russia and have
all long warned of the threat from Putin and his war on Ukraine. Is an attack imminent or is all of this conversation overblown? How do Western
leaders navigate this dangerous moment? I asked Estonia's foreign minister, Margus Tsahkna, when he joined me here earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Foreign minister, welcome to the program.
MARGUS TSAHKNA, ESTONIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you for receiving me.
AMANPOUR: There is a lot of talk in the air about imminent war in Europe. We've had some intelligence people quoted in the U.K. say it could be
months, not years that Russia tries something. And a lot of it is centering around Estonia or the Baltics, which are the front-line states. How do you
analyze this dangerous threat right now?
TSAHKNA: Yes, of course. Russia is very dangerous and we do hope that the war will be finished soon in good ways. And the end of war is always
dangerous because Putin is not doing well.
But we are living on the border. We have been living here a long, long time. We see a very deep direction and our intelligence is following
carefully what is going on. And we don't see any movements on the military level, troops, relocation or additional troops on the other side of the
borders. So, my message is let's cool down. Putin is playing with our fears.
What we see is, of course, more attacks, terror attacks, this kind of hybrid attacks. And Putin is targeting not Baltic states because we are
immune. Putin is not able to divide our societies. And we have no fear of Russia because we know exactly what to do. But he's playing with our unity
in the western part of democracies, waging the attacks. New Germany, the Leipzig and many other things.
[13:05:00]
So, he's trying to divide us. He's trying to put us in a fear of escalation. So --
AMANPOUR: But to be fair, it was Lithuania that experienced an incursion of drone into the airspace that NATO jets took down not long ago.
TSAHKNA: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: So, you're not immune.
TSAHKNA: No, we are immune as a society. There's no panic. Putin wants to create panic. So, drones, OK. We have another different attacks, sabotage
attacks in the region. So -- but this is a new normality. We need to respond. We need to attribute.
But there are two different things. One is full-scale military invasion or end of war, as you said as well. No war is coming. Not now. Maybe in the
future. If we're going to have a bad peace in Ukraine and just Putin have an opportunity to continue the aggression in Europe. But now there are
tests. So, we need to be strong, calm. Please listen up.
AMANPOUR: That is actually the point. So, you admit that he's testing. Can you just tell me, you see no movements? What about the Neva River? There
was some talk, certainly by the FSB, that they're doing a control. They're not letting anybody there.
TSAHKNA: Yes, they were constructing some 200 meters, the coastline. So, it's a normal thing. We do the same.
AMANPOUR: OK. It's not a --
TSAHKNA: So, these green men, they are always the other side of the border.
AMANPOUR: The green men?
TSAHKNA: Whatever. Green men, not green men.
AMANPOUR: Just again, to be fair, everybody was saying similar things before the invasion of Ukraine. I mean, I'm not trying to sow panic, but
you remember there was, oh, not much movement on the border until there was movement.
TSAHKNA: It was total difference. Lots of troops the other side of the Ukraine border ready. Just giving you an example, I was defense minister
2016-'17. We saw the other side of our border in Russia. 120,000 troops ready to move within 48 hours.
AMANPOUR: All right. And that's not what you're saying.
TSAHKNA: And we had no NATO troops. We had no Finland, Sweden in NATO. We had no new defense plans for NATO. If Russia is coming, we hit into the
heart of Russia and everybody lived in a peace life. There is emptiness behind it. So, this is a total difference.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you feel secure about that. You just mentioned NATO troops. You know, there's been a sort of a rotation. Trump has pulled
troops out. Then there's some troops going back in big picture. Do you have enough U.S. and other NATO troops per the, you know, previous agreements,
per the threat level since the invasion of Ukraine in Estonia and in the Baltics?
TSAHKNA: If you compare years back and now, it's a totally different picture. And the Baltic Sea is an internal lake for NATO. So, Finland,
Sweden, also a permanent location of different nations troops to the Baltic States and Poland. So, U.S. is not like the combat part of these plans,
what we have. But the U.S. troops and flag is so important.
And they reviewed the location of troops in the eastern flank. And we just got, as well, the confirmation from U.S. side that pretty soon we have a
new rotation coming in to Estonia and I think to a full-scale of the eastern flank. So, it's so important, the strategic measures to Putin,
mainly these times when he's testing the NATO.
AMANPOUR: Do you get the impression, because, you know, there's a lot of talk that comes from the United States, as you know, I don't know about
Article 5. I don't know about defending. We're going to pull troops out. Pentagon says one thing. The rest of the administration says something
else. Do you have a straight idea of what the defensive posture is, your security posture vis-a-vis NATO, including the United States?
TSAHKNA: Yes, we do now. But of course, this kind of strategic messages which are not supporting the unity and long lasting understanding the
strategic location of U.S. troops and the tensions between Europe and U.S., they are not actually gaining this kind of clear picture and communication
behind these red lines we need to keep.
This is dangerous in the meaning that Putin may do this miscalculation he did in Ukraine. But now, it's clear that the U.S. is there. And also, I
have no doubt about Article 5. Trump has been very clear about that. And the last summit in Turkey assured that as well.
AMANPOUR: OK, good. Now, you're giving us a sort of calm down advice.
TSAHKNA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But the Polish prime minister is doing slightly the opposite. The French president convened all their services and, you know,
intelligence and defense and the rest to try to talk about an imminent threat, or would there be an imminent? Do you -- are you all on the same
page?
TSAHKNA: We live there. But my message, calm down, is not the message, let's not do nothing. We need to prepare. This war will be finished. And --
AMANPOUR: Why do you say that? There's no inkling, no inclination.
TSAHKNA: One day. And it is so important how it will be finished. What kind of European security architecture we see, what kind of security
guarantees from our side to Ukraine, but the other side as well from Ukraine to us will be there.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
[13:10:00]
TSAHKNA: This is so important. So, that's why we need to increase defense spending, invest heavily to fulfill the caps for the plans, what we have.
So, I'm not telling that calm down, do nothing, but don't panic, because we don't see it coming right now.
AMANPOUR: We don't see any negotiation that's going anywhere. On the one hand, President Trump is constantly saying it's going to happen. Even
President Zelenskyy said that we're talking and I'm here and we're talking, but there's no there-there. There's no like meat on the piece or the
negotiating bones. Meanwhile, President Putin and his team are constantly saying -- well, the latest was negotiations of peace discussions are on
hold for the moment.
TSAHKNA: We have had more than a year talks, but Putin just used this opportunity to win time and put more pressure on.
AMANPOUR: Right.
TSAHKNA: I was in Ukraine just a week ago. And the reality is there is no --
AMANPOUR: Was that when they sent drones in onto that?
TSAHKNA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, you were there. So, you know how dangerous it is.
TSAHKNA: I had to -- but President Zelenskyy came back from Canada. And so, had a meeting in the morning. So, I missed the train.
AMANPOUR: You missed it.
TSAHKNA: But the case is that this winter will be hard. There is no signs that Putin would like to have any kind of meaningful talks. So, we need to
put more pressure on Russia, support Ukraine. Estonia is organizing the Ukraine recovery conference the end of this next January. It's the hardest
and darkest time of this war, I think.
So, now, we collect different frames and this political will to have real deliveries, not just the conference. So, we need to focus on what
Ukrainians are asking now, anti-ballistic capabilities in Westminster (ph).
AMANPOUR: Where are they? I mean, where are they? We've been talking about this for a long, long time. And to be fair, you and all your partners have
been saying we have to put more pressure on Putin and the pressure gets ratcheted up and still nothing from Putin. But -- and the worst is now that
there are apparently a dearth, a lack of these inter -- you're talking about defensive missiles, right?
TSAHKNA: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: The Patriots and all the rest of it. They're running out.
TSAHKNA: It's critical. It's critical. And we need to find somewhere. We have some stocks in the world. Money is not the problem for Europe, I
think. But the case is that as well, Ukraine needs support financially to increase the capabilities for the deep strikes to Russia.
It's really hitting Russia. Putin is not so secure. And after these so- called elections, of course, we're expecting what he's doing about mobilization. He's losing close to 40,000 men per month. So --
AMANPOUR: Do you fear that -- well, do you think that there will be a mobilization?
TSAHKNA: He needs to have manpower.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
TSAHKNA: Maybe not full-scale because it increased tensions in Russian society. But what we see around Putin is more concerns. Nobody around
Putin, and we see very close to the Kremlin from Estonia is talking about victory anymore.
AMANPOUR: Really?
TSAHKNA: So, this is a good sign. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Really? So, what are they talking about? And who is he listening to?
TSAHKNA: They're talking about how to survive. You know, nobody left for retirement from Kremlin except the Russian (ph). So, this is about how to
survive. So, we need to have this strategic patience, support Ukraine, put more pressure on Russia. And maybe there will be a momentum when Putin is
starting to have meaningful conversations with us and Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Going back to the whole issue of NATO, the United States having your back. This week, Belarus, Russia's closest military ally, conducted
some large-scale exercises in the Suwalki Gap, which is that famous gap that might be an issue. Brett McGurk, a former adviser to many
administrations and national security, said, ask yourself whether Trump would go to war with Russia over a patch of land called the Suwalki Gap, if
I'm saying it correctly. Would Americans be ready for such a thing? The question answers itself. And that alone undermines deterrence. Is -- so,
what's your view on deterrence?
TSAHKNA: Deterrence is real. So, in Estonia, we see that that we are going to fight anyways, as Ukrainians did. The same thing, I think, happens with
Poland, all the other Baltic states, Finland, whoever, the Baltic Baltics. So, it's not the question about diplomatic talks waiting another two, three
weeks. So, for us, from the border to the sea, it's 200 kilometers. So -- and then I'm sure that NATO will follow. I'm --
AMANPOUR: And so, you're basically laying down the gauntlet. You're just saying, we will fight if we --
TSAHKNA: Yes, we'll fight. We are not taking any risks. We were there in 1940. No way anymore.
AMANPOUR: Are your people prepared for this? Are you preparing your people?
TSAHKNA: If you ask Estonian people two questions and we do it constantly, one is, should we fight back in the first second? They say 94 percent, yes.
And then are you personally participating? This is 74 percent. It's the same level as in Finland. It's the highest in Europe. We are all committed.
So -- and it will happen.
But this deterrence works if Putin reads us all, right, in the meaning of having these red lines back up with power.
AMANPOUR: At the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, you told the Kyiv independent that sometimes you like what you described as
President Trump's brutal communication towards Europe. What did you mean by that?
[13:15:00]
TSAHKNA: I mean, that Europe has been decades as a lazy, fat old cat, not investing to its own defense. I'm honest.
AMANPOUR: Can I just call you lazy, fat old cat?
TSAHKNA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I will communicate that to the E.U. president --
TSAHKNA: Yes. I've said it before.
AMANPOUR: -- when I see you tomorrow.
TSAHKNA: But the case is now -- it was not unfortunately Putin who woke up Europe. It was mainly President Trump who said that this relation is not
unconditional anymore. We have said years as Eastern countries, we in Europe need to invest more heavily to defense. And now, this brutal
pressure on Europe, it is working and not all doing, of course. But I think that Germany changed the dynamics a lot last year. So, this is something I
think that Trump shaped the ground. And it's a positive, you know, view what we see.
AMANPOUR: Just a quick question. You just mentioned Germany, and it could happen in Poland. It could happen in Spain. It could happen in France,
basically, right-wing populists who do not support necessarily this war. And actually, some of them are quite close, including the AfD, to Russia
and want to bring Russia back into the equation.
Does that potentially change your political calculus in terms of what might Europe's posture be if these parties become leaders of these countries?
TSAHKNA: Yes, these dynamics are concerning, of course. And that's why I think it was so good that the German government attributed this Russian
attack to this Leipzig airport publicly. And all the Germans and all the other people in Europe should understand that Russia is already attacking
Europe, not attacking the Baltic states or Poland, but all Europe. So, we need to talk about it. And of course, populistic times are everywhere in
the world. And it's concerning, of course.
AMANPOUR: And do you think when you're in here and you're talking to your, you know, partners and things like that, that actually stuff happens at the
U.N.? Is it still the convening power, the talking shop, the diplomatic center?
TSAHKNA: The Security Council is out of order. One or the other member state can veto. So, this is really concerning. But this General Assembly,
this is an opportunity to talk to global partners to explain what is really going on. So, this is a framework.
But of course, we need to deal with that as a coalition of the Willings or NATO or E.U. or this kind of similar countries, understanding that this
rule of law, what's all the world order is based on this, not only by Russia only. We have different conflicts globally.
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
TSAHKNA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: It may feel like the suffering and the atrocities in Gaza have faded from view. But here at the United Nations General Assembly, the
plight of Palestinians has been raised by France, Canada, the U.K. and Jordan, amongst others. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, called the
world's inaction there shameful, saying, what credibility do we have if we continue to remain inactive in the face of Gaza?
[13:20:00]
And from Yemen to Afghanistan, the world's most needy are increasingly going without. With countries increasingly looking inwards and
international law being flouted again and again, my next guest has no easy job. Tom Fletcher is the United Nations Humanitarian Relief and Aid Chief,
and he is joining me now on this important week. So, welcome back to the program. We always like to take stock from you about the humanitarian
situation.
President Trump gave an address to the U.N. yesterday in which he touted the might of the United States, in which it really was sort of presented as
a world where the strongest survive. He also said he was responsible for ending eight wars. But what does that mean to you when you listen to that
and you see that so much money is going into war and less and less into humanitarian affairs?
TOM FLETCHER, U.N. UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS: Well, the United Nations was created because we've seen the risk of a world run
by strong men and autocrats. So, it won't surprise you to know that we're much more for finding ways to work together about the challenges that we
face out there, including with our American partners. And I've just come from a meeting with the Board of Peace where we were doing exactly that on
the situation in Gaza.
But my worry right now is that the world economy is on a war footing. We're creating weapons that are spiraling out of human control. Artificial
intelligence is getting out of our control. The climate is getting out of our control, as we're seeing on our screens. And Nepal was a reminder of
that.
So, we need to -- we don't have time to mess around. Of course, everyone has their domestic politics, but this has got to be a week where we're
actually looking at genuine outcomes that reverse some of those dangers that face humanity right now.
AMANPOUR: Let me just ask you then a couple of those things you just raised. The Board of Peace. I introduced you with the dire situation in
Gaza. What did you hear from the Board of Peace about actually meeting the material needs of the people of Gaza? Because despite more than a year or
so of a ceasefire, the humanitarian needs are nowhere near being met.
FLETCHER: Absolutely. The situation in Gaza continues to be completely bleak for Palestinians living there. And look, in the last year, we've been
able to scale up, particularly food. That's been the biggest improvement from when we would have spoken here outside the United Nations a year ago.
So, there are some improvements there.
But all of us, the United Nations, the Palestinian leadership, the Board of Peace, we're all frustrated that we haven't gone further. Winter is going
to be absolutely grim for people in Gaza right now. We need to get 90,000 family tents in. In the next week or two, we need to start clearing the
rubble. We need to be allowed to bring in engine oil so that we can run our rubble clearers, for example.
AMANPOUR: And the obstacle to all of this?
FLETCHER: Well, the obstacle is that the process is not moving fast enough through the phases.
AMANPOUR: Why not?
FLETCHER: Well, we should be allowed to work anywhere we want in the world without any impediment. And we're still in this frustrating situation that
we can't bring in everything we need to bring in.
AMANPOUR: But who's saying that you can't? Why can't you?
FLETCHER: Well, Israel is the occupying partner. It's still blocking a lot of the material we need to get in and the partners we need to work with,
including the NGOs and the whole United Nations family. But there is improvement. 33,000 kids went back to school at the start of this week.
We're feeding half a million people every week.
But the test of what we do in Gaza cannot just be that we do enough to keep this out of the headlines. It's got to be dignity, security, opportunity
for the Palestinians there.
AMANPOUR: And just quickly on Gaza, because obviously a final resolution, a peace agreement, not just a ceasefire or a little bit better
humanitarian, is going to be the test, right? Is there anything there, any progress that you can see in terms of the international stabilization force
or actual security forces there or Hamas disarming or all the conditions that are required?
FLETCHER: We do have a ceasefire. And as a result, the situation is better than it was before that ceasefire and before President Trump's 20-point
plan. You know, after the G.A. last year, we went to Sharm el-Sheikh. I went straight from there. If you told me I'd be in Gaza reopening bakeries
in November last year, I would never have believed you, even though we hoped we'd get there. So, those things have improved.
But still, 1,400 people in Gaza have been killed since the ceasefire. So, it's not good enough. And we've got to do better collectively. And everyone
agrees on that.
AMANPOUR: So, because we have all been observing that the United Nations itself is in somewhat of a, other people say, somewhat of decline, unable
to use the bully pulpit, unable to convene all the constituent states that are needed to do all this. What is the Board of Peace doing for you? Is it
more than a talking shop? What does it do? What's its executive reality?
FLETCHER: Well, on the first point, we're not in decline as United Nations. The Security Council may be paralyzed, but my colleagues are out
there right now hitting the checkpoints, many of them getting killed for what we do. That's not decline. We are saving lives. We reached over 34
million people this year with lifesaving support. And, you know, we're not retreating from that work. But yes, the Security Council has been
paralyzed, hasn't it, for a long time now.
On the Board of Peace, you know, I was at the presentation today and they've got big plans, including for reconstruction.
[13:25:00]
And, you know, with Palestinian leadership for those plans, what's called the NCAC, the technical committee led by Dr. Ali Schaaf (ph). And it's,
there's a vision there. There is energy there and there is funding coming in, we hear, for that work. And we want that to succeed.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FLETCHER: We have a Security Council resolution that mandates us to work with the Board of Peace and to try and see that progress. But in the
meantime, we can't wait for the politics. You know, 30 years ago, I started working on Israel-Palestine as a young British diplomat. And a wise person,
a wise old diplomat said to me, you've got to remember on this thing, peace is always possible, but there's always an election that prevents it.
And of course, we're heading towards elections October 27th. And we're being told there's nothing possible until after those elections. We can't
wait.
AMANPOUR: So, let's think, that's another month of suffering for the people all over that region.
FLETCHER: Yes. And winter conditions will get much worse in that time.
AMANPOUR: Now, you have put out an appeal, you said in March, you made a $23 billion appeal aiming to help 87 million lives. You've held an event
around all that. What is the upshot?
FLETCHER: We're making progress. We are raising money. I mean, this is -- what I'm trying to do here, because we talk about the world being dangerous
and bleak, and it's all impossible and overwhelming. And I think people feel it's all somehow out of control. We're trying to do something
extraordinary in the middle of that.
87 million lives is more people than died in the Second World War. And we're setting out to save that number of lives this year. And as I say,
we've reached almost half of that number already. And these are in places like Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Burkina Faso, globally.
And the world is responding. The money is coming in, and it's coming in behind a prioritized strategic plan.
We've done the efficiency work to take out the duplication, to take out anything that gets between the taxpayer and saving lives. But my goodness,
we've got to work harder to raise that money now. As you know, we're almost three-quarters of the way through the year, and we're not yet on track.
AMANPOUR: But would you say that's a bit of good news?
FLETCHER: It's absolutely good news that we've reached 34 million people with life-saving support. It's absolutely terrible news that there are over
200 million people that we haven't reached yet this year. And the space on the map -- this really worries me, Christiane -- that the space on the map
that somehow the world is not reaching is getting larger.
And often people say, what happens without the United Nations? What happens without international humanitarian law? For many of those people we serve,
that's their reality already. Look at drone warfare.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about international humanitarian law and just international law? CNN did some exclusive reporting a few months ago about
the killing of all those children and school workers in Minab, Iran, by the United States at the opening day of the war.
And it was said that, according to the reporting, U.S. military commanders essentially ignored or failed to pay attention to the outdated targeting
and outdated maps and things like that. This is all part of what contributes to the so-called collateral damage, increasing the humanitarian
disasters all over the world. And the Iranian president talked about it today.
What is there to keep these countries that are going to war for whatever reason, you know, from just sticking to the right targets?
FLETCHER: So, international law is the scaffolding we have to stop humans doing terrible things to each other. It's why it was invented. It's why it
was developed. It's why it's so fundamental to how we live together in the world. And this is not a popular thing. And lots of people will watch this
and get very cross. But it applies to absolutely everyone, everywhere. There aren't countries that can somehow opt out of international
humanitarian law. It's bigger than us, and it's bigger than any one country.
AMANPOUR: Are you concerned about the United States saying that they want to dismantle the ICC? Again, it's about international law. It's about
holding, you know, individuals responsible for terrible crimes. Is that a problem that will make your life and your sector more difficult?
FLETCHER: Anything that dismantles international law, that challenges accountability, is a problem for our work. Because when you dismantle those
protections, then it's my colleagues on the front line that get killed. And we've lost over 1,000 colleagues in three years. And I have to call their
families. And the first thing they say to me is, will there be justice? Will the people who killed my husband, my wife, my father, my son, my
daughter be held to account? Will there be an investigation?
And I'm afraid that I can't think of how many investigations that have really happened into these breaches of international law. So, we need the
lawyers, and we need to hold to account the people who fire the weapon, the people who give the order, and actually the people who provide the weapon,
sell the weapon. And maybe, particularly as A.I. comes more into these weapon systems, the people who design the weapon, too.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, because you mentioned in the first answer A.I. is one of the challenges and maybe an opportunity. A lot of climate
activists, and we're about to get the brunt of El Nino, we've had a pretty bad climate disaster year, that A.I. has suddenly become the thing that all
these nations, even leaders, are talking about.
[13:30:00]
And the climate activists are worried that the existing existential threat of climate is being pushed to the back burner. And that, of course, I ask
you in relation to food scarcity and all of that sort of poverty around the world. Is that something you're talking about trying to balance? How do you
deal with these two potentially existential threats?
FLETCHER: We have to do both. Of course, we can't ignore the climate crisis and we can't ignore the A.I. crisis. I worry that A.I. will be even
less humanitarian than humans are. So, it's great that we've got that fresh focus on it.
You know, I was in Kherson recently in Ukraine, seeing those A.I.-powered drones, and a chilling fact there is that as they reach the end of their
battery life, they're more likely to hit civilian targets because they feel that pressure on them to deliver. But let's -- I was also in Gilgit-
Baltistan recently in the high mountains. We cannot neglect the climate. We cannot lose time on the climate crisis.
AMANPOUR: Like what happened in Nepal. Is that what you mean?
FLETCHER: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FLETCHER: But also, the A.I. often helps us there as well. We're using artificial intelligence to anticipate climate crisis, and we're using A.I.-
powered drones. I was in Venezuela recently after the La Guaira earthquake, and we're flying in these drones to find survivors.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FLETCHER: So, there's a positive as well as the negative.
AMANPOUR: What is the next -- the rest of this year look like, the next three months or so, in terms of the pluses and minuses on the ledger of
trying to reach your targets?
FLETCHER: It's a marathon, not a sprint. I'm going to go to the underfunded crises that don't get the attention that it's harder to get on
your show or other shows, Mali, Burkina Faso, Yemen. I'm in Yemen right now, where we have 73 colleagues detained. So, I'm going to go and try and
do the diplomacy there, bring the visibility to those crises and the funding.
But also, this week, I've shaken down every foreign minister I've met, probably 30 or 40 foreign ministers. And with each of them, I've pressed
into their hands --
AMANPOUR: Did you say shaken down?
FLETCHER: Shaken down.
AMANPOUR: All right.
FLETCHER: Is that the right word?
AMANPOUR: No, but it's good.
FLETCHER: With each of them, I've pressed into their hand this bit of paper, which has 10 diplomatic agreements that I need right now. If we get
them, and they're not super complicated --
AMANPOUR: Give me the first.
FLETCHER: Stop interference in our work in Afghanistan. Let female humanitarians work. The second is keep the Adre border crossing open into
Sudan so we can reach a million people in Darfur. And then they carry on. If we get these 10 agreements, we can reach 11 million people this year who
will otherwise die. And if that doesn't get people out of bed and get the blood pumping a bit, then I give up.
AMANPOUR: But do you think they're listening?
FLETCHER: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Will they read the 10 agreements? Do you think?
FLETCHER: They are. So, I can show you lots of photos of different foreign ministers poring over these, and I'm trying to create a bit of competition
as well. They're starting to say, I can do that one, I can't do that one, but let me have a crack at this. And using their collective influence, you
know, the winter plan for Gaza, making sure we reach half a million people in Gaza with the tents, the heating, the cooking oil that they need. These
are all straightforward things.
I shouldn't have to ask for any of these things, but there's a coalition of foreign ministers who are supporting this work. And let's see where we get
to. Let's make this week not about all the handshakes and what speech and who said what, and, you know, everyone running around in a kind of frenzy
of activity. It's got to be outcomes.
AMANPOUR: And there's an election coming up here for the next secretary- general. What does the next secretary-general have to do, given what the current secretary-general said, you know, that the world is becoming less
ordered in his opening speech and, you know, urging a sort of a renewal? What do you think the next secretary-general has to channel to really make
this a position that is listened to, that he grabs the bully pulpit and somehow, you know, knocks some heads together in that security council, if
it's even possible?
FLETCHER: Well, I mean, look, a lot of people, including me, have been speculating who's going to make the speech this week that catches fire,
that really captures this moment and describes, gives the answer to that challenge. I'll tell you who gave that speech. It was this secretary-
general. And that's why he got a standing ovation at the end of it. And fair play to him for that. You know, he's going strong. He's talking about
running to the end of his hundred -- the next hundred days in office. But of course, we've got that transition and we're very aware of that.
The next SG, I think, has to carry on the reforms. We need to have fewer of us at the top of the system and more funding to those out in the field,
including for the humanitarians. We've got to be less risk averse on ending crises. A lot of people in the U.N. and around say we shouldn't take the
one out of 10 bids. They're exactly, it's the one out of 10 chances that we should be taking because no one else is going to take them. And then let's
get out there and save 87 million lives.
AMANPOUR: Tom Fletcher, thank you so much for being with us.
FLETCHER: Thanks, Christine.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. And stay with us because we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, as we've been saying, humanitarian groups grapple with falling aid. And a new threat to global institutions is rising in Europe.
The far-right Alternative for Germany party known as AfD made unprecedented gains in regional elections recently, tapping into discontent over
migration and the economy amongst other things.
Author and political scientist Ivan Krastev has studied the tense political climate in his books like "After Europe" and "The Light That Failed." He
talks to Walter Isaacson now about far-right and far-left parties that threaten Europe's establishment.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Ivan Krastev, welcome to the show.
IVAN KRASTEV, CHAIRMAN, CENTRE FOR LIBERAL STRATEGIES: Thank you for the invitation.
ISAACSON: So, we've just seen some amazing things happen in Germany, including the party known as Alternative for Germany, AfD party, doing
extraordinarily well in the regional elections. Let's start by explaining what is that party? What does it stand for?
KRASTEV: Interestingly, Alternative for Germany started as a party which was very much kind of a skeptical to the way European Union was dealing
with the financial crisis. It was started by some professors of economics, and it started as a very much West German party. But then over the time,
basically, it has changing and particularly after the immigration crisis of 2015, three things happened in the way to make the party in the way it
works now.
Before, it was very much a professor's party. Now, this is a party which was very much focusing on the problem of migration. So, from this point of
view, it's not very different from many of the far-right parties in Europe. Secondly, it is overrepresented in East Germany. And this is quite
important because Germany is also part of Germany where the number of refugees and migrants are the lowest compared to the other parts of
Germany.
ISAACSON: So, how important is this migrant crisis and what Angela Merkel did to the rise of the party?
KRASTEV: Listen, it was important. This is very important to understand, particularly the Eastern part of it, because people are going to ask the
question, why people are protesting so much while in their own regions? There was not many migrants.
But then you should know that there were not many migrants in East Germany. But since 1989, around 25 percent of basically people living in this region
of Germany that we are talking about, in which I have dealt 144 percent last week, and basically have left the places they have been living in.
So, migration was not so much about the fear of those who are coming. It was the trauma of those who have left. And I do believe this was the part
of the story that people quite often don't understand. It was much more so about demography. It was about very aging population. Saxony is the oldest
in demographic terms, part of East Germany.
And secondly, importantly, particularly in the East of Germany, AfD is also very much a kind of rejections and rebellion against the way the
unification took place. So, from this point of view, the East German AfD is slightly different than West German AfD. But at this moment, migration is
very important for both of them.
And secondly, when it comes to foreign policy, AfD is the party which very strongly attacks the German consensus on the war in Ukraine. Basically,
they said, we should not support Ukraine. We should take care of ourselves.
[13:40:00]
And basically, it's much more friendly to Russia than any other parties in the in the German political system.
ISAACSON: There's another far-left party, which is also doing quite well. Is as is that right? And is that fueled by some of the same resentments?
KRASTEV: You're talking about Die Linke, the left party.
ISAACSON: Die Linke.
KRASTEV: Most candidate basically one that was the biggest party on the elections in Berlin. And this is quite important, because this is also a
party that changed very much itself. It started, this was the ex-Communist Party, basically of East Germany.
In the beginning, it was very much about the nostalgia of East Germany, because don't forget, East Germany was its particular identity. It was not
so much even only about the old system. But this was about we were different. We also have our successes. And now, we were treated to second
class citizens. But now the left party is very much also the party in which you're going to see a very strong protest against certain economic
policies. Particularly in Berlin, it was very much focusing on housing crisis. It is very much supported by young people. It is very much
supported by migrants.
So, from this point of view, I have day and the link are very different when it comes to immigration. But what is interesting when you look at the
results is that both center left and center right, the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats basically have been crowded. And they really have a
major political sufferings to the extent that on the last elections in West Pomerania, Christian Democrats for the first time in their history, are not
going to enter the regional parliament.
So, this is not simply that these two parties disagree on most things. They're basically seeing each other as enemies, but there is one thing on
which they agree, and this is very much attack on the mainstream political parties. And basically, they try to redefine what is left and what is right
in German politics.
ISAACSON: Well, this, in some ways, seems a bit of an echo of what we're seeing in the United States, where democratic socialists can be doing very
well. The populist nationalists can be doing very well. And then people like Steve Bannon are sort of bridging everything. Is there some more in
common between what we call the far-left and far-right than people think?
KRASTEV: Listen, most of what is common for them is that they don't accept the political system in the way it is. And they have good reasons for this,
to be honest, because one of the major stories that particularly German political system was very stable, very predictable, economically very
successful. So, for a very long period of time, it was delivering both economic results, but also certain type of political and social stability.
And then comes the changes of the last decades. And now, on all kinds of fronts, German society is disoriented, and to be honest, in crisis. First,
economically, as you all know, Germany is under major pressure. It is a major pressure because basically China and the import coming from China is
really starting to destroy the German industry.
So, from this point of view, Germany is seeing things that in the United States have been common for the last 15, 20 years. Suddenly, the big, for
example, German car companies cutting 50,000 people, 100,000 people. So, there is an economic issue and this economic issue is there.
Secondly, we see a very aging population, and this is a very aging population, which does not know who is going to pay their pensions, because
you have a major demographic disbalance. And certainly, and this is very important to keep in mind is that both far-left and far-right are very well
represented among the youngest populations.
If you're going to see, you're going to see that when it comes to people who are younger than 25, people voting either for AfD or for the left are
the majority. But there is one important thing in German politics, which makes it very different from the United States. Listen, German politics was
also very much based on a certain type of idea of never again. We should not go back to what happened.
So, there was this total focus on the 1930s and what happened to the Weimar Republic. So, as a result of it, basically, Germany was much more rigid
than others to allowing any type of a party that starts to look like an anti-system party to enter the system, the famous firewall. And this was
mostly about far-right. But the Christian Democrats also made a rule that they are not going to enter coalition with the far-left. And now, this does
not work anymore.
[13:45:00]
And honestly speaking, I do believe one of the things that is happening is that political past, this very particular 20th century experience of
Germany is losing its power to shape the political choices of the people. 20th century has ended in Germany in a way. After three generations, both
Nazism and communism looks like a kind of a too abstract for the younger voters.
ISAACSON: Well, you've said something fascinating that this is partly about the loss of memory or the memory at least of the 20th century crises
of communism and Nazism in Germany, people saying never again, and that somehow that's faded from memory. And yet, you also say that this is almost
a nostalgic movement to go back to some type of Germany. That's a fantasy version of Germany. Is that right?
KRASTEV: Yes. Listen, don't forget that Germany was -- and this is very important to understand the German memory and remembrance culture, because
it was much more strong and radical than anywhere else. And of course, we normally believe that this was only the culture of guilt.
But paradoxically, this was also the culture of pride, because West Germany was, we were proud to be the first one who faced the crimes that we did.
And this was very much about the generation of 1968. But one important thing's happened, and I do believe we should be a very kind of nuanced to
try to understand what is happening.
And this is that, particularly after the end of the Cold War, a British historian, Tony Judt, put it in a very nice way. He said, we stopped
studying history, we started studying only the lessons of history. So, suddenly, while everybody was talking very much about the crimes of both
the Nazism and Stalinism, people didn't understand anymore how it happened that many young people in the 1920s or 1930s in Germany became either
communists or fascists.
And I do believe this kind of a disappearance of the personal understanding, this type of not understanding what was moving people in one
direction and the other, and reducing history to the lessons of history, make it possible. So, for these people, I don't believe that there is
nostalgia for the Nazi period or for the communist period. Part of the things that they're saying is more Bismarck and less Hitler, but they said,
we want to be a normal country.
And this idea of normalization meeting, let's stop talking about Germany only, about Hitler, let's also try to see what we have done. We have the
rights that every other nation has. And I'm saying this because of the exceptional nature of the German history.
Of course, the rise of AfD is changing European policy as a whole, because then suddenly, and this is the interesting thing that is happening on the
nationalistic right, nationalists can agree on migrants, but they cannot agree on what happened in the World War II. And I do believe this puts in a
strange way, the European projects under pressure in a moment in which, as you know, in the next year, 2027, there are going to be four critical
elections, presidential in France, parliamentary in Italy, Spain and Poland, where in many of them, the nationalistic right can enter
government.
So, how these governments are going to work together, to what extent basically this is going to be also an existential crisis for the European
Union, this is what makes these elections, which are regional elections in Germany, so important and so much discussed.
ISAACSON: One sort of paradox here is that these nationalist populist parties, very much against, in some ways, the European experiment, but
there's still a pretty strong desire to stay in Europe, to stay in the European Union. Is that right? And why?
KRASTEV: Listen, this is very important. And this is something that changed for the last 10 years. Ten years ago, after Brexit, there were 17
important European parties that were advocating for the referendums, either for leaving the euro or leaving basically the European Union. And now,
we're going to see that most of these kinds of parties are much more trying to reshape the European Union than to leave it. And the explanation is very
simple, Brexit. Brexit didn't do well. And then suddenly, all these countries walk around and said, the world is too big. The world is too
hostile. What are we going to do in it?
Because as the German president, Steinmeier, once said, in Europe, there are only two types of countries, small countries that they know that
they're small, and small countries who did not know yet that they're small. I do believe that they're starting to understand this.
[13:50:00]
So, as a result of it, the biggest story is that we do not have a parties which major goal is basically to leave or destroy the European Union.
But keep in mind, when parties like this comes to power, quite often it has the political logic of Iran on a bank. If I believe that this government
which is coming in France or in Germany, or in Poland, is not going to be ready to invest in the European Union, then I'm start hedging.
Even if I'm a pro-European government, I'm trying to behave in the way that if something going wrong, I'm going to be in a better position, which means
that I'm not going to think in a common European defense. I'm going to invest basically much more in the national defense. I'm trying basically to
very much focus on my own industry.
And this is part of all of these parties, because if you look at AfD, why they have been so kind of critical to the immigration. Their message to
Merkel was, you never took care of us. You're taking care of foreigners. And this story is, are these people more valuable to you than us? This
story that why we never get this and that is a really interesting question, and you can see it on many places. And I do believe from this point of
view, let's put it metaphorically.
For the left, the problem is the housing. They feel homeless because they don't have physical houses, these young people. For the right, they feel
homeless on the metaphysical level. They lost the idea of the home in the way they understood it. Basically, they lost the idea of the state and
society in the way basically they remembered it. So, it's a housing and home. So, this is where we are in European politics these days. Everybody
feels homeless for different reasons.
ISAACSON: Ivan Krastev, thank you so much for joining us.
KRASTEV: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, a community in Brunei dating back more than 600 years could be a model for how to adapt to the world's changing climate. Kampong Ayer
is a water village built entirely on stilts. Kristie Lu Stout explains what life is like for thousands of people who are living there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is Kampong Ayer, the world's largest water village. Built entirely on stilts, the settlement
in Brunei's capital dates back more than 600 years. Today, thousands of people call it home.
HAJL ABU ZAR, HOMESTAY COFOUNDER, TERATAK SETIAWAN: Welcome to Kampong Ayer.
LU STOUT (voice-over): Haji Abuzar's family grew up on the water.
ABU ZAR: If we fall, just swim.
LU STOUT (voice-over): Getting around here is a little different. They use boats for transport, boardwalks for paths, and even schools and the local
fire station are on stilts.
ABU ZAR: You have to watch your step. Come on, keep up.
LU STOUT (voice-over): Life in this floating labyrinth moves at a slower pace. Each of the 42 villages that make up this area is known for their own
handicraft.
ABU ZAR: We have one of the villages known to be a silversmith. Some of them are known to be boat makers. Some of them are traditional textile
weavers.
LU STOUT (voice-over): Like here, in the village of Nokia, where ancient skills are passed down. While many residents have moved inland over the
years, Kampong Ayer remains a symbol of national pride.
Downriver, Abu runs a homestay dedicated to preserving this region with the help of his mother, who was born in the water village.
HAJAH FATIMAH, HOMESTAY CO-FOUNDER, TERATAK SETIAWAN: I'm very proud to be one of the people who stay in Kampong Ayer because the relationships are
very close. I want my children, my grandchildren, my niece and nephew still remember Kampong Ayer.
LU STOUT (voice-over): Through food and homely touches, they're keeping local traditions alive for the next generation.
ABU ZAR: One of the reasons why we wanted to start was to kind of share our culture and heritage. When guests come over, they'll see the remnants
of history and they see families who are still here and the culture and heritage that are still lived on until today.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, in Southern California, another sign of how ocean climate is changing. For the first time on record, an olive ridley sea
turtle was spotted laying its eggs near Seal Beach in Orange County, which is about 30 miles south of Los Angeles. Then, three days later, a second
turtle, or perhaps the same one, was spotted laying her eggs near Huntington Beach Pier.
[13:55:00]
Scientists say that while there are many factors at play, the historic sightings are likely linked to abnormally warm ocean waters brought on by
El Nino. Sea turtles are protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a law that is itself endangered as the Trump administration scales back
regulations meant to protect wildlife from harm.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can always find it straight 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 the U.N.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
