Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with McCain Institute Executive Director Evelyn Farkas; Interview with Icelandic President Halla Tomasdottir; Interview with Former President of Ireland Mary Robinson; Interview with Natasa Slovenian President Pirc Musar; Interview with Columbia University Professor of Sociomedical Sciences and "Sexual Citizens" Co-Author Jennifer S. Hirsch; Interview with Princeton University Professor of Sociology and American Studies and "Sexual Citizens" Co-Author Shamus Khan. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 15, 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)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Our country has to survive, and we count on our real partners, strategic partners, United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he feels betrayed by the United States after President Trump strikes a deal with President Putin, even as Russia
keeps hitting Ukrainian civilians ever harder. We'll discuss why this is happening and where it might be headed.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HALLA TOMASDOTTIR, ICELANDIC PRESIDENT: This became a place where the impossible suddenly became possible because of dialogue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: SCIUTTO: -- 40 years ago, the two most powerful leaders in the world met in Reykjavik, Iceland, to hash out solutions to the world's
greatest problems. Could their vision survive today? I speak with current and former world leaders in Reykjavik about the power of face-to-face
dialogue.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER S. HIRSCH, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOMEDICAL SCIENCES, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND CO-AUTHOR, "SEXUAL CITIZENS": Until people start thinking about
prevention, this is going to keep happening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- with the Cornell case putting campers' sexual violence back in the spotlight, Michel Martin speaks with authors Jennifer Hirsch and
Shamus Khan about why assault happens and how it must be prevented.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
We're done. That's what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the Financial Times, expressing his frustration with the United States after a
string of White House actions endangered even more Ukrainian lives.
On Wednesday, Kyiv said the Starlink satellite service had restricted internet access, disrupting both offensive and defensive operations.
Earlier, the Trump administration had warned that the U.S. could suspend intelligence sharing if Ukraine does not halt strikes on Russian energy
facilities. This all follows news of a White House deal to buy Russian diesel.
President Zelenskyy spoke about all of this with the British interviewer, Piers Morgan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PIERS MORGAN, BRITISH INTERVIEWER: Do you feel betrayed by what has been happening?
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: Really, yes. Really, between us. But it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my
feelings. Yes, it depends not on me. I mean, this -- our country has to survive. And we count on our real partners, strategic partners, United
States. And President Trump, they wanted us not to attack diesel. My opinion was it's not fair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And now, Zelenskyy says Kyiv will resume strikes on Russia's oil and energy infrastructure. He's traveled to the U.K. and to Brussels. And
he's hoping to rally European and NATO leaders to put more pressure on Russia and to provide more support for Ukraine. CNN reports that Kyiv has
now run out of missiles for the U.S.-made Patriot air defense system, leaving it much more vulnerable to attacks.
I'm joined now by Evelyn Farkas, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. And she is joining me from Germany. And I want to get her view on
where this ominous state of affairs is headed.
Evelyn Farkas, welcome. We've talked about this a long time and over many, many years of this war. What do you think is actually the U.S. plan, first
and foremost? Why is this happening coming from the White House?
EVELYN FARKAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MCCAIN INSTITUTE: Well, Christiane, I think it's head-scratching, frankly, and disconcerting, to say the least,
for all of us who understand what's at stake here. And President Trump has not articulated very clearly how this diesel fuel is going to change, that
this new Russian diesel fuel deal will change the price for Americans at the diesel pumps, because most experts are saying it's going to have little
to no impact at all.
So, what is the strategy here, then, vis-a-vis Russia? You're essentially giving Putin a gift, all the money, all the revenue that he will gain from
this. And that is completely disconnected to trying to get a peace deal, because as you know, the way to get a deal from someone like Putin is to
put pressure on him, as you mentioned earlier.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: And you're right, that seems to be lifted. The pressure seems to be lifting on Putin, certainly for his war chest, certainly for the moment.
Now, you heard what President Zelenskyy said. He said it to allies. He said it in interviews, that he feels betrayed, that he feels that, as you said,
it's a gift to Putin.
He also said, and they are absolutely clear about this in Kyiv, that they have had their access to the Starlink, Starshield version of that, the
military version of that, slowed or cut off without any prior warning. How do you think that happens? Musk, who owns Starlink, has said it's not up to
him. All his military hardware is sold to the Pentagon, and the president also has the final say over it. What do you think is going on there?
FARKAS: Well, Christiane, since the Pentagon is paying the bills, as Musk pointed out, and as we know, because this has come up in the past in the
media, the reality is that, I guess, the Pentagon can tell the company how they want the Starlink system used. So, it sounds like, you know, if we
believe President Zelenskyy, and we have no reason not to believe him, plus we see some real consequences, six people died, you know, there was a
failure to intercept, that was more, actually, probably the intelligence sharing piece of this, which we haven't talked about yet.
But then, of course, the reality is that there were blackouts, there were things that might have been prevented, and certainly on the battlefield,
the fighters have said that there was a slowing of their drones, of their counter, their defensive systems.
So, you know, our understanding is that probably this was ordered by the Pentagon. Now, whether that was because of a White House order, we don't
know.
AMANPOUR: And now, the Ukrainians are saying a little bit of it has been restored, but not the full strength, and it's very confusing, because the
U.S. says it's still providing help. Now, you touched just now on the intelligence sharing, which is different to what we've been talking about
just now, the early warning, you know, ability from this Starlink, Starshield thing. Tell me about intelligence sharing.
Do you think that that has been cut off? Apparently, there was -- well, they deny it, but apparently there was some statements made in that meeting
between the U.S. negotiators, Ukrainians, and I think Europeans were there, that implied, at least that's what the people who were at the meeting said,
that there could be an intelligence break between the United States and Ukraine. What exactly would that mean? What exactly does that entail right
now in the battle?
FARKAS: Right. So -- and this really comes down, Christiane, not so much to the troops fighting on the front line, which was what you were talking
about with the Starlink. It really comes down to protecting the civilians and protecting the civilian infrastructure, including the energy grid, and
the ballistic missiles that Russia has, it's very difficult for them to be detected ahead of time by the Ukrainians. They don't have the satellite
capability. They don't have the intelligence that the United States has.
And so, the United States has been providing this intelligence to the Ukrainian military, to the Ukrainian authorities, so they can warn their
people to go and duck in the shelters, because remember, the Russians are trying to kill innocent civilians to try to get the Ukrainians to
surrender, and in addition to that, they're trying to combat, you know, they're trying to make the conditions even worse for the Ukrainians by
essentially attacking their energy infrastructure. They want them to freeze, they want them to leave Kyiv, they want them to surrender.
So, the fact that the Ukrainians are saying this intelligence was not provided, this warning was not provided, means that roughly we are hearing
six people died in these ballistic missile attacks, and 600,000 people experienced a blackout, right? So, there are real consequences to
withholding information, and that means, you know, in lives.
AMANPOUR: Evelyn Farkas, can any ally make up for the lack of U.S. intelligence sharing if indeed it's been cut off? U.S. is denying it or not
saying anything about it. It's quite hard to know exactly what's going on. What is the ability of anybody else to step in and provide that kind of
vital information?
FARKAS: Well, Christiane, I think that no one has quite the capability that the United States has. We have very high-powered satellites, you know,
that help us with intelligence. You know, I can't say more than that, but we have great capabilities. I suspect that the British government also has
fairly good capabilities, which might be why President Zelenskyy went and met with British officials, with the Prime Minister today.
[13:10:00]
I will also say this, that I came before I arrived here in Germany, I was at the Warsaw Security Forum, and there is a heightened sense of urgency
right now about Russia, not just in connection with Ukraine. The Russians have launched, since the full-frontal invasion in 2022, about 100 attacks.
And these are terrorist attacks where there are fires, there are attempted bombings of defense installations, of logistics depots, of transportation,
that's civil military or just civilian. So, the Europeans are getting alarmed.
Three ships were attacked off of the Bulgarian coast and lives were lost. They were not European lives, they were not NATO lives, although there was
a ship that was Turkish and those lives would have been Turkish. So, the Russians are playing with fire right here, the Europeans have understood
that. The Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, an American, gave a presentation at the security conference, essentially saying, we can defend
NATO, but I think everyone should understand that this is not just about Ukraine.
So, President Trump is really siding very dangerously, seemingly, with Vladimir Putin, at least in terms of giving him this money, if you will.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And it just seems to be in the old parlance of incentives and disincentives, Vladimir Putin is getting the carrot and no stick. And
the US, Trump himself, is trying to tell Zelenskyy to stop doing the kinds of counter-attacks that he's doing. Listen to what President Trump said as
he lashed out at Zelenskyy at the White House this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: There was no reason that that war with Ukraine and Russia started. It started due to incompetence. It should have
never started. You wouldn't have lost 30 percent of your country already. You've lost 30 percent of your country and you've had over a million people
killed. Between the two of them, over 2 million people killed. That's a war that should have never started. And I think it's time for Ukraine to get a
new president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Evelyn Farkas, there is so much in there from basically saying that Zelenskyy should be deposed, then talking about 30 percent of the
country, I'm not sure that that's how much Russia has, and that it was incompetence.
FARKAS: 20.
AMANPOUR: I mean, the whole narrative is wrong. Yes, exactly, 20 percent. And he's not doing well, Putin, on the battlefield, which is probably why
he's doing such massive attacks on civilians to try to break their will.
But the question is, do you think the Trump administration buys the actual fact that this war happened because Putin invaded Ukraine, first in 2014,
and then massively again in 2022?
FARKAS: Look, the facts are, Christiane, that Russia suddenly invaded Ukraine, seized Crimea, you know, the first annexation since World War II
when Hitler took Austria, OK? Those are the facts, they started it. And as President Zelenskyy says all the time, this war would end if the Russians
stopped fighting because Ukraine doesn't want to fight a war. They want peace, of course they want security too.
And in 2022, when they launched the full-frontal invasion, the Russians thought they could capture the whole country and starting with the capital
city Kyiv, they used, I mean, brutal methods. They raped, they tortured, they killed civilians. Their methodology runs counter to all of
international law, and so they can't get away with that as well.
And so, President Zelenskyy is being, you know, assaulted by these falsehoods. In addition to that, you can't hold elections in Ukraine when
you have a million people on the front line. They're an active battle. They can't come back and vote. And that's too many people, not to mention the
people who are displaced in other countries or even displaced inside of Ukraine. So, elections are just not possible under those conditions. The
Ukrainians would love to have another leader as soon as possible, but they understand that it wouldn't be a free and fair election if they didn't have
at least a very long ceasefire.
AMANPOUR: And, Evelyn, I want to focus and to pull back for a moment. Focus on what President Trump does not want Zelenskyy to do, which is
attack Russia's refineries and energy infrastructure.
Today, Zelenskyy said they are going to continue to do that. After a pause of three days, he said to show willing to President Trump that he was
willing to go into a ceasefire. Of course, Putin did not respond. So, there's that. Then if you pull back, where do you think this entire
situation is headed? Because everything seems very off-kilter right now. U.S. doubling down on appearing to be pro-Russian.
NATO, as you said, the Supreme Allied Commander giving this extraordinary public defense of what they would do to stop Russia, you know, even trying
to invade any NATO country. It seems like there's a bit of a turning point going on right now.
[13:15:00]
FARKAS: Well, Christiane, I think this happened because there was another turning point happening and Putin, Russia, was desperate because the
Ukrainians were having a huge impact on the Russian supply of oil, even to their own civilians. There were lines, and there are still lines in Russia
waiting for ability to get gasoline to tank up their cars.
And so, Putin was desperate, made his phone call to President Trump, convinced him of this diesel deal, which President Trump is selling in the
context of a heated election as a way to bring down prices. Again, as I mentioned, that's not going to happen.
So, they were trying to address a turning point where Russia was severely weakened, and it is still severely weakened. So, they're trying to salvage
the situation, and it appears that President Trump has been somehow brought into salvaging Russia's position, which is the incredibly alarming
situation.
If the United States does not stick with our European allies and with Ukraine, we have a Russia that is allied with China, with North Korea, and
Iran, make no mistake, that will continue to pose a threat to our European allies, to our interests. Don't forget, Europe is the continent where we
have the most trade and political, you know, arrangements.
We make the most money selling, doing trade with our European allies. So, we have real vital interests, the United States does. And unfortunately,
President Trump seems to have turned everything upside down, and I hope that Congress and the American people will speak because we know that they
don't agree based on legislation and polling with the president's seemingly new approach to Russia.
AMANPOUR: Evelyn Farkas, head of the McCain Institute, thank you so much indeed for joining us. And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: At a press gaggle outside the White House today, we caught a glimpse of how diplomatic sausage is made, so to speak. A reporter asked
President Trump why he claims Russia and Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire when both sides say there was no such deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, they agreed. You know why? Because I said, you agree. That's why. They agreed because I said they agreed. And that thing has to get
settled. That war is a disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, this isn't always how diplomacy worked. In fact, 40 years ago in Reykjavik, the world saw a masterclass in leadership when U.S.
President Ronald Reagan and the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, met face-to-face to hash out a deal on nuclear weapons.
The good news is some world leaders remain committed to dialogue. On the 40th anniversary of the Reykjavik summit, I sat down with three of those
leaders today. Iceland's President Halla Tomasdottir, Slovenia's President Natasa Pirc Musar, and the former Irish President, Mary Robinson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARY ROBINSON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF IRELAND: I'm part of the (INAUDIBLE). And we work on the (INAUDIBLE). And in New York, we had our Renewable
Freedom Report, which included Iceland. It included Iceland.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you how in the title of what we're doing about leadership, humanity, hope, how does Reykjavik 40 years ago stand for
you as a paradigm and what it means for today?
HALLA TOMASDOTTIR, ICELANDIC PRESIDENT: Well, thank you for accepting our invite and for my fellow women presidents here to have this dialogue about
humanity and hope at this time.
I will never forget. I was an exchange student in the United States, and I went from answering questions about whether we lived in igloos or snow
houses to getting questions whether we had a woman as president in 1986, because our first democratically elected woman president walked next to
Reagan. And it was something just beautiful about that memory to me.
And my country became not only a place where gender equality was lifted, but a platform where we had dialogue that led to a more peaceful world. But
I also remember the day after when we felt like the meeting had failed because there wasn't an immediate result out of it. So, I went from feeling
being small to feeling bigger and then feeling small again.
But I think what Reykjavik stands for to me 40 years on and as complex, if not more complex time for humanity is that this became a place where the
impossible suddenly became possible because of dialogue.
AMANPOUR: So, I guess the question is, as we look forward from Reykjavik, how do you reintroduce the idea of negotiation? We've just talked about
dialogue. But I heard the head of the ICRC recently say in an interview that the muscle for negotiation is atrophying, that a lot of stuff happens,
you know, between, you know, maybe certain heads of state or on social media or whatever. But the hard work of diplomatic negotiation to solve,
let's just say, the war of Putin started against Ukraine. It's not really making advances.
So, the latest is that the president of the United States, needing diesel oil, has decided to remove sanctions, which is goes against what all the
allies have done on some of Russia's energy, but has also intervened and said, oh, and by the way, the democratically elected president of Ukraine
should also be changed.
I'm not asking you to go ad hominem against the president of the United States, but what is it like to live in that in that world and to have to
pick up the pieces in your own continent?
TOMASDOTTIR: Before we can negotiate, we have to keep an open dialogue. And I feel like dialogue has broken down both because of geopolitics, but
also because of new technologies. And very much top of mind for me is the fact that we have designed from social media and now through a world that
algorithmically shows us the most extreme opinions of both ends of the spectrum on every issue.
And I would say the silent majority is not even speaking up or doesn't have a voice. And this is increasingly impacting our democracies and breaking
down dialogue further. So, I think we cannot negotiate if we cannot even talk with each other, listen to each other, hear each other. So, we have to
start practicing the dialogue muscles again.
Last but not least, I would offer up this idea because we're all fighting in this revolution in particular for energy, energy need. And this deal you
mentioned between Putin and Trump is because energy prices are testing the political fabric and we need more energy for all the data centers and the
revolution.
Perhaps the most peaceful thing we can do in addition to having more women leaders and more dialogue is to hurry up the green transition and solve our
energy needs with sustainable solutions. Perhaps that's one of the most peaceful things. So, in addition for Iceland being a place of dialogue that
changed the course of history 40 years ago and hopefully is going to do its bit to contribute to that.
We are the leaders in closing the gender gap and in using sustainable green energy and geothermal in particular. And I think so -- I like to think
about Iceland as a land of solutions and maybe even a lighthouse.
AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you for a reality check. You, former president of Ireland, but also the former U.N. high commissioner for human
rights. And this year, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to one of the high commissioners for human rights, Navi Pillay. But it wasn't just about human
rights. It was about defending the international law, international rules of the road. And we know that the superpower called the United States, at
least some of the people who work for it have said it's all well and good to have.
[13:25:00]
You know, you might think there's international rules of the road, but no, no, no. This is about the you know, the strongest survive. President Trump
himself said to the victor, go the spoils. He said that at the U.N., which was obviously made to create peace rather than war.
My question to you is, do you think that award sufficiently highlights the respect and the need to double down on protecting not just human rights,
but also the international rules of the road?
ROBINSON: I must say, I do. I really welcomed the award for Navi Pillay, my actual immediate successor as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.
So, well-deserved. She has been so courageous, so courageous, you know, chairing the U.N. Independent Commission on the Occupied Territories,
finding on the evidence that Gaza was a matter of genocide by Israel. We're waiting for what the International Criminal Court of Justice will say.
But, you know, that's an authoritative because of the way in the evidence. And she got excoriated for it, as you can imagine. And, you know, she has
just continued with the hard stuff of human rights. Honoring her is honoring at its core rule of law. The International Criminal Court, the
International Court of Justice and international human rights organizations all over the world are making statements and are actually feeling the
oxygen of recognition. You know, they're feeling stronger today than they did yesterday because of one woman getting an award. That's, as you said,
identified with rule of law.
And the elders that I belong to that Nelson Mandela brought together, we are actually launching a campaign in defense of rule of law. It is the most
important birthright for all of us. Nothing is more important. And the fact that, you know, in 1945 with the U.N. charter, we decided that we would
have dialogue rather than the kind of rule by power.
What are we back to? Which is quite chaotic. Rule by power. Invasion of Ukraine by Russia against the charter. Invasion -- sorry, attack -- illegal
attack by the United States of Israel on Iran. Contrary to the U.N. charter. And then the sort of transactional way of operating.
You know, you ask the question. I think it is a bit unusual in the world that we have a leader with such power, which the president of the United
States has, who happens to be such an inadequate leader for the world. I mean, you have to say it. I mean, a complete ego, you know, narcissist, you
know, so inappropriate. And we just have to live with that for the next two years, presumably. And hopefully he'll be checked in the midterms in some
real measure.
NATASA PIRC MUSAR, SLOVENIAN PRESIDENT: I hope, Mary, you're not going to be brutally attacked because of the words that you used here today, because
this is what is happening. When we discuss what is the most important thing on this planet, when we discuss multilateralism, it's the rule of law,
human rights. But when you are vocal about those things, then you are brutally attacked.
The Peace Nobel laureate was attacked brutally by Israel, brutally. Ladies and gentlemen, where is the decency today for that? You know, and this is
what -- it hurts me a lot, because this is not the right way to go.
ROBINSON: And more countries should speak up.
MUSAR: Correct.
ROBINSON: When I was serving as the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, I had a significant number of countries who would always speak up
for rule of law whenever it was being transgressed.
MUSAR: But there are less and less.
ROBINSON: And they should do it now. You know, you have to speak truth to power.
MUSAR: And just to remind you what happened to Antonio Guterres. He talked the right things about Palestine and Israel. And the next day he became
persona non grata in Israel. Because of what? Because he believes in the rule of law and international law. Sorry.
AMANPOUR: And I would have to say that we, the storytellers, have been barred for the entire three years of this terrible war since Hamas attacked
Israel three years ago. We have been barred from going into Gaza to tell the story. So, that is also an unacceptable, you know, denial of the
storytelling, which just allows, I think, this kind of extremism on all sides to flourish, because we need to go in and see the evidence and report
it and tell the stories.
But I want to ask you this to follow on what you just said, Mary Robinson. It's a chaotic world. And it's a world in which not only power is being
used in terms of survival of the fittest and the strongest survives, but also, it's a world in which capitalism seems to be at the root of some of
these troubling situations.
[13:30:00]
Maybe I'm getting that wrong, not saying capitalism, but the competition in A.I. whereby we're reaching a very, very, very fragile moment where we may
not be able to do the right thing to keep the human in in the loop of A.I. What do you think we have to do now?
MUSAR: Regarding A.I., I used to be the information commissioner of my country dealing with data protection and access to public information, so I
am familiar with technologies despite being a lawyer by profession. But I love discussing, you know, technology with high tech gurus because they
have a total different view on everything. But when you discuss this in multidisciplinary teams, then you get a wider picture.
And in the Silicon Valley, they've really very soon realized that the technicians are not the only ones who have to build the artificial
intelligence. So, that's the starting point. So, you have to have anthropologists, psychologists, lawyers, different races, different
religions, if you do want to have non-biased artificial intelligence.
OK. Those were -- you know, the debates a couple of years ago. But today we are discussing, is it A.I. going to go out of our hands? And that's not a
science fiction, ladies and gentlemen. Just recently, I read the interview with David Robinson, who used to be an ethic guy in OpenAI. And he was this
-- he left OpenAI because he knows that this is not going into the right direction.
And he said two things. Artificial intelligence doesn't have feelings. And the second point he said, it's constantly deceiving us. And deceiving means
that if you are put -- if you are putting an A.I. to a hub, to a laboratory, you will never get the same answer. You can test and test and
test and test, and for the hundred and first time, you will get a different answer. You don't know where the A.I. is going to go.
And when I was reading and preparing for, you know, the talk yesterday and for the talk today, all of a sudden, I realized that artificial
intelligence is a psychopath. Honestly, it doesn't have feelings and we have to be afraid of psychopaths. What to do?
TOMASDOTTIR: (INAUDIBLE) psychopath that can multiply themselves.
ROBINSON: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. So, I do not have a magic wand, but I do know we have to do something. But one person can do -- cannot do enough. We all
know that the main burden, if you want me to say so, is on China and United States of America. And what I hear constantly, if we're going to put an
A.I. to pause in U.S. or in Europe, China is going to continue to work on it. So, if they're going to continue, we have to continue.
I had a similar experience when I was a part of a European Union ad hoc team after the Snowden revelations. We went to Washington to discuss what's
going on with the NSA. And they said, if Chinese are going to do it, we are going to do it. I constantly hear this excuse.
But this is not the right direction, ladies and gentlemen. Somebody has to stop them thinking that they will lose the power because, I don't know,
somebody will stop.
AMANPOUR: Is there a Reykjavik moment? Because as you correctly say, it's no good bringing a few interested parties together, even the experts. You
have to bring the people with the with the actual executive ability to do this. So, you know, a Trump-Xi, for instance. Is there -- do -- how do you
see it as president of this country?
TOMASDOTTIR: Well, I would certainly welcome them into dialogue and anyone willing to talk about how to safeguard the future of humanity. And this
morning I read in one of the international media that Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, pointed out to us the fact that we have more
regulations for milk and washing machines than we do for the use of A.I.
And let's think about it. The washing machines are not going to come out of our laundry rooms and kill us. Nor is milk, even if we're lactose
intolerant. But I'm fairly certain that when the so-called godfathers and creators and leaders of the most powerful labs say there is anywhere
between 10 and 20 percent chance of an existential risk, that we are at least as at a (INAUDIBLE) of a moment as we were 40 years ago, because now
we have nuclear on the rise. We have A.I. that an agent -- agentic A.I. that's gone rogue. And we've already, it seems to me, lost human control
because we're trying to use A.I. to understand what happened in the Hugging Face incident this summer and many incidents since.
So, it is very clear we need global guardrails and we need those who hold 75 percent of the computational power in this technology, which is the
United States, where the private sector is and the power and wealth that is being created is in the hands of very few, very few people now have the
fate of humanity.
[13:35:00]
And, you know, some people say eight men -- the fate of 8 billion people in their hands. And they are actually asking for rules. These existential
crises are not something that we can find the next transaction to get out of.
We need transformational, long-term statesman like leadership. And maybe women and other people from different walks of life need to come together
to advocate for at least minimum guardrails so that we don't just drive off the road.
We have it for airplanes. We have it for cars. We have it for medicines. Why in the world would we have the world's most powerful technology without
any wisdom, guardrails or control? And that's the situation we are in right now with a nuclear bomb in the trunk of this A.I. car, by the way.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask all of you, actually, in the final few minutes. The future is the young people. Young people are anxious about a whole load
of things, including A.I. But they're also obviously hopeful. How do you mobilize young people and how much do you think they have the power to move
this particular needle?
MUSAR: They do have a lot of power, but they need the support from us. From us who are in positions to change things. We are not providing
answers, and the consequence is that they are turning either far-right or far-left. We are losing the middle because of that.
And I always say, middle right, middle left. This is the group of people who can talk to each other without hate speech. And we are able to make
compromises. I'm, you know, middle left, probably liberal, but we are losing them in my country, for example, the last parliamentary elections we
had in March, I checked the analysis, 38 percent of young men aged from 18 to 25, they voted for the far-right party in my country. So, we are not
talking to them enough and we are not providing answers.
And I will just remind you myself about one beautiful project that came from Slovenian youth from one high school in Maribor about climate change.
This is the way that I want to show you that they do think about the solutions. They invented the project 21 for 21st century. What is it all
about? All the air conditioning systems. They have the lowest temperature on 16. That's bloody cold. Yes.
And they said, are we going to be cold if we put the minimum temperature to 21? So, all the producers of air conditioning system systems would have to
do that. And they calculated because there were mathematicians among them as well that just because of this, we will produce 30 percent less carbon
dioxide. And it's a simple solution.
And just to add one more little thing, discussing human rights. Can I just say a wonderful sentence which was said by Igor Pavlov, my Russian
colleague, an activist, a human rights defender in Russia. And he said, human rights are like muscles. If we don't use them, they will atrophy. And
that's the word you used as well.
TOMASDOTTIR: But I want to end saying a message here to this room. It is still in our hands to imagine and design a world where technology serves
humanity and not the other way around. And if we do that, I'm absolutely certain we will live in a more peaceful world.
AMANPOUR: Thank you all so much. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And that muscular conversation was part of the Imagine Forum in Reykjavik, Iceland, a conference on peace and diplomacy to commemorate 40
years since the summit between Reagan and Gorbachev. Stay with us. We'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: And now, to a case that has sparked outrage across the United States and the world. A former Cornell student is suing seven fraternity
members, alleging they drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2024. The university is named in the suit as well. And prosecutors have reopened the
case after massive public outcry and protests in support of this Jane Doe.
And as her suit reignites a conversation about rape culture on campuses, there is a whole new iteration. One comes to light now at the University of
Chicago. Police are investigating a reported sexual assault at a fraternity party nearby.
Professors Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, authors of "Sexual Citizens," say that teaching consent is not enough. And they join Michel Martin to
explain how the culture itself has to change.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Professors Jennifer Hirsch, Professor Shamus Khan, thank you both so much for joining us.
JENNIFER S. HIRSCH, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOMEDICAL SCIENCES, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Thank you for having us.
SHAMUS KHAN, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AND AMERICAN STUDIES, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AND CO-AUTHOR, "SEXUAL CITIZENS": Thanks for having us.
MARTIN: I was so excited to find your book because you are asking the question that I have been asking. So, obviously, one of the reasons that
we're talking is that a former Cornell student has filed a lawsuit alleging that seven fraternity members sexually assaulted her in 2024. All seven
have denied wrongdoing that according to ABC News and no criminal charges have been filed. And you interviewed students, more than 150 students at
Columbia University and Barnard College. You spent hours observing campus life.
So, Professor Hirsch, when you first heard of these allegations, given all the work that you had done in this area, what's the first thing that came
to your mind?
HIRSCH: I was not surprised because until people start thinking about prevention, this is going to keep happening. The work that Shamus and I
have done shows how sexual violence is built into the campus environment and how it's not -- really, it's not just a campus problem, it's an
everyone problem. And it might seem sort of grim for us to say it's built into the environment, except that once you see how campuses are an
assaultogenic environment, then we can think about what's required to build it out.
MARTIN: OK. Well, tell me more about that. Like, why do you say that?
HIRSCH: So, there are two things that we discuss in the book. The first is that students are not being prepared to be sexual people in a way that
doesn't hurt other people. If you think about driving, you don't let the kids grab the keys when they're drunk and just sort of look around and be
like, oh, I hope it works out for them. It's scary as a parent when your kid learns to drive, but you make sure that they get practice behind the
wheel. You don't just show them pictures of car crashes.
And so, we're not -- we -- and I say we as a society, that means parents, it means K through 12 schools, we're not laying a foundation for people to
be able to have sex without hurting people. We saw in our research that young women who had comprehensive sex ed before they started college were
half as likely to be raped. So, there is pretty much already a vaccine and policymakers are just choosing not to give it to people.
MARTIN: Professor Khan, I'll sort of turn to you on this. I want to know why a man, any man wants to do this to a person, another person, especially
a person that he knows.
KHAN: Yes. I mean, so one of the things that we find and that so many researchers find is that, you know, a lot of sexual assaults don't happen
to strangers. They happen within friendship communities. And that should make sense to most of us. Most people don't have sex with strangers. They
have sex with people that they know.
And in many instances, what we find is that most sexual assaults are consensual until they're not. They that they happen in contexts where
people frequently want some kind of sexual experience. And then that turns to something that they don't want anymore.
And this is part of what makes sexual violence prevention so challenging on the individual level, because most people walk it willingly into rooms.
Most people want some kind of physical contact. And where things go wrong is where a lot of people don't listen. And we may we see a lot of dynamics
here that are really common, which is like pressures of groups, the involvement of alcohol, which makes us much less likely to hear one another
and other kinds of drugs.
[13:45:00]
And, you know, I would also just finally note that this is a very dramatic story. And there are a lot of assaults that are not this story. This is not
the most common kind of assault that you would see on a college campus.
And so, as we look at this case, I think it's really important for us to ask, how can we prevent this case? But also, how could we prevent so many
other instances of assault that are not as dramatic, will not catch the headlines in the same way because they don't have groups of men and
fraternities and drug use and all kinds of things that tend to catch our imagination.
MARTIN: What's the most common kind of assault?
HIRSCH: In our research, we found that about half of the assaults involved alcohol, which means that about half of them didn't. There were a
substantial number that happened in ongoing intimate partner relationships. There's also unwanted sexual touching. And so, you know, you can't solve a
problem if you can't map the problem.
And there's not -- because there's not one kind of assault. It means that there's not going to be one solution. We have to think about getting at
this with multiple different solutions.
MARTIN: So, let me go back to the Cornell case. The allegations here are that dozens of young men were part of this Snapchat group. And the Jane Doe
in question says and was honest about the fact that she knew the first person that she encountered, that she did agree to a sexual encounter with
that person and was invited to with another person. So, she acknowledges all of this.
But then there was this invitation, which there's documentation for, that went out to dozens of men to come and participate in this. And that is what
she says she did not consent to. So, again, I'm going to go back to the men. Like, why would you want to do that?
KHAN: This is a group of men who are tied to a fraternity system where, like, status is a really big part of their social interactions. And
actually, status is a really big part of sexual encounters. Like, we have an entire language for this. So, we talk about whether or not someone is in
your league or not in your league.
I think we also have to recognize the important role of alcohol and other kinds of drug use within this situation. And see how, you know, within
fraternity life, one of the things that it does is it concentrates a lot of people who like to drink. And it gives them control over party spaces on
campus.
If we look at national statistics, one of the things that we see is that men drink more than women, that white Americans, which fraternities are
disproportionately white, drink more than other racial and ethnic groups. And we also know that, like, fraternities are allowed to throw parties with
alcohol and sororities aren't. We've designed a campus where the people who control spaces where parties can happen are the people who want to drink
the most.
And that is a design feature that I think we really need to interrogate and ask, like, how is it that we collectively have facilitated this kind of
dynamic rather than worked to prevent it?
MARTIN: Professor Hirsch, go back to what you said earlier about how you found that if you can, that girls, young women and girls who've had some
kind of comprehensive education are far less likely to experience this. Can you just say more about that? Like, what is the inoculating effect there?
HIRSCH: Right. So, sex is a social act, not a cognitive act. And so, the consent education that young people get when they start college is
frequently it's information about consent, but it's not skills building. And so, what happens in good age-appropriate comprehensive sex education is
learning to figure out what you want in sex and learning to communicate that.
And there's not empirical research on this, but conceptual work that we've done shows that age-appropriate sex ed should also teach men not to rape
people, which is, I mean, honestly, like, that's where we need to be going. So, it's not just that sex ed will work to keep people safer from being
raped, but that sex ed will keep people from hurting other people through sex.
MARTIN: But the part about this that that is just difficult to process is that you're in class with these people, right. I mean, you're going to
school with these people. You're in the dining hall with these people. You're studying with them. So, I just am having a hard time seeing how that
turns into then treating this person like an object to the point where you have to be told at some point, don't rape people, don't rape your
classmates.
HIRSCH: The moral language that we use to talk about this is sexual citizenship, that young people need to come into adulthood understanding
that, yes, they have the right to choose sexual experiences and that other people around them also have that same right, that the people around them
are equivalent human beings. And so, it's a failure to teach and for them to absorb that fundamental values message. So, yes, there's clearly a
values question here.
[13:50:00]
And we think it's really important to zoom out. So, we want to be in conversation with you about the full range of sexual violence that happens.
But the highest rates are actually among queer students. And then -- and men also experience sexual violence perpetrated by women.
KHAN: One of the things that was super notable when we talked to these hundreds of students on campus is so many of them described what were
assault experiences and sex. Instances where young men told us about times that they had sex with women who were so drunk they couldn't consent, or
who described experiences with men where they clearly said no and they described it as having sex.
And I think, you know, the reason -- one of the reasons we come back to sex ed is partially because of an American culture of ignorance and shame
around sex and sexuality. One young woman told us when we asked about alcohol and sex, she said, it's like Novocaine before the dentist. It's
numb for what's about to happen. And as part of her own upbringing of feeling sort of profoundly shameful for having sexual desires in the first
place.
For men, you know, there's so little that they learn about sex because of our silence around it. And where do they learn about it? They learn about
it from porn. And, you know, if we basically have decided that young people today are going to learn about having sex by watching pornography, we have
done wrong to them.
MARTIN: According to the CDC, more than one in six American men have experienced some form of sexual violence involving physical contact. And
you also, as you just pointed out, challenge the assumption that sexual violence is exclusively something that men do to women. Are we talking
about in the context of same sex relationships or queer relationships? Are we talking about men being pressured into sex by women that they didn't
want to have?
HIRSCH: We're talking about both things. Men, heterosexual men think about, are taught to think about sex with a very market gendered sexual
script where men are the ones who move the ball down the field and women are the blockers. We asked one young woman about getting consent from her
boyfriend. And she looked at us like we had kind of two heads and she's like, what do you mean? Like guys get consent, they don't give it.
So, the assumption that men always want to have sex, the idea that the penis is essentially a barometer of desire means that for men who
experience unwanted sexual contact, sometimes they don't even have the language to label what happened to them as assault because they can't see
themselves as a victim in the way that people talk about victims on campus. And honestly, they feel like they won't be believed or they'll be made fun
of. And we did have one young man who experienced assault and told his father and his father basically laughed and said, that's impossible.
MARTIN: You've written about how race also can shape experiences of sexual violence. In your research, you said that black women were twice as likely
to experience unwanted sexual touching while one black male student was so worried about being falsely accused after consensual sex with a white woman
that he secretly recorded her afterward. What is that about?
HIRSCH: We can't understand sexual violence on campus. In fact, we can't understand sexual violence more generally without looking at multiple
intersecting forms of inequality. And so, race and gender are really powerful ones. So, when all of the black women who told us stories of
experiencing unwanted touching on campus, those weren't just experiences of sexual violence, those were experiences of racist behavior.
And so, that goes exactly to why telling students about consent is not going to get us to the world we need because we have to understand that
racism and gender inequality are intertwined. And so, yes, the black men we spoke with on campus saw drunk sex as something that was not safe for them.
That it was a sort of a privilege of white masculinity because it was too dangerous. I mean, there is a whole history in America of black men being
accused of sexual violence that they were painfully cognizant of.
MARTIN: So, before we let each of you go, what are some things that would make this different? How could this be different?
HIRSCH: When we say sexual assault is built into campus life, we mean in a very concrete way through things like housing policies that give the best
spaces to older students. And so, first- and second-year students are funneled into spaces controlled by older men.
OK. That's modifiable. One campus that we worked with in conversation about space decided to bring back the fire pits that they'd had during COVID
because those were spaces that students who want to hang out with their friends at night could just book and roast marshmallows and talk and listen
to music and sing, whatever, and not be in a space that was controlled by somebody who wasn't in their friend group.
[13:55:00]
So, there are lots of ways in which campuses can understand that students go to parties like this because they're looking for a place to be in
community and think about what is the spatial design that would foster community. And then the other thing, as we said, and we'll continue to say,
is comprehensive sex ed. I think that that reminds us that the sexual violence that students experience on campus is not just a campus problem.
And also, lots of kids don't go to college and rates of sexual violence among women this age are actually higher for the women who are not in
college. This story is tearing at all of our hearts and I think we need to experience it with compassion, but also remember what it would take to
solve the bigger problem.
MARTIN: Professor Shamus Khan, Professor Jennifer Hirsch, thank you both so much for talking with me.
HIRSCH: Thank you so much.
KHAN: It's such a pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Such an important conversation. That's it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
