Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

WHO Unearths Timeline of First Weeks of COVID-19; Interview with Dr. Peter Daszak, WHO Zoologist, on Wuhan Team Research; Trump Impeachment Trial Begins; North Korea Using Cybercrime to Fund Nuclear Program; UAE Space Orbiter Nears Mars; Myanmar Crackdown. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired February 09, 2021 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): This hour, investigators say COVID- 19 wasn't made in a lab but might have spread via frozen food. The WHO's team in Wuhan, giving us a glimpse of their findings on the ground. We're

connecting you to one of the researchers in that team, just ahead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON (voice-over): Then -- what sounds like gunshots amid crowds of protesters in Myanmar. The military reportedly using gunfire to disperse

demonstrators. We speak to the U.N.'s special rapporteur on human rights for the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Plus --

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): There must be truth and accountability if we're going to move forward, heal and bring our country together once again.

ANDERSON (voice-over): Impeachment Day 2.0. Donald J. Trump facing a Senate trial yet again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON: It's 10:00 in the morning in D.C., it's 7:00 in the evening here in Abu Dhabi and it's show time on Mars.

I'm Becky Anderson. Hello and welcome to CONNECT THE WORLD and beyond tonight.

And this is the scene moments ago in Dubai, an hour's drive away from where we are, broadcasting to you, as the UAE gets set to be only the fifth

country ever to reach Mars. Interplanetary explorers that they are, a big night and more coming up on this earthly hour.

First up, though, we are learning new details from the World Health Organization on how the pandemic that we've all been living with actually

started and when it all began. The WHO team laid out two main theories as to how this all began, how it all got into the humans in the first place.

The most likely of them being the transmission began through what they call an intermediary post species. That could be, for example, a bat. The other

scenario that it may have been spread through frozen food. That is the scenario laid out. That's been widely dismissed by scientists around the

world.

I'll get into that in a few minutes with one of the WHO's researchers on the ground.

When did it all begin?

According to the finishing statements from the WHO, the virus did not spread significantly before December 2019, with the first people infected

early in that month, or late November. CNN's international security editor Nick Paton Walsh joins me now.

What did you make of what we heard from the WHO team on the ground today, Nick?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Well, it was interesting to hear so much of the narrative they put forward from their

investigation, coming closer to that which the Chinese government have said themselves.

Let's go back to what they were clear they think they know at this point. An intermediary animal, that's the animal that will take it from a bat,

where most people at this point, scientists believe, the closest known virus to what we have, of course, SARS COV-2 that causes COVID-19 in us,

they've found the closest ancestor to that.

An intermediary animal is something that the bat infects, that then passes the disease on to humans. That's long been what scientists believe occurred

here to get from the bat virus to the human virus. But that's what the WHO thought was their most likely hypothesis.

Lab leak, as offered by secretary of state Mike Pompeo in the former Trump administration, no; no evidence for that. They dismissed that.

When did this begin?

Importantly, they say they've been through thousands of cases and samples, presumably provided by the Chinese government, and that those show that it

did not begin significantly before December.

Essentially in shorthand, the Chinese did not miss it earlier on, although the leader of the group did say that there were suggestions maybe one

patient first had onset of symptoms in late November. That slightly shifts the timetable for the first time slightly earlier.

What else importantly came out of that?

Well, they've talked a lot about frozen food, which is strange because it has been where China has been pointing the finger for quite some time,

suggesting that perhaps the virus was brought into the country from outside through some kind of frozen product. There's minimal scientific suggestions

so far that that was the case.

[10:05:00]

WALSH: But this particular mission looked at the seafood market in Wuhan that's been so much of the focus, has been potentially ground zero here.

Not only did they talk about contaminated surfaces but frozen products that came into that market, possibly bringing the disease from somewhere else in

China, possibly from somewhere else in the world.

And then also, too, a lot of their statements focused on the possibility for the need for further investigations around China but also outside of

China on blood samples and possibly other frozen products, which might have contained traces earlier than December.

This would have made many Chinese officials smile inside because it goes so much closer to the narrative they've been pushing, that it didn't really

begin in China; it may have begun somewhere else. There's no compelling evidence for that at this particular stage.

But you have here a WHO mission under great pressure to get in from the outside world, under great Chinese pressure when, in China, themselves,

coming up with statements that essentially bolster a lot of what scientists thought was the case but also dragged the narrative significantly closer

toward China's state position, possibly to prompt further investigation inside or outside of China.

But extraordinary today, I think, to hear frozen foods talked about quite so much and so little focus on, where really in China did this begin?

Importantly, too, they say they tested thousands of animals during this investigation. I presume that's the Chinese officials at that point, who

gave them the results. And they didn't find a single animal who had been infected with this coronavirus.

So many questions still left. And ultimately, if you are asking, why does this all matter, they need to know where it began so they can stop it from

happening again. And from this particular report we heard today, preliminary as it was, they still don't have the answer to that one year on

-- Becky.

ANDERSON: Nick Paton Walsh, reporting for you. Thank you, Nick.

Let's get straight to Wuhan then and Dr. Peter Daszak. He's one of the researchers on the ground for the WHO.

Good to have you with us. Thank you. Your investigation is important to all of us in the world. I'd like to begin with that idea of the virus spreading

initially through frozen food. That does, as Nick was suggesting, match up with a narrative offered by the Chinese government.

That has been widely disputed by other scientists. On a personal level, for anyone listening, that is worrying.

Can you help us understand why you think it may have unfolded like that?

DR. PETER DASZAK, WHO WUHAN RESEARCHER: Well, we're talking about something very different right now than, you know, a package of frozen fish

from somewhere else in the world. We're talking about the origins of SARS COV-2, the COVID outbreak, in a market in Wuhan, the likely center of it,

the early spreading of that outbreak.

And what we see there, when we visit that market, is a place that sold a lot of frozen products, not just the typical things we'd buy but also

frozen animal products from animal farms in Southeast Asia and inside China.

And there's a really striking piece of evidence that was mentioned today in the press conference, that, in those products were included wildlife meat

and carcasses from animals that we know are susceptible to coronaviruses.

And also that the supply chains come from places in China, where we know the SARS coronavirus 2 related viruses are. In other words, a direct link

from the potential bat origins of this virus, which most scientists believe is true, into Wuhan market.

Now scientists in China tested those carcasses and they were negative. So that's good. But we don't know what else was there. We don't really know if

there were live animals there. There's no evidence of that. But we don't know.

And we don't know how many of these animals were part of that frozen market or even other types of meat. So to many of us on the team, it was a clear

clue as to what may have happened, that it was one of the pathways that we thought was more likely than others, for sure.

ANDERSON: Let me just be quite clear about this then. It's one of those pathways that might be more likely, you say, and that's an agreement that

you made as a team. But I'm struggling to understand specific evidence that you have to support this contention, sir, with respect.

DASZAK: Well, the specific evidence comes from the work that the Chinese have been doing, that scientists have been doing, from really day one of

the outbreak. So around about January the 1st, scientists from China CDC went into the market and started swabbing the market.

They looked at sewage, they looked at stalls where they sold food, they looked at the stalls where people were positive for coronavirus. They spent

about a month in there swabbing, testing over 900 samples.

[10:10:00]

DASZAK: So it's a really thorough, deep study. And most of the animals and the products had gone but there were some still there. And if there were --

there were live animals in the market; we think mainly aquatic animals but we don't know. There was rumors of live mammals in that market.

But what was really intriguing was this find of carcasses of animals, mammals, actually ferret badgers, which are widely eaten across Southeast

Asia, which we know has the capacity to be infected by coronaviruses.

In the frozen products, tested negative but only a few. So that tells you that there's potentially more going on in that market early on. And this is

a potential for a way that a virus could get in.

There are two other pathways we looked at. One that it could have been brought in by people from another part of Wuhan. And you heard that some of

the -- by the time the early cases in December were known about, it looks to the epidemiologists on the team that this virus was already spreading

pretty widely in the community.

And there's evidence that some people infected that weren't associated with the market, so a person could have brought it in. And then, there's finally

this widely discussed hypothesis, that the cold chain of frozen food from other places, like abroad, could have brought it in.

Now that's, in my opinion, less likely but it's possible. So we kept it in there as a potential to do further work on. It's fairly straightforward to

go out and start testing those to see what the possibility of that pathway is.

But from my opinion -- and I'm very interested in the animal link to these pandemics -- there was a clear potential for an animal link from animals we

know are susceptible into that market.

ANDERSON: OK. On the frozen food issue, what I understand from what you've just said is that there isn't -- this isn't evidence that you, as a team,

have found. This is work that the Chinese have been doing, that you have listened to and taken on board.

And so that's work that China has done rather than work the WHO has done, gleaned and found evidence of. All right, look, your team suggested a

hypothesis of, quote, "direct zoonotic spillover."

What does that actually look like, for the benefit of our viewers?

DASZAK: What that looks like is a person getting infected from a bat somewhere in Southeast Asia or China and then getting into the -- cooking

up this new disease and then moving in the community, spreading it into the community and then people taking it into the market.

The other one we looked at was bats infecting intermediate hosts. And what we talk about, with this ferret badger, is a type of animal that's found

widely in quite dense populations that could have acted potentially as an intermediate host.

And then animals could have brought that in, either live, killed in the market or fresh killed or frozen. So there is another pathway there that's

quite interesting and needs to be looked at further.

ANDERSON: What about the earliest case, as you understand it?

Just explain what you have learned.

DASZAK: Well, we had a team of epidemiologists in the group, working with a really good team from China. I mean, this is a joint effort. They go out

and collect all this data over the past year. And we sit down and analyze it together, go through the studies and then they go out and gather more

information.

And really digging into whether clusters of excess mortality that could have suggested COVID was around a lot earlier in Wuhan or even the province

around Wuhan or were there unusual disease patterns that were picked up in the local clinics, that suggest there were spikes in outbreaks.

Very important to do that because what it tells us is was this thing spreading in the community much longer than we thought?

And could it have come from somewhere else?

And I think it's a very important finding. The epi team are pretty convinced there were no clear clusters of outbreaks of that type from those

data earlier than December. And it looks like there was no significant spread of this disease earlier than December.

There may have been a few sporadic cases. That we don't know. We need to look further. But that's important. Really, it does look like this event in

Wuhan happened there, it happened early and in early December. It was picked up actually fairly quickly. It was an explosive event linked to

markets around -- in and around Wuhan.

ANDERSON: Peter, do we have a Patient Zero?

DASZAK: Not yet. But you know, we often never get to Patient Zero. Patient Zero could be someone who died, an elderly person who died of pneumonia,

which is common. It could be someone who doesn't ever know that they're infected. We now know from COVID, you can be asymptomatic. You can just

have mild symptoms.

[10:15:00]

DASZAK: Everyone gets a cold in the winter. It can be someone who never knew they had the disease. It's very hard to get to Patient Zero.

But there's a lot you can learn by looking at this traceback of cluster events. That's what you're looking for. You're looking for small clusters

of outbreaks that went to a clinic because they were severe and the symptoms were just like COVID. That didn't happen. We didn't see that in

the data earlier than December, very important finding.

ANDERSON: Peter, to the extent that there may be overlaps in China's version of events and now the WHO's, amid criticisms of the relationship

between the two that you will be more familiar with, given the accusations of a conflict of interest in your own work with a Chinese lab, how would

you allay those fears, sir, with the greatest of respect, at this point?

DASZAK: No, I appreciate the question. It's not -- some people are never going to have those fears allayed. Some people want to believe that.

We visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We visited many labs. We asked really tough questions to the lab directors, to the bosses, to the

individual scientists we all know we want to hear from. We went on tours around the labs, not just one lab but many labs in Wuhan, and we looked for

the sorts of things you'd look for.

And the data are going to be in the report. The transcripts of the interviews are going to be in the report when it comes out. And we did not

see any evidence of malpractice or significant safety issues.

Now when we sat down to discuss this, I waited until everybody else had discussed and decided what their opinion was. And then I made my opinion

known, based on our findings.

And I'm objective about this as a scientist. But what happened was, a team of about 17 on the WHO side and around 20 on the China side then said, all

of them, unanimously, that it was extremely unlikely that this virus escaped from the lab, either accidentally. So it is what it is. That's what

I did, in a way, to try and reduce that conflict.

ANDERSON: Peter, is that it?

Is that the end of the fact-finding mission or is there another opportunity?

And, if so, has China accepted that?

DASZAK: Any scientist will tell you that this is the beginning of the path. We've opened the door by coming into China, an international team of

real leaders in understanding outbreak investigation, working with the real leading scientists here, the very best of the best in China.

Looking at data together, visiting every place we asked to visit, interviewing everyone we asked to interview. But really remarkable openness

from China. So this is just the beginning. And now there are many leads we'll have to follow together, hopefully.

China will also send out scientists to do some of this work in the meantime. And there's a lot of researchers on the ground in the region that

can find out a lot of information. So we'll know a lot more over the coming weeks, coming months.

I think we'll get there. I think we'll have a really clear picture of what happened over the next few months, couple of years. It will take time. It's

going to go out on the ground and do the research. You have to go to the farms that supplied these markets, ask the farmers if they were sick. Test

them. Ask their relatives, their friends.

What did they do with the animals?

Where did they come from?

And even move further back, et cetera. So there's a lot of work to do.

ANDERSON: But as far as the WHO is concerned, its team's job in China is now complete, correct, briefly?

DASZAK: You know, it's been a really tough trip but I expect that the day one I get back will be on a COVID WHO to talk about what we do now. And I

don't think this is going to stop here. That's my personal opinion. I haven't heard yet but, knowing the way these things pan out, it will

continue.

ANDERSON: With that, we'll leave it there. We thank you very much indeed for joining us.

You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD. We'll take a very short break. Back after this.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON: Less than three hours to go until the history-making second impeachment trial of Donald Trump begins in the U.S. Senate. The chamber

where it's happening, a crime scene just a month ago, after rioters charged into the Capitol and ransacked the building in what was a deadly

insurrection.

The former president is charged with inciting that insurrection and House impeachment managers say they'll use video of the rioting and Trump's own

words to make their case. He urged supporters at least 20 times to fight or keep fighting to keep him in office in the rally before the siege.

Trump's defense team planning to use the legally dubious argument that the trial is not constitutional because Trump is no longer in office and that

he did not directly incite the violence. A conviction would set up another vote to bar Donald Trump from holding elected office again; 67 senators are

needed to convict.

That's two-thirds of the chamber, a result that seems highly unlikely, since 45 Republicans already have voted that the trial is not

constitutional.

A new Biden administration is still with two old problems to deal with, Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Chances are Joe Biden won't be

exchanging love letters with Kim Jong-un, like his predecessor did. In fact, a new U.N. report says North Korea is still developing its nuclear

and ballistic missile programs. Sanctions be damned, as it were.

That report out, said Iran is also in the mix, trading critical parts with the North for long-range missile development projects. That won't sit well

with Mr. Biden, who has indicated he is willing to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and maybe even drop some sanctions. But until Tehran scales back its

uranium enrichment, none of that will happen.

Our international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson joining us to add perspective to the new report.

Two old bogeymen, as it were, for Joe Biden now to deal with.

What have we learned about the trading of intel and information between North Korea and Iran at this point?

And how does that affect the kind of wider picture with regard Washington and these two foes?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I think there are a couple of points here, Becky. One of them is that, in a way, it's not new

that there's been cooperation, clandestine cooperation, between Iran and North Korea.

If you go back a couple of decades, A.Q. Khan, the top nuclear physicist, who helped develop the nuclear weapon for Pakistan, was an intermediary or

rather sort of funneling information from Pakistan to both those countries, at times without the government's knowledge.

And something he confessed to but then later denied. So there are these historic links. But what this report right now is saying, this is a report

that comes out twice a year. It's the U.N. Security Council North Korea sanctions report. There are independent international monitors who feed

into this report. They get their information from intelligence agencies and defectors.

And what they are saying right now is that there is a sharing of information about ballistic missile, new ballistic missile developments. We

know both Iran and North Korea, because North Korea has publicly stated it's developing new ballistic missiles.

[10:25:00]

ROBERTSON: There is evidence that the two countries are sharing technology, sharing ballistic weapons manufacture information. The Iranians

have had sight of the U.N. report. They say their first review of this indicates to them that it appears that the information is fabricated.

So, in essence, a sort of a first-off denial, if you will. But the concern here for Biden and what's headlined in this U.N. report is that North Korea

is still funneling massive amounts of money into its nuclear weapons program and its ballistic missile program as well.

And it is not only doing that, it's switched from taking money from selling -- illegally selling coal, which breaks sanctions, to switching to sort of

online hacking schemes to bring in about $320 million over the past year, from targeting financial institutions and internet currency markets --

Becky.

ANDERSON: Nic Robertson on the story for you. Thank you, Nic.

You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD. Still ahead this hour, Myanmar's military warning protesters not to destroy democracy, despite overturning

democratic elections just a week ago. More on the crackdown there coming up.

Plus, why the UAE, the United Arab Emirates, where we are here, is over the moon to be connecting with Mars. This is the control room at headquarters,

waiting to see if a tricky maneuver underway right now gets the country where it needs to be.

I know that many of you are watching from home. I just received a very special message from one of our younger viewers, named Sofia.

Sofia, thank you for watching. We are all on tenterhooks here. We've got a lot more on our Mars coverage just ahead.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON: You are looking at pictures from Dubai and its landmarks, both there and around the country, glowing red to celebrate the Red Planet and

this nation's historic mission to Mars.

[10:30:00]

ANDERSON: Scientists and space buffs and, quite frankly, this entire country and many of you around the world, I'm sure, waiting on what could

be spectacular images to come. We shouldn't have to wait much longer.

Right about now, the UAE's Hope spacecraft is set to swing into orbit around Mars, literally as I speak now. This is one of the trickiest parts

of this whole mission. The thrusters have to burn about half of its fuel to slow the Hope probe, as it's known, down so it can be pulled into Mars'

gravity.

The UAE will be only the fifth country in history to reach the Red Planet. We won't know how it's going for a little while yet. But we will learn more

next hour when I speak live to Sarah Alameri (ph), head of the UAE space agency and one of the driving forces behind this history-making mission.

Do stick around with us for that, please. That's in our next hour of CONNECT THE WORLD.

Meantime, to Myanmar, where anger and defiance are playing out in the streets across the country. Despite a new curfew, the military, which

seized power in a coup last week, is cracking down by restricting gatherings in major towns and cities.

People are defying those rules, turning out for a fourth straight day of protests.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON (voice-over): Reuters reports Myanmar police fired gunshots in the air in the capital city, where water cannons failed to disperse the

crowd. The party of the deposed leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, says two people were seriously wounded by the gunshots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: My next guest is the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar He says, quote, "The seizure of military power over a

democratically elected government casts a dark shadow once again over the country. The generals have created a climate of fear and anxiety."

Tom Andrews joins us now from Virginia.

And your reaction if you will, first, to the news that two people have been seriously injured after police allegedly shot at protesters in the capital.

TOM ANDREWS, U.N. SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR: I'm very, very concerned, Becky. This -- the leaders are capable of anything. And so

the people out on the streets in Myanmar now have enormous courage. They understand what the military is capable of and we're doing everything we

possibly can to urge maximum restraint.

We know in many areas the police have been very restrained but, unfortunately, we're hearing of the shots that you just mentioned, water

cannons, rubber bullets. And I'm just making it as clear as humanly possible that the military leaders will be accountable and everybody in the

chain of command is going to be held accountable.

There is no excuse to say, "I was just following orders." Everyone will be held accountable for following unlawful orders to commit atrocities,

because that's what we're on the precipice of right now in Myanmar. It's happened before and it could happen again.

ANDERSON: Yes. Sir, the military has warned protesters to not, quote, "destroy democracy," their words.

What do you make of that language given the situation as it stands?

And you say they will be held accountable should things deteriorate further.

How do you expect to hold these people accountable?

ANDREWS: First of all, to your first question, this is kind of "Alice in Wonderland." They are talking about the rule of law, that is the generals,

the commander in chief, following the rule of law, following the constitution and, of course, they are breaking their own constitution. They

drafted this constitution that gives them enormous power.

But they've overthrown it. So the ones who are violating the law systematically and before our eyes obviously are the Tatmadaws (ph). So

when they tell people they have to follow the law, well, again, it's "Alice in Wonderland."

There are a variety of mechanisms at the disposal of the international community. As you know, the Security Council met last week. They issued a

very strong statement. The Human Rights Council will meet this week in Geneva. I'll be meeting with them. Countries around the world are looking

at sanctions.

The imposition of targeted, focused sanctions, I know those discussions are going on right now, that will -- sanctions that will hurt the military

leaders. We are looking at coordinated sanctions, nations working together in the application of these sanctions. And of course, there are various

legal, criminal mechanisms in place.

[10:35:00]

ANDREWS: And right now there's an independent international mechanism for Myanmar that's collecting criminal information, criminal data for use in a

prosecution. And there are various, various mechanisms, judicial mechanisms in place.

Everything will be on the table in terms of these judicial options and sanctions, as we watch what develops and unfolds in Myanmar.

ANDERSON: OK, including an arms embargo?

ANDREWS: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. I think that's fundamental. Absolutely fundamental.

ANDERSON: How do you get anything through the U.N. without the support of the Chinese at this point?

ANDREWS: Well, you know, that's a very good question. And when I mentioned the Security Council resolution, it was extraordinary. It called for the

release of all prisoners. It called for respect for human rights. It called for continuation, return of the continuation of the path toward democracy.

It was a very strong statement.

So that gives you a signal at just how widespread this condemnation is. And when you get a resolution like that, with China signing off on it, that

really does say something.

ANDERSON: To your mind, there will be people watching this, going, what's the point?

Isn't the military past the point of listening to the international community, the military in Myanmar?

Do you concur?

There will be -- there will be that argument there that says, this is wasted time, by the international community.

Your response?

ANDREWS: It's not wasted time. We know for a fact that taking diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, sanctions, holding out the real prospect of

criminal prosecution, those are effective. They work. We've seen them work on the military.

Now the military of Myanmar, the generals are going to tell us all, they always have, they're impervious to international pressure. But when the

United States, when the Europeans, Canadians, Australians and others apply systematic, targeted, focused sanctions on that regime, on those generals,

it had an impact.

And the progress that we saw, that was obviously overturned by this coup, but what progress we have seen is a direct result of the application of

pressure and sanctions. They have worked, even though the generals say that they won't. They have worked and they can work.

ANDERSON: Briefly, do you worry that Aung San Suu Kyi's damaged reputation may limit further action and support by members of the international

community?

ANDREWS: No, no, this is an assault on an entire people, a theft of a fragile growing democracy. This is not about any particular political

leader. It's about a crime that's unfolding before our very eyes.

That's where we need to be focused, not on any particular individual or party but on the people of Myanmar, particularly those in grave danger and

those very courageous civil servants, who are literally breaking ranks, including police officers, who are right now breaking ranks and joining

protesters. We need to be focusing on them.

ANDERSON: U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews, it's a pleasure having you on, sir. Important to get your insight and

analysis, as we watch the images, sadly, come in from Myanmar. Thank you.

As we heard Tom calling for stronger international action against the military coup in Myanmar, my colleague, Wolf Blitzer, asked U.S. secretary

of state how America can act as a leader of democracy, given its problems at home. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: The president is facing a major challenge right now with the coup in Myanmar, where thousands of protesters have now taken

to the streets.

How does the U.S., though, speak with authority on democracy, when people around the world saw our Capitol attacked and our democratic institutions

pushed to the brink?

TONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Look, Wolf, there's no doubt that our ability to speak with that strong voice for democracy and human rights

took a hit with what happened on January 6th.

Throughout our history, we have incredibly challenging moments. Sometimes we've taken our own steps backward. But what's made us different is our

willingness, our ability to confront these challenges with full transparency, we -- in front of the entire world.

And that's very unlike other countries when they face challenges. They try to sweep everything under the rug, ignore it, repress it, push it back.

We're doing this all out in the open. Sometimes it's incredibly difficult. Sometimes it's ugly. But I think we have a very strong story to tell about

the resilience of democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:40:00]

ANDERSON: That is Antony Blinken, the secretary of state in the U.S., talking to my colleague, Wolf Blitzer.

These pictures are live. And they are coming to you from the Mars mission headquarters in Dubai. We are tracking the UAE's final moments as it gets

set to have its Hope probe orbit the Red Planet. More on that after this.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANDERSON: All right, a quite extraordinary moment. Any second we are waiting for a signal traveling at light speed, some 200 million kilometers

from Mars to right here in the United Arab Emirates, confirming that the country's Hope probe has successfully started its orbit of the Red Planet.

This is tricky stuff, really tricky stuff.

The UAE will become only the fifth country to visit our neighbor. We will know whether it's worked out for sure in just over 20 minutes' time. We'll

get you the news as soon as it happens.

Do remember this country, just 50 years old and it's gone from roaming the deserts to roaming the cosmos. This is exciting stuff.

Well, in the world of daredevil stunts, a chimney might seem like an odd place to start but maybe not when it's the tallest chimney in all of

Europe. Look at that. Just looking at it can make you feel quite dizzy. And two Slovenian climbers decided they would make it to the top with just a

rope to keep them safe.

(WORLD SPORT)

[11:00:00]

END