Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell; Nobel Peace Prize Winner Nadia Murad Profiled. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired October 07, 2018 - 10:00   ET


[10:00:14] FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

Today, a special event to mark the show's 10 years. An exclusive interview with two former secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright, one Republican, one Democrat, one man, one woman, to talk about America and the world.

What do they make the Donald Trump's world view?


GEN. COLIN POWELL (RET), FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE 2001 TO 2005: We are great now. We always have been great.


ZAKARIA: And what to do about the hot spots around the world. Iran. Russia. China.

Also, elections matter. And this weekend's vote in Brazil could have rough repercussions all over Latin America. Maybe around the world. I'll explain why we all need to pay attention.

But first, here's my take. The most consequential casualty of the recent confirmation battle is not Christine Blasey Ford or Brett Kavanaugh. It is the Supreme Court and thus, American democracy. The court was one of the last bastions in Washington that towered above the political fray. It's now part of the dysfunction that has overwhelmed almost the entire American political system.

When I wrote a book about illiberal democracy 15 years ago I noted that America was not immuned to the dangers of a populism that could erode liberal democracy. What saved the country were the many checks and balances on pure majority rule from the Bill of Rights to the Senate to the judicial system.

I was struck that in surveys the three governmental institutions that commanded the most respect were ironically all fundamentally non- democratic. The Armed Forces, the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court. Of these, the Supreme Court was perhaps the most important because it is the ultimate arbiter of American democracy.

Aristotle believed that the best political system was a mixed regime, one that had aspects of democracy but also gained stability from some bodies that rather than pandering to public sentiment took a longer view and obeyed a higher set of values. Over the years such institutions in the U.S. have faced ferocious challenges. Two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have tested the reputation of the military. The speculative bubbles that led to the global financial crisis made many question the vaunted wisdom of the Fed.

But both institutions have weathered those storms, perhaps because they were viewed to be genuinely trying their best and functioning as intended. Whatever mistakes they made were honest errors, often corrected.

The same cannot be said of the Supreme Court. Perhaps it began in 2000 with the highly political case of Bush v. Gore in which conservatives on the court suddenly abandoned their longstanding principle of deference to states' rights and voted in a nakedly partisan fashion. Some would date it back even further to 1987 when the left mounted a fierce campaign against Robert Bork and derail his nomination.

Whatever the best starting date, the court has lost its credibility. Over the last several decades, American's confidence in the court has gone from the peak of 56 percent in the 1980s to just 37 percent today. It is likely to go even lower after the whole Kavanaugh mess.

Both parties are to blame for this descent but the Republican Party especially after the Gingrich revolution of 1994 is by far the prime mover. It shifted further to the right, initiated the tactics of treating political opponents as traitors and actively encouraged the incendiary language that now dominates our discourse.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal in 2016 to fulfill his constitutional obligation to give Judge Merrick Garland consideration for the Supreme Court was simply the most egregious example of a strategy that had been pursued for years. The Democrats for their part have responded by mirroring these Republican tactics.

For American democracy to work, all the elements, the branches of government, the political parties, the states and the center must find a way to work together. And what makes that kind of cooperation possible is the sense that there are some institutions, some rules, some norms that cannot be thrown into the maelstrom of party politics.

[10:05:01] And chief among those institutions is the Supreme Court. Or it was.

For more, go to and read my "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.

I am honored to have joining me now the 64th and 65th secretaries of state of the United States. Madeleine Albright was of course the first woman to hold that office and Colin Powell was the first African-American to oversee America's diplomacy. The two of them served under very different presidents from opposite sides of the aisle but not only are they collegial, they are actually good friends. Sadly, this kind of bipartisan friendship is exceedingly unlikely in today's Washington.

We thank you both for being here on this special occasion.

Madeleine, let me start with you. We're looking at a world which seems at some level, peace, prosperity, but yet there are all these forces of populism, whether you look at Europe, you look at Latin America, you look at the rise of strong men everywhere. And America doesn't seem to know where -- how to handle it. How do you describe the moment we're in?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT. FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE 1997 TO 2001: First of all, I want to congratulate you on this important anniversary. And you have done so much to educate your viewers and to talk exactly about these kinds of things and the books you've written and your editorials. So thank you very much.

I do think we are in a very different era where in fact voices have been disaggregated so that people are getting their information through social media. They see things from the perspective of what they already agree with. We're very concerned about whether the institutions are working, both the international ones and the national ones. And we have very new forces out there.

Technology that has a positive aspect in terms of helping the woman Kenyan farmer not to have to walk miles to pay her bill. She can do it on the phone. But also technology has in fact disaggregated these voices. And globalization that we have all benefitted from is faceless. And so people want to know what their identities are. '

So all of a sudden, there's -- we're going to have great pride in identity. But if my identity hates your identity, then it's not patriotism, it's hyper nationalism. And it's very dangerous. So we're seeing all of these new forces which are very different, I think, than the ones that Colin and I operated within. It's a very different world.

ZAKARIA: And Colin, where does America stand in this? Because, you know, we always represented certain ideals. I think it was Hubert Humphrey who once said in the 1960s, the best thing American foreign policy can do to spread American influence around the world is the Civil Rights Movement because we lead by example. And I'm thinking, you know, you haven't, for example, been on television I think since the Charlottesville event.

What do you make of all this?

POWELL: First of all, let me also offer my congratulations in your 10 years of service. Really it has been service. You are a rare treat to watch on cable television these days compared to other things on our cable television. So congratulations to you.

Let me pick up from what Madeleine said. It's not only what these forces are, it's what we are not doing as the United States of America. We used to be the leader of the world that wanted to be free. It was a term I used to use all the time. We were the ones who after World War II created an environment of alliances, of democracy. And it spread. It did very, very well.

But in recent years, the pressures and the forces that Madeleine talked about have come into play. And what are we doing? We're walking away from agreements. We're walking away from the alliances frankly that we used to have. President goes to Europe to a NATO meeting, but he starts out by insulting some of the other participants, our allies. And so America has to take a hard look at itself. Especially the Congress. Take a hard look at yourself and see what we are doing to try to keep these forces in check and put America back in the middle of all this as opposed to being sort of a reluctant player and trying to pull out agreements rather than helping to make new agreements.

With respect to Charlottesville, and not to Charlottesville, but a general situation within the country, I'm deeply troubled by what happened in Charlottesville, but also by the fact that we are now seeing these fissures to break out in our society. Among blacks and whites. Latinos and others. Immigrants and those that are not immigrants.

This is so unfortunate because when I look at what's happened in the last 50 years, and what I have been able do is as a son of immigrants and a black kid, rise to the top of our government, I'm so proud of that. And yet we still have these forces that are pulling us apart. And those forces are being encouraged by some of the things that are happening in political life. And we should not let that happen.

[10:10:06] The savior to all this are our children. And I tell many stories about the kids I talk to and how they are growing up learning not to hate rather than learning to hate. So we have to do is focus on our young people. Some of the old folks, you know, if that's the way they feel, that's the way they feel. They're not going to change. But we have to make sure that we are teaching all of our children in schools, in the home, everywhere, that it is not right to hate in this country.

This is a country of love. This is a country of kindness. This is a country that we reach out to each other and we reach out to the rest of the world. And the rest of the world is expecting that of us and they're seeing less and less of it. And that's part of the major problem we have.

ZAKARIA: Do you think this president can be a moral leader for the world?

POWELL: I don't know that he can do that because right now that is not the way he is acting. Let me give you an example. My favorite three words in our Constitution is the first three words, "We the people." We the people. But recently, it's become me the president as opposed to we the people. And you see things that should not be happening.

How can a president get up and say that the media is the enemy of Americans? Has he read the First Amendment? You're not supposed to like everything the press says, or what anyone says in the First Amendment. That's why we have a First Amendment, to protect that kind of speech. So if we keep doing things like this, and creating additional fissures in our society it's not going to serve us well on the international stage.

And I hope the president can come to the realization that he should really stop insulting people. And I used this two years ago when I said I could not vote for him in the 2016 election. Why? He insulted everybody. He insulted African-Americans. He insulted women. He insulted immigrants. He insulted our best friends around the world. He used -- he insulted all of f his fellow candidates up on the stage during the debates. And I don't think that's what should be coming out of a president of the United States. But I don't see anything that's changed in the last two years.

ZAKARIA: Madeleine, you wrote an important book about fascism, about the dangers around the world. And you did talk about America. And I'm wondering, you know, have the last few months, have they made you more worried, less worried, because you talk about how many of these Democratic institutions in many parts of the world, including the United States, are more fragile than we think.

ALBRIGHT: Well, some people think the book is alarming. It is supposed to be alarming. Because I am very worried. And it has a historical context in terms of how fascism came about after World War I with Mussolini and then with Hitler and or De Franco. And yet, there are examples now of countries that are doing exactly what Colin was talking about. There are divisions in all our countries.

And you need leaders that can bring us together for common answers instead of leaders that exacerbate those divisions. And I see that in a number of countries in Europe, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and then in the Philippines, Venezuela. And what you had asked Colin in terms of our values, we used to be the country that talked about democratic values and also this kind of thing that Colin was talking about to understand each other instead of trying to find the scapegoat and figure out who's created the problems.

And so I think that we are -- I am worried. The best quote in the book is from Mussolini, who actually said, you can pluck a chicken one feather at a time and nobody will notice. There is a lot of feather- plucking going on in what are kind of steps that don't seem big at the time but if you put them all together, they are moving more and more into a direction where there is no respect for institutions.

Where we call the press the enemy of the people. Where the president thinks he is above the law. And we are not engaged enough in political activity in terms of people really getting in there and doing something.

You know, it's interesting. All three of us are immigrants. And I am such a grateful immigrant. I came here when I was 11. Who would have thought that I could become secretary of state? And so I do think that we need to be grateful, understand who we are and talk about our values and not kind of say, America is a victim.

I can't believe that. You know, everybody is taking advantage of us. That is so not true. We are the most powerful country in the world with the best story. And we need to really validate that and make clear that others also have opportunities.

POWELL: The world is watching. And they cannot believe we're doing things like separating mothers and children who are trying to get across the border from south of our border, immigrants. They can't believe that we're making such an effort to cease immigration coming into the country. It's what's kept us alive. I mean, just look at the three of us.

[10:15:02] I am the children of immigrants.


POWELL: But I will be proud to be an immigrant.


ZAKARIA: We outrank you. We outrank you.


POWELL: They outrank me. But what a country.


POWELL: But I see it everywhere. I see it in our airport terminals and I see who is behind the counter, who is doing this, who is doing that. When I go to my business interests, I see immigrants there who are creating value in America. Folks who are doing manual labor, they're doing this so they can send their kids to college. That's the way this country works. And how can we be walking away from this model?

The other half of that is, the world is watching and wondering, why are we pulling away from all the things we helped create? Is that going to make a better America, a better world? Well, I don't think it's going to make a better America. It can't be a better -- we are great now. We always have been great.

And so I think what we really have to do is to start changing our mode of dealing with the rest of the world and try to get a system where we are calming down, stop insulting everybody and see if we cannot reach out.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, the Cold War between the United States and China. How bad is it? How much worse could it get? Could it even become a hot war?

Back with our secretaries of state.


POWELL: And so talk to the Chinese with respect when we have disagreements as we do. But let's not create a Cold War situation with the Chinese.


[10:20:59] ZAKARIA: And we are back with our exclusive guests, former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright.

Let's talk some of the specifics. The president has made a big push against China on some geopolitical issues but mostly on trade. But there really does seem to be developing this kind of Cold War. The Chinese are cancelling meetings. The -- Jim Mattis is cancelling meetings. Is there a strategy here, Colin? And where does it go?

POWELL: I don't see a real strategy. I mean, the Pentagon has now identified China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as adversaries, almost enemies. But, you know, China is not an enemy in that sense. I work with the Chinese as a national security adviser. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state. And you can work with them. But you have to treat them with respect.

And not always threatening them that, you know, at some evil thing that you think they have done. And now it's sort of come down to a trade war. That's the last thing we need with anybody is a trade war. And we have to remember that the people who will pay for this in added costs that's going to be created are the consumers of the United States of America who are buying high quality low cost Chinese goods.

I think it's wonderful the Chinese have 300,000 students here. And now I hear that the White House was thinking about not letting them come anymore. I tell you who you'll hear from. You'll hear from college presidents like you wouldn't believe. They pay full fare. And so we have to remain open to China.

My experience in dealing with China is that you can deal with them. As long as you are straight with them, as long as you know what they think they have to get and you know what you have to get. Then let's negotiate and try to get it.

My biggest experience is when we had the issue in April of 2001 when our plane ran into their plane. And it took us two weeks to solve that. But there was no crisis. When I said to President Bush at the time, and he followed the advice, is we have an incident. Let's not make it a crisis. Let's talk. We talked. Two weeks later our crew was home safely.

And so talk to the Chinese with respect. When we have disagreements, as we do, when there are trade challenges, let's work on it. If they're doing things that -- you know, getting into our technology improperly, then let's do something about that. But let's not create a Cold War situation with the Chinese.

ZAKARIA: You know, Madeleine, that the anti-China rhetoric probably works politically at home. In other words, there is a feeling that China has taken advantage of the United States economically. Is this going to work for the president and is he therefore going to continue no matter what the wisdom of the course?

ALBRIGHT: I am concerned about what is happening in the relationship. There's no question that China is the rising power. Some of it because of their own history and their capabilities. Some of it because we have left a vacuum and are not playing the role that I think we should be playing. And so we are all of a sudden in a very confrontational aspect.

Colin, you were talking about the airplane accident. What I'm worried about is an accident at sea. A few days ago we had two huge ships, theirs and ours, 45 yards apart. And if we're not talking, how do we, in fact, deal with something like that that could get worse?

ZAKARIA: Russia, the former ambassador, Michael McFaul, Obama's ambassador to Russia, he had a very interesting line on U.S.-Russian relations. He said the administration seems to be pursuing a pretty sensible policy on Russia. It's tightened the sanctions. It's given the Ukrainians some help. The only thing is the president of the United States does not seem to agree with his administration's policy.

Have you ever seen something like this --


ZAKARIA: -- where the president is going in one direction and the policy in another?

ALBRIGHT: I do think what is interesting, we have both been involved in decision making systems. Most -- the history of this country is we know how to make decisions. I teach about all of this at Georgetown.

[10:25:03] And the decision making process simply does not work. The president goes and does his own thing. Then somebody says, he meant to say. And then somebody -- he disagrees with that.

And I do think that he does see some kind of kinship with Putin and the Russians are trying very hard to undermine our democracy and to separate us from our allies. And I think in many ways Trump is almost a gift to Putin in terms of trying to explain why should we deal with those Europeans or why should we have anything to do with NATO.

And I just visualize -- and I bet you do, Colin, kind of, can you imagine going back to your office and thinking, oh my -- you know, how did that happen, why is he saying this, this doesn't make any sense, because as Ambassador McFaul said, there are some pretty good things that are going on in terms of cooperating with our allies on sanctions, because of their attempts to poison people and a variety of things. And I think that the president is not exactly following the decision making process.

POWELL: I think we should speak firmly with respect to Russian action. I've worked with Mr. Putin, as Madeleine has. He is tough. He is KGB. And he will remain KGB. At the same time, he's restored pride to the Russian people, something they had lost after the end of the Cold War. And we should take that into account.

We should also, I think, not try to make him an enemy. But the Pentagon is busy thinking about that. Thinking about China as an enemy. We are thinking too much about adversarial relations as opposed to diplomatic relations.

Now I'm not being a flower child this afternoon. But I have seen what diplomatic relations can do when you reach out to somebody, let them know what you have to have and let them know what you think they're doing wrong. Now let's talk about it. See if we can solve problems. And I think I have been fairly good at that in solving problems without going to a conflict.

We have to go to a conflict, I know how to do that, too. But let's not do that. Let's find ways to talk and engage, recognizing that not everybody is like the United States.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, I will ask Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright about the Iran deal, whether it was the right thing to pull out and what happens next.


ALBRIGHT: It's very hard to explain to people what is going on in the United States, because we have been dependable and we have not kind of broken agreements. And why would anybody make another agreement with us if all of a sudden the president just decides to pull out?



ZAKARIA: Welcome back to this special edition of "GPS" with the former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell. Now more of that exclusive interview.


ZAKARIA: Iran: The -- President Trump is pulling out of the Iran deal. And the question becomes, will Iran stay in?

What happens? You know, does this make sense to you that we had a system that seemed to be working; the president says the Iranians were still being too adventurous, and so he pulled out. Where do we go from here?

POWELL: The 2015 agreement had nothing to do with their terrorism -- I deplore it and I think they're terrible -- or some of the other terrible things they do. I remember vividly that there were 18,000 centrifuges spinning, producing fissile material that could be made into bombs. And the agreement that the president got into, what Obama got into, was "Let's get this stopped; then we can worry about these other things."

And that has happened, even though those who oppose the agreement swear that, "No, it hasn't stopped; they're ready to break out any time." Well, if they're going to break out any time, the best time would have been before the agreement. And so I think the agreement makes sense. They're not violating it. No independent agency says they're violating the agreement. Eighteen thousand centrifuges are no longer spinning. It's down to 6,000, for medical or laboratory purposes. Fissile material is being shipped out of the country. And they wanted some of their money back. And people say, "Oh, they'll use it for terrorism." They'll use it for a lot of things. They'll use it to buy airplanes to move their people around and they'll use it for their economy as well.

That doesn't mean we don't attack them on all the other bad behaviors that they have. But this agreement, I thought, was very good. But you won't find anybody in the Republican Party who voted for it or even said anything nice about it, except me and Brent Scowcroft.

ZAKARIA: That gets back to, in a sense, where we started, Madeleine. It does feel like the Iran deal, so many of these things, fall prey to a kind of partisanship that has -- that has gotten so heightened, where, you know, just because Obama signed it, it must be undone. And it's difficult to find -- I mean, do you recall the parties being as polarized as they are now?

ALBRIGHT: No, I do not. And I think that both of us, actually, as we were saying -- first of all, we're good friends. But also, I think, we both made an effort to be bipartisan when we went to the Hill, or just generally. And I'm very troubled -- and the hard part, Fareed, is that it's very hard to explain to people what is going on in the United States, because we have been dependable and we have not, kind of, broken agreements. And why would anybody make another agreement with us if, all of a sudden, the president just decides to pull out?

And so I think that it is very hard for -- I've been -- spent a lot of time this summer in Europe and trying to explain to people what is going on and why we would pull out of an agreement that actually was doing exactly what Colin was saying, which is not solving everything, but dealing with the most dangerous aspect in terms of their nuclear capabilities.

And so it just shows a complete lack of understanding, first, of the issue, and then what the effects of having such a scattered policy is and what the effects are of watching the United States going through a tumultuous time, where there is just hatred, I think, in a way that I have never seen before, and disrespect for the other party. I really am appalled.

POWELL: A lot of it is -- a lot of it is, frankly, a Congress that is not functioning like the Congresses that you and I have worked with in the past. In those days you had -- I called them the cardinals of the Congress -- who can make something happen. But now they are so tied up in partisan activity. And, frankly, your profession, I'm sorry to say, has a lot to do with this. Cable television on the right, cable television on the left, and social media make it extremely hard for them to do the jobs they were sent here to do. And so they get caught up in that. And then the money that's in politics and the gerrymandering and all the other things. This is not the same legislative system that I worked with for almost 40 years in my public life.

ZAKARIA: Before we go, I have to ask you, just as a woman, what did you think of the events of the last week at the Supreme Court, and particularly Dr. Ford's testimony? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think -- I was -- I can't even think of an

adjective that fits this because it was so very hard, the whole situation, and her incredible dignity in dealing with something that is very hard and, I think, blaming the victim. But I also think that what is so important is for us to work together, men and women, on having the America that we believe in, where people are treated with respect and where people are willing to speak out and then are not put down in terms of making up things.

And so I really am troubled. And so, you know, I really -- it took me a long time to find my voice. And I'm not going to be quiet now. So I'm glad you asked that. Because I think that we all need to speak out on behalf of what we believe and to respect each other.

I think that is where we need to find -- and we -- and I spoke about the fact that there are divisions in society. That was how we started this. There are. But great leadership -- and you asked Colin, and he is one of the great leaders -- is what you try to do is find common ground and not exacerbate the differences by pitting one group of people against another. And that is what's going on now. And that's not the America that I know.

POWELL: You know, we -- both Madeleine and I were in charge of immigrations and State Department and visas and the rest of that. And what I often tell people when they ask me, "Well, how about all this immigration thing and how are we doing?"

And I say, "Let me tell you what. Tomorrow morning at every consular office that we have, at every embassy, people will be lined up. When they get to the window, they all say the same thing, 'I want to go to America.'"

We were such a magnet for so many years. We have shown the rest of the world what you can do with immigration. We have been an example to the rest of the world. And that example is being badly damaged now. We somehow have got to get back on track.

ZAKARIA: I have to say, this is such an honor to have both of you on and such a pleasure to see you all engage with such civility, a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat. God bless America. Thank you.

POWELL: God bless you for what you're doing, Fareed.

ALBRIGHT: Thank you. Thank you very much.


ZAKARIA: Next on "GPS," this weekend, the people of Brazil are going to the polls to vote for president. We should all be paying very close attention to that election. The results could rattle the entire continent and beyond.


ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World" segment. It's election day in Brazil and two presidential candidates are leading the polls, a member of an established political party on the left and a divisive populist upstart on the right.

Does this sound familiar? It should, but not just for its echoes of the 2016 American election. Latin America is in the midst of a raft of presidential elections and its very own anti-establishment wave. The man with the edge in the polls in Brazil is Jair Bolsonaro, a fringe congressman who has drawn comparisons to both Donald Trump and the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte. He's rabidly pro-gun and prone to praising Brazil's military dictatorship.

He's known for homophobic, racist and sexist vitriol. So what is his appeal?

Well, in the past few years, a sprawling corruption investigation has wreaked havoc on Brazilian politics and stoked public anger. Among the political casualties is the now-imprisoned ex-president Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro is a political outsider. He has this significant virtue. He is as yet untouched by scandal. His biggest competition is Lula's protege, Fernando Haddad, who is polling in second place.

Bolsonaro's rise has divided the country. He was stabbed at a rally last month. And thousands of women took to the streets last week to protest his candidacy. But he may get the largest vote share today. And he could even win a runoff that is expected later this month.

That he has come this far is a testament to voters' appetite for change. And it's not just Brazil. Across Latin America, after years of traditional party politics, many voters are opting for change. Look at Mexico. In July, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador won a landslide victory in the presidential elections, campaigning as an outsider battling against corruption. Even when such candidates don't win, they often perform far better than expected.

Look at Costa Rica, where earlier this year a right-wing evangelical Christian singer made it to the runoff against the center-left ruling party candidate. In May in Colombia, a leftist guerrilla turned politician landed in a runoff before losing to the conservative Ivan Duque, the protege of the former president Alvaro Uribe.

In Chile last year, the brand-new leftest coalition defied expectations to garner 20 percent of the vote, just missing a runoff.

What can explain this extraordinary rise? Well, the region has changed fast. The middle class grew rapidly during the commodities boom of the early aughts, but health, education, pensions -- many of these services improved far more slowly.

That combined with rising perceptions of corruption has enraged voters, says Chris Garman, the managing director for the Americas at the Eurasia Group. The politics of Latin America was not long ago existential, concerned with establishing the contours of democracy, in systems ravaged by dictatorship or single-party rule. It is now increasingly characterized by middle-class disaffection and heightened demands on social policies, says Garman. So is all this change in volatility actually progress? Not really.

There's evidence that the most successful and expansive social programs tend to come from established political parties. Their leaders run not on individual charisma but on policy, says the political scientist Jennifer Pribble. And, as she notes, the charismatic outsiders who run on change are often ill-equipped to do what works best, fixing the system rather than attempting to start one from scratch.

If you really want to understand the danger posed by these charismatic populist outsiders, just look at what Hugo Chavez has done to Venezuela.

Next on "GPS," the Nobel Committee announced on Friday that Nadia Murad was a winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. I'll show you part of her powerful interview with me when we come back.


ZAKARIA: And now for the last look.


AMAL CLOONEY, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I am speaking to you, the Iraqi government, and to you, U.N. member states, when I ask why. Why is it that nothing has been done?


ZAKARIA: That was the international human rights lawyer Amal Clooney seeking justice for her client Nadia Murad. If Murad's name sounds familiar, it should. On Friday, she was announced as the joint winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Ms. Murad is a Yazidi woman who was a victim of the horrific cruelty and barbarity of ISIS. Last March, I had the honor of interviewing Murad and Clooney together. It's an interview that will stay with me forever.


NADIA MURAD, IRAQI YAZIDI ACTIVIST: But early morning on August 3, 2014, they attacked us. Nearly 6,500 women and children from the Yazidi were abducted. And about 5,000 people from the community were killed during that day. For eight months, they separated us from our mothers and our sisters and our brothers. And some of them were killed and others disappeared until now.

I was taken with groups of unmarried girls, and they took us all to rape us. They came not just to attack certain people, but they came for all Yazidis. The situation was really horrible. They sold girls, girls that were underage, because ISIS considered that permissible under Islamic law.

ZAKARIA: Amal, what made you take this case on? You know, there are so -- I mean, this is a horrible tragedy. But what do you hope to accomplish?

CLOONEY: What we hope to accomplish is bringing ISIS to justice. So we know that there's a military campaign going on where ISIS is being taken on, on the battlefield. What we want is to see ISIS members also in a courtroom. And at the moment, that hasn't happened. So we haven't seen a single prosecution against ISIS in a court anywhere in the world for the crimes committed against the Yazidis, for any international crimes.

ZAKARIA: Nadia, is there something you want to say, finally, to the world?

MURAD: I ask both of them, the Iraqi government and the U.N., to establish an investigation and give all the victims of ISIS the justice they deserve. Because, really, we -- we want to bring ISIS to justice.

ZAKARIA: Do you wonder why it's taking so long?

MURAD (TRANSLATED): It is taking a long time because the process of genocide cases is usually lengthy. But even though it is taking a long time, we have hope that they will bring ISIS to justice.

(SPEAKING IN ENGLISH): Sometimes I feel if, maybe if I can speak English, maybe the U.N., they -- they can understand what I -- what I -- we want. But I can't.

ZAKARIA: We can hear you no matter what language you speak. Thank you, Nadia.


ZAKARIA: Well, Nadia's voice was heard. One year ago, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to create an independent investigative unit to hold ISIS accountable for its actions. Let's hope for justice for all the people Nadia represents.

And thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.