Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Chrystia Freeland; Jane Goodall Talks Career and Apes. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired January 27, 2019 - 10:00   ET


[10:00:18] FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. I'm Fareed Zakaria, coming to you live from Paris.

Today on the show, the crisis in Venezuela. Who is running that country? After calling Maduro's election illegitimate, President Trump on Wednesday recognized a different head of state. So what's happening now? We'll tell you.

And what can warring chimps tell us about warring humans? I was delighted to have a wide-ranging conversation with that great observer of both species, Jane Goodall.

At this point in the program, I know that you are expecting my take, and I have that. We have a whole show coming to you from Davos, but before that, I want to get to the breaking news, which comes out of Venezuela.

Right now the United States is recognizing a different head of state than Nicolas Maduro. Maduro has called this a coup. The United States is trying to get countries like Britain to stop any kind of financial activity with the government of Venezuela. Maduro threatened to expel all U.S. diplomats, then backed down from that.

Where do things stand now?

We have from Caracas, Michael Penfold, who is a global fellow at the Wilson Center, and Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, of course.

Michael Penfold, what is the status right now? Because as far as I can tell you, you have growing international pressure on Maduro. You have one important military person, the military attache in Washington who has said that Maduro should step down and the army should not protect him, but the rest of the army seems to still be backing the Maduro regime.

MICHAEL PENFOLD, GLOBAL FELLOW, WILSON CENTER: Well, the international pressure is certainly increasing tremendously, particularly yesterday the E.U. has already said within eight days Maduro does not accept the need to call for free and fair elections, they'll recognize also formally just like the U.S. and other Latin American countries, they'll recognize the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the interim president to lead a transition that takes a country to those elections. At the same time, the top brass of the military remains loyal to

Maduro. It's a very difficult time for the government that seems cornered in many ways, but they have been able to get that kind of support. But I have to say also that the military, even though they remain loyal, have not come down exactly the path that the government would have liked them to go. So it's a gridlock in many ways, but one where I would say that the great surprise here is people marching, people in the streets really claiming and wanting the constitutional order to be restored and to -- democracy to be alive again in Venezuela.

ZAKARIA: Ian Bremmer, looking at this, we've seen many coups and changes of regime. This is an unusual one where, of course, Guaido, the person who has assumed the powers of the presidency is acting on behalf of the constitution and in response to what is claimed to be a fraudulent election.

The pressure seems to be mounting. The United States buys 40 percent of Venezuela's fuel, which is the chief source of revenue for the government. Britain does not allow it to withdraw money as it appears to be the case.

Can this international pressure break the regime and force regime change?

IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: It's crumbling. I mean, I'm not surprised that you have a military attache breaking from the regime in Washington where it's safe to do so. You really don't want to be the first major general who comes out against Maduro. You want to be late rather than early on that front in Caracas, because life gets that much more dangerous for you.

[10:05:03] Now, I mean, publicly, the Russians, the Chinese, the Turks, the Iranians, the North Koreans, and Syrian, all are still supporting Mr. Maduro but behind the scenes the Russians in the last couple of days have been calling for talks. They're trying to find a way to o de-escalate. They know that a multilateral approach is better, very different from Syria, where they didn't want any of that because their military on the ground could determine outcomes. Here they understand that they are increasingly losing influence.

And so I do believe that this -- for the first time in the Trump administration where he actually is out in front and all of the American democratic allies pretty much have gotten in step behind him, all the Latin American governments almost, the Canadians, Europeans and the rest, that pressure will lead to more economic pressure, that pressure will lead to a lot of members of the Venezuelan military to start questioning, is this for the long term? Should they be sticking with this government? Are they going to be going down a very dangerous path?

And certainly the likelihood of a peaceful transition orchestrated by the Americans with the Russians is more likely today than it was a week ago.

ZAKARIA: Michael, tell us about this man, Guaido, who is a young, charismatic leader of the opposition, controls -- which controls the legislature. Is he very popular? What should we make of this power play?

PENFOLD: I think he is really a surprise for many. Before he was appointed as head of the National Assembly, people hardly had heard about him. And all of a sudden, people are starting to talk about him almost on a daily basis, not only through the social networks but he's being able to mobilize people in different cities throughout the country.

He is very young. He is a moderate within a party that has been very up front about how to challenge the regime and set a strategy to lead the country towards a democratic transition. He's been able to bring together people that a month ago were not talking to each other and that's his biggest success.

I think he still needs to do more. He needs to keep talking to the key actors in the domestic arena, particularly the top brass of the military that are the key actors in this whole process. He needs to make sure that a transition in Venezuela will not be uncertain that, you know, there will be political guarantees for everyone.

But I think that he's trying to put the country at a point where that transition becomes irreversible. The government is fighting back. As Ian was saying, you know, Russia remains loyal. China, Turkey who has become a key ally. Mexico also them low playing an important role, trying to also support a negotiated outcome that seems, I think in the short term unlikely unless that, you know, Maduro recognizes that --

ZAKARIA: Let me interrupt you because I --

PENFOLD: That we need to --

ZAKARIA: Michael, let me interrupt you because I want to get Ian's perspective on the other big player that you didn't mention, which is the United States.

Ian, it's fair to say that while Donald Trump has had a pretty disastrous week domestically, he or his administration, it appears to be mostly Mike Pompeo, have handled this pretty well in that they've made sure that this doesn't turn into America versus Venezuela, and have been trying to rally the international community. That seems to me the key going forward.

Do you agree that so far it has been handled quite well?

BREMMER: I think that's right. I mean, you saw that -- I mean, at home in the United States, the big cave was Trump to Pelosi on the shutdown, but internationally the big cave was Maduro to Trump, in backing away from saying you've got to take all of your diplomats out of the embassy within 72 hours after the Americans recognized the opposition as legitimate government.

He's not prepared to accept new elections as has been demanded by the EU, the Brits and others within eight days or else they flip. But he is willing to engage in talks. In fact, he's even said that he's potentially willing to talk with President Trump himself.

This is not a guy with a lot of cards on the ground. His economy is in freefall. Millions of refugees. I think the next step the Americans should take while they have most of the international community, the democracies together, is they need to take the lead on humanitarian aid. Not a lot of people have been reaching in their pockets to write checks. There's a desperate need for food to be delivered to the border with Colombia, both to help the refugees but also to potentially get across the border with the U.N., put pressure on Maduro to allow that to happen.

[10:10:05] His people are starving, they're in extraordinary poverty. And the Americans should take the lead not just only in supporting the Venezuelan people publicly but get away from this economic depredation, 10 million inflation in one year.

ZAKARIA: Ian Bremmer, Michael Penfold, pleasure to have you on. We will, of course, be following this story very closely.

When we come back from Davos, my take, Chrystia Freeland on human rights and Jane Goodall on chimpanzees and humans.


[10:15:01] ZAKARIA: Here's my take. The atmosphere at this year's World Economic Forum reflected the global picture perhaps more genuinely than in years past, and the painting was not very pretty. The mood here was subdued, cautious, apprehensive. There wasn't much talk of a global slowdown, but no one was confident about a growth story either. There is no great global political crisis yet people spoke in worried tones about the state of democracy, open societies and the international order itself.

The White House scrapped the official American delegation's trip to this year's conference, an outgrowth of President Trump's spat with Congress providing a perfect metaphor for the broader outlook. America has withdrawn from the world. Meanwhile, Europe is distracted, divided and despondent.

Of the continents' three major leaders, only one, Germany's lame duck chancellor Angel Merkel, even showed up. Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May could not attend because of the turmoil over Brexit. French President Emmanuel Macron chose not to come because he faces ongoing populist protests.

In this environment there was a gaping absence of leadership in Davos from the usual defenders of liberal democracy and the rules-based international system. That doesn't mean that any new global leaders have stepped into the void. Contrary to some speculation, China played a more muted role at the forum than in the past. It sent a respected statesman, Vice President Wang Qishan, with an anodyne message aiming to reassure the world that Beijing seeks win-win solutions and global cooperation.

This probably reflects the reality that politically and economically, China faces its own challenges at home, with slowing growth and President Xi trying to tighten his grip over China's vast society.

It is not really the dawn of dictators, few of whom came, perhaps a reflection that global norms still do not celebrate strongmen. While Western democracies may be flagging Putin and Erdogan hold a much weaker hand than most people realize. They, too, along with the Saudi crown prince, stayed home.

The one area of consistent optimism among the attendees remained technology and the next greater opportunity, leveraging artificial intelligence to make companies far more efficient and productive.

Businessmen and executives were more openly pessimistic about trade. They worried that a U.S.-China trade war could spill over the entire world. Whether or not it happens, it seems clear the great expansion of globalization is over. For the last 15 years, there has been no significant forward movement on trade and many minor setbacks. This hasn't translated into large-scale protectionism or tariff wars but there is a new stagnancy.

If the West is divided so are other regions. At last weekend's Arab League meeting, almost no Arab leaders showed up, relegating the summit to even greater irrelevance than usual. Latin America is now split between leaders like the right-wing Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and the new leftist president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

This then is the post-American world. Not one marked by Chinese dominance, not an outright anti-American one. In fact one in which many yearn for a greater U.S. presence. One in which countries are freelancing, narrowly pursuing their own interests and hoping that the framework of international order remains reasonably stable.

But with no one actively shoring up the international system, the great question remains. In a world without leaders, will that system, over time, weaken and eventually crumble?

For more go to and read my "Washington Post" column this week.

Coming up on the show, much more from Davos. I talk to Canada's Foreign minister Christa Freeland about her country's current troubles with China and Saudi Arabia. and I had the great pleasure of speaking to Jane Goodall about chimpanzees and humans and what each can learn about the other.


[10:23:11] ZAKARIA: Canada has been atop the news a lot lately. That's somewhat of a change for America's less assuming neighbor to the north. There's the trade deal that Ottawa signed with the U.S. and Mexico. President Trump said of the deliberations this has been a battle. Then there was the spat with Saudi Arabia, which began after Foreign Minister Christa Freeland sent out a tweet expressing alarm over the arrest of a Saudi dissident. That simple tweet cause a diplomatic firestorm. And now there's Canada's China problem which began when the daughter

of the founder of Huawei was arrested in Vancouver on a U.S. extradition request. When a Canadian man was recently sentenced to death on a drug charge in China, many linked the severity of that sentence to the friction between the two capitals.

Amidst that backdrop, I spoke with Canada's Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland earlier this week.


ZAKARIA: Chrystia Freeland, pleasure to have you on.


ZAKARIA: You've taken a lead in a foreign policy that might be described as values oriented. If Donald Trump is looking entirely at things transactionally, you have emphasized values and I'm thinking of two different countries, Saudi Arabia and China.

So let's first talk about Saudi Arabia. You've made some statements about Saudi Arabia that the Saudis took umbrage at and tried to retaliate against Canada. Has that worked? Are you -- do you feel as though you can maintain your values and still get, you know, arms deals with the Saudis and do business with them in the way that lots of people say we have to do because they're a rich country?

FREELAND: Well, let me start with the broader point. And you're absolutely right. Canada believes strongly that human rights need to be a very important part of our foreign policy. That's certainly the position of our government and we believe that that is an approach which is broadly supported among Canadians.

[10:25:09] I would disagree a little bit with the notion that a policy that is about speaking out for human rights is necessarily not a policy which will advance your core, hard interests as a country. I think that speaking out for human rights in the long run is the only way to guarantee the interest of your country.

ZAKARIA: But in the short run, you took an economic hit.

FREELAND: Well, we are now finding -- and it's interesting that you mentioned the China situation. We are now finding a very large number of countries, number of diplomats, academics -- this week 140 diplomats and academics signed a letter. The prime minister and I have been working hard to get countries to come out in support of the two Canadians detained in China. And what we are hearing from our allies, what we're hearing from diplomats, scholars around the world, is if you stand silent as, say, in this case a couple of Canadians are detained arbitrarily, you actually are not doing something prudent in your own self-interest.

You actually ultimately are jeopardizing your own longer-term interest because you could be next. And so I really think that that message, particularly today when, as you've written often, the rules based international order is under threat. Multilateral institutions are being challenged. And, you know, Canada is a vast country. We are the world's 10th largest economy. We're proud of that. But we're a middle power. And we understand that, too.

And we know the only kind of world in which Canada will thrive, in which individual Canadians will be safe and secure, is one where there are rules, where there are laws, where they are followed. And so that's why we really believe that having support for human rights as a core part of our foreign policy is not only the principled thing to do, ultimately it's the practical thing to do.

ZAKARIA: Canada, the Canadian -- the Chinese ambassador to Canada accuses Canada of white supremacy. Explain to us what's going on. The background is that you have arrested somebody, a prominent Chinese businessman essentially at the request of the United States and likely extradite her at the request of the United States. What's going on?

FREELAND: So if I may, it's a little bit -- if I can offer a little bit of nuance on the situation, Canada and the United States have an extradition treaty. We share the world's longest un-militarized border, something we're very proud of. And part of that -- and we're very close allies. And part of that relationship means we have an extradition treaty. That extradition treaty is used often between our two countries and in a very routine way. It's something we're very experienced with.

The U.S. made an extradition request for Miss Ming, the CFO of Huawei. And so in line with the treaty, she was detained. There was a hearing and she has now been released on bail and is living in Vancouver, where she happens to own a home. So that's the situation with her.

The extradition case has not yet gone through the Canadian legal system, and I will not prejudge what the decision of the courts about it will be. It is before the courts right now. We're proud of our legal system, our impartial objective legal system on the Canadian ministers, I'm going to say it, Fareed, we have the best impartial and objective judiciary in the world. And that is where Miss Ming's case is being handled.

ZAKARIA: But the Chinese government is reacting very differently. They have been -- they seem to be very angry. As I said the Chinese ambassador is talking about Canada believing in white supremacy. They have sentenced people to death, Canadian citizens in -- who are being held in China. What is going on there?

FREELAND: Well, that is a question that I hope you will put to the Chinese authorities and certainly we have heard the Chinese concerns. I've spoken with the ambassador -- the Chinese ambassador to Canada twice and we've had a lot of contact with the Chinese authorities in China. And what we're saying in these conversations is really two things.

First of all that when it comes to Miss Ming, this is not a political decision Canada has taken. In fact, she is not accused of any crime in Canada. Our government has made no case against her, but we are a rule of law country and we have an extradition treaty with the United States and when asked to act according to that treaty, we do. We honor our treaty commitment.

FREELAND: Now, as you point out, Fareed, two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Stavor, have been detained in China. We have looked into those detentions and we believe them to be arbitrary. And we're calling for their release.

A third Canadian, who had been convicted of a drug-related crime in China, has now been sentenced to the death penalty. In that case, the case of Robert Shellenberg, Canada has a longstanding and entirely consistent policy. We do not apply the death penalty in Canada. We think it is cruel and inhumane, and we have made that case -- that case clear when it comes to Mr. Shellenberg and asked for clemency for him.

So that's the situation. What has really actually been encouraging for me, and I think it's something relevant for us here in the conversations that people are having in Davos, is we have found, in these cases of Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Stavor and Mr. Shellenberg, the -- our international allies really rallying and coming out in support, speaking out in support of the rules-based international order.

ZAKARIA: Chrystia Freeland, pleasure to have you on, as always.

FREELAND: Great to be with you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Next on "GPS," almost 60 years ago, Jane Goodall began her work that changed how we all think about animals. Suddenly the animal kingdom was more human and we, perhaps, were more animalistic. I was lucky enough to talk to her this week. And she's still teaching us about animals and ourselves. Come back for this fascinating conversation in a moment.



(UNKNOWN): A man can talk to the animals. It's a miracle.


ZAKARIA: Dr. Doolittle may have talked to the animals, but he, of course, is fictional. Jane Goodall, on the other hand, is real and she does speak chimpanzee. She begins many of her talks by offering a greeting in that primate's native tongue.


GOODALL: (imitating chimpanzee)

Me Jane.



ZAKARIA: Almost 60 years ago, she traveled to Tanzania and ended up living among the species which is the closest relative to us humans. What she learned would change our perception of animals and thus of ourselves. I had the great honor of talking to her this week. I started by asking her how her amazing career began.


GOODALL: Well, I was 10 years old when I met Tarzan of the Apes in a little book and fell in love with him, and he married the wrong Jane.


And so it was 10 years old when I had a dream. I will grow up, go to Africa, live with wild animals and write books about them. And everybody laughed at me. "How will you do that?" We didn't have any money. World War II was raging. Africa was far away. And I was just a girl. "Jane, dream about something you can achieve."

But my mother -- my amazing mother -- said, "If you really want something, you're going to have to work extremely hard, take advantage of all opportunity, but don't give up."

And I've taken that message to young people, particularly in deprived communities. And I wish Mom was alive to know how many people have come up to me and said, "Jane, thank you. You've taught me that, because you did it, I can do it, too."

So, anyway, the opportunity came when I had a boring job in London. I was invited to Kenya. I was 23, which is about like a 17-year-old today. We were very naive after the war. And I was invited to stay with a friend and I met the famous Louis Leakey. And he's the one who gave me the opportunity to go and live not with any animal but the one most like us, the chimpanzee.

ZAKARIA: And was the opportunity designed from the start that you would live with the chimpanzee? How did that part happen?

GOODALL: Well, I always -- you know, I'd watched animals all my life. And I knew there was nobody out there doing anything. So what I knew was I've got to get the chimpanzees to trust me so that I can learn about them. But the big problem was there was only money for six months. And the chimps were very shy and they took one look at this weird, white ape and ran away.

And, you know, as weeks became months, I became increasingly nervous because I knew, if I didn't see something exciting, that would be the end and I'd have let Leakey down and that would be the end of my dream.

But through my binoculars, I was beginning to learn about aspects of their behavior. And one chimpanzee, Darling David Greybeard -- he had a beautiful white beard -- I don't know why "David," but David Greybeard, and he's the one I saw using and making tools to fish for termites. And it was that that enabled Leakey to go to National Geographic Society. Not only did they agree to continue to fund the research, but they sent out a filmmaker, Hugo van Lawick, who became my husband. And it was his early footage that took the story of Jane and the chimps around the world.

ZAKARIA: And why was that so important? It was that you had suddenly seen the connection between the chimps and humans? Because if they were able to make tools, they had some kind of intelligence?

GOODALL: Well, the point was that science back then believed that humans and only humans used and made tools. So I was showing that that wasn't true.

ZAKARIA: What did it take, when you think about it, to get those chimps to trust you?

Because, I mean, this is something that translates well beyond, you know, simply about chimps, is how do we, as human beings, make others trust us, and how do we trust other humans?

GOODALL: Well, I think the important thing for me was not to push too fast. I wore the same colored clothes every day, so there was nothing new -- and patience. patience. When you study animals, you simply must have patience. And I was, I guess, born with patience. I was born loving animals.

ZAKARIA: And did you feel as though there was a point at which something changed? Was there -- you know, was there a moment or was it just a slow, incremental extending of their -- of their trust to you?

GOODALL: There was one moment for me that was a very seminal moment. I was actually following David through the forest and I thought I'd lost him. And I came through this tangle of vegetation and he was sitting. He was looking back. And I -- it looked as though he was waiting for me. I don't know. Maybe he was. So I sat down near him and there was a bright red oil palm nut, which chimps love, so I held it out to him on my palm. And he turned his face away. So I put my hand closer. And he turned. He looked directly in my eyes. He reached out. He took the nut and dropped it -- must have been something wrong, I don't know -- but very gently squeezed my fingers. And that's how chimpanzees reassure each other.

So in that moment we communicated with each other perfectly in a gestural communication system that must have predated human words. And I think that was the moment when I thought, "This -- this is what I have to do; I -- I just have to carry on."

ZAKARIA: The thing that I was most struck by was, in the first phase, your experience with the chimpanzees is, you know, very benign. And then you see what happens when another tribe, as it were, comes in, and the savage war that takes place between the two -- the two groups. What did -- what did you learn from that?

GOODALL: Well, it was a big shock. You know, I had already learned how like us they are in so many ways, like kissing, embracing, holding hands, patting one another, begging for food, the close bonds between mothers and family members, the competition between males for top rank, a lot of swaggering and posturing, reminding me a lot of some male politicians today, no names and...


... so -- but I thought they were like us, but nicer. And then came this war that you mentioned. They were killing individuals they had groomed with, played with, fed with. It was just like a civil war. And it -- it took me a long time to take -- make terms with it. But just as we, too, have this brutal side, we have a compassionate, loving, altruistic side, and so do they.

ZAKARIA: And when you look at the way in which human beings go to war now, you know, exactly as you said, they will sometimes go to war and kill the people they live with, their next-door neighbors, their relatives. Do you think that all of that is, at some level, very primal and that we -- you know, that this is a reflection of our ape- like tendencies?

GOODALL: Do we have some kind of instinctive aggressive tendencies? You can't look around the world and say no. We do. But we have -- you know, the biggest difference, we've developed this intellect, an explosive development of the intellect. Think what we can do. And so we actually are capable of monitoring our own behavior.

And if you look around at the ordinary general population, you may hear, "Oh, I could kill him," but we don't mean it. And the trouble is that war today is not the kind of simple territorial behavior that it was with, you know, our early ancestors or some of the indigenous people. It's all to do with economic development and money and oil and things like that. So it's -- it's completely different in a way.


ZAKARIA: When we come back, more with the indomitable Jane Goodall. She is 84 years old and is on the road for more than three-quarters of the year. How does she do it? And what words of wisdom does she have for us mere mortals? Back in a moment.


ZAKARIA: Welcome back to this special edition of "GPS" from here in Davos, Switzerland. More now of my interview with the great primatologist Jane Goodall.


ZAKARIA: Do you think human beings have lost something in the degree to which they are unconnected -- we are unconnected with nature and with the animal world in general?

I mean, you talked about being in a rainforest and it being a spiritual experience. What are we losing?

GOODALL: We're losing an awful lot. We have a program, JGI, Roots and Shoots, which began, again, in Tanzania, with 12 high school students, in 1991. And it's now in nearly 80 countries. I was meeting so many young people who didn't seem to have hope. And mostly they were just apathetic, didn't seem to care, but some were very depressed and some were very angry. And I began talking to them and they basically said the same thing,

"You've compromised our future and there's nothing we can do about it."

So this saying, "We haven't inherited the planet from our parents; we've borrowed it from our children" -- but we haven't, have we? We've stolen. And we're still stealing the future of our children as we go on destroying the environment? We depend on the environment. But when they said there's nothing we can do about it, I thought, "No, we've got a window of time." If we get together, we have time to start healing the harm that we've inflicted. So the main message is every single individual -- that's you and me and everybody in the audience and everybody who's listening, each one of us make an impact on the planet every single day. And we can choose what sort of impact we want to make.

ZAKARIA: One final question. What is this prop doing between you and me?


GOODALL: OK. Well, I carry a piece called Mr. H. He was given to me 28 years ago by a man called Gary Horn. Gary Horn was blinded, age 21, in the U.S. Marines. He decided to become a magician. Everybody said, "Gary, how can you be a magician if you're blind?"

He said, "Well, I can try."

He does shows for kids. They don't know he's blind. At the end he'll say, "Something might go wrong in your life. You never know. But if it does, don't give up. There's always a way forward."

He does scuba diving; he does skydiving. He's taught himself to paint, blind -- never painted before.

Anyway, he thought he was giving me a stuffed chimpanzee for my birthday, and I made him hold the tail. "Chimps don't have tails, Gary."


And he said, "Never mind. Take him where you go, and you know my spirit's with you."

So he is my symbol for the indomitable human spirit, the people that you hear about, the people I meet who tackle what seems impossible and won't give up.

And, you know, there are icons, Nelson Mandela, who emerged from 17 years of hard, physical labor and had the amazing ability to forgive, so that with de Klerk, he could, you know, end the evil regime of apartheid.

But all around us, there are people tackling personal, environmental, or whatever, big ones or small ones, and either succeeding or inspiring other people to join them in the battle. And I think the most important thing, every single one of us -- that's every single one of this audience, every single person who's listening -- we all have that indomitable spirit, but we don't always recognize it and we don't always feed it. We don't always grow it. We don't always let it out into the world to do good, to inspire, to take action.

ZAKARIA: OK, one -- one final thought on indomitable human spirit.

GOODALL: And he -- the inspiration rubs off, so you better hold him.

ZAKARIA: I will.


I will hold him.

You also have -- I don't know whether it's spirit, whether it's mind, whether it's temperament or whether it's genetics, but you're 84 years old. You travel 300 days a year. What's the secret of not getting jet lag?


GOODALL: It doesn't exist.


I go by the sun. The sun rises, it's morning. The sun sets, it's night.

ZAKARIA: There you have it, the indomitable human spirit. Such an honor.


GOODALL: Thank you.



ZAKARIA: This woman is Marziyeh Hashemi, an anchor on Iran's Press TV. You may have heard that this American-born journalist, who was on a reporting trip to the U.S., was arrested earlier this month in Missouri then released this Wednesday after it turned out she had been held to testify before a grand jury. But that wasn't before the Iranian government demanded Washington unhand her. And since there are no diplomatic ties between Iran and the U.S., authorities in Tehran turned to an intermediary. It brings me to my question. Which country did Iran use as an intermediary this week to officially protest the arrest of a journalist, Sweden, Switzerland, France or Germany? Stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer.

This week's book of the week is "The Death of Truth" by Michiko Kakutani. We all see that truth and facts have become endangered species, but we're not really aware of why and when it happened. It didn't start with Trump, argues Kakutani in this rich, erudite book. She brilliantly explains the cultural and political forces that brought us to our current sorry condition -- a must read.

The answer to my "GPS" challenge this week is B. Iran asked the Swiss ambassador to the Islamic Republic to protest the journalist's arrest, which it had called highly political. Since the end of formal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran in 1980, Switzerland has acted as the United States', quote, "protecting power," unquote, in Iran, and the two countries have turned to the Swiss to convey diplomatic messages to one another. Switzerland was also the protecting power of the U.S. in Cuba from 1961 all the way to 2015.

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