Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview With Activist Denise Ho On The Hong Kong Protest; Interview With Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker Of The House; Rep. Nancy Pelosi Explains Her Take On Impeachment, Shares Advice For 2020 Hopefuls; The Enigma Of Kim Jong-un. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired June 16, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:16] 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 coming to you live.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Today on the show, Madam Speaker. I will talk to the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. The most powerful elected Democrat talks Trump, immigration, and foreign affairs.

Also, Hong Kongers fight back against mainland China. But can they win this battle against the Beijing behemoth? We'll talk to one of the key leaders of the protests.

And the man, the myth, the enigma. Just who is Kim Jong-un? Who is this brutal dictator that Donald Trump says writes him beautiful letters? Anna Fifield has written the definitive biography.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's my take. This week, we watched an unusual spectacle. The foreign minister of Germany, one of the United States' closest allies, went to Tehran and announced that a European payment system designed as an alternative to the dollar would soon be ready.

The dollar's dominance in global transactions which is a huge benefit for America and Americans will be hard to displace. But this is a warning sign, the canary in the coal mine. America's closest allies are working hard to find ways to undermine a crucial underpinning of American global power.

Why? It's simple. The Trump administration's abuse of this power.

The United States sits atop the world for now. But there are forces eroding that lofty status. Some of these are deep structural shifts like the rise of China but as "The Economist" points out, others are reactions to a pattern of hegemonic abuse.

Consider the trigger for this certainly for an alternative to the dollar. Britain, France and Germany are all signatories to the Iran deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: When the Trump administration unilaterally reneged on the pack, even though Iran had abided by it, the U.S. re-imposed sanctions using its dollar power to prevent other countries from doing business with Iran since most international transactions do use the dollar for convenience. Furious at this misuse of authority, the Europeans have set about trying to create a new payment system.

So far these efforts have been in ineffective but if major trading nations set out to subvert the dollar, eventually they will surely have some impact.

A look at the way the Trump administration has been wielding the threat of tariffs. In many cases the administration has invoked a national security crisis. Now the law that allows the president to levy such tariffs was passed during the Cold War to insure that America could preserve critical industries to sustain the geopolitical contest with the Soviet Union. Canadian aluminum and Japanese made SUVs don't fit the bill.

As Jennifer Hillman, the former general counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative wrote, "If the United States can justify tariffs on cars as a threat to national security, then every country in the world can most likely justify restrictions on almost any product under a similar claim."

The United States has legitimate complaints about China's trade practices. Beijing will often follow the letter of the law but find clever ways to undermine that spirit through loopholes and exceptions. But that is of course precisely what the Trump administration is now doing. By cynically misusing the national security exemption, it is weakening the very trade rules and international laws that it is asking China to follow.

America still occupies a unique position in the world. But it is clear we are moving into an era in which more players will have more power. Twenty years ago, China was three percent of global GDP. Today it is 15 percent and rising. In such a period, it is all the more important that Washington act with restraint use international institutions and try to establish global consensus.

As I write in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs" the rule for extending liberal hegemony seems simple, be more liberal and less hegemonic. The Trump administration seems intent on doing the opposite.

[10:05:04] The administration is acting to get some short-term gains and limited transactions with other countries but in doing so through the misuse of its power. It is putting at risk the entire structure of the international system in which American power is so deeply embedded. It's a bad trade and one which all Americans will pay the price for in decades to come.

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

Do you hear the people sing? That's what the protesters in Hong Kong were asking today. Well, Beijing apparently heard the people. So did the leaders of Hong Kong. On Saturday Hong Kong's top elected official Carrie Lam suspended consideration of a controversial extradition bill. Anger over that bill brought as many as a million people to the streets last weekend. Today Lam apologized to the citizens.

Now you are looking at a live shot of protesters still out at 10:00 in the night. Today's protests may have been even bigger than last Sunday's. People are protesting Beijing's increasing encroachment on their island territory.

The background, when Britain handed the island over to China in 1997, Beijing agreed to oversee Hong Kong differently. They called it one country, two systems. Hong Kong was to be given great autonomy but that has changed over time.

Let us go live to the protests and bring in one of the leading protesters. Denise Ho, she is a popular singer and actor in Hong Kong.

Denise, what is the mood like out there right now?

DENISE HO, PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST: Hello, Fareed. I am very glad to be here with you today and it's a very moving day for Hong Kongers because for two consecutive Sundays, we have had over one million people on the streets and today is even more amazing. I speculate that there should be more people than last week. It's 10:00 p.m. right now and lots of people have not arrived at the end point yet.

So we have yet to hear the official numbers but I think it must be much over that million that we had last Sunday. So, you know, we have a lot of the youngsters, a lot of citizens here still in the streets, in the park, and I think we are very united and in solidarity.

ZAKARIA: So that comes to almost one out of every seven people in Hong Kong are out on the streets right now. Tell me this. The fear that Hong Kong people seem to have is that the Chinese government has adopted a kind of salami style approach to restricting the freedoms of Hong Kong. They take a little bit away every now and then, not so much to provoke a protest. It didn't work this time. You know, a million people were out last Sunday.

And the hope is, I suppose, that Carrie Lam, the chief executive, is announcing a suspension which means I'm guessing they're hoping that they can put this on the back burner, let the protests die out, and then bring it back. Do you think that will happen?

HO: Well, you know, this is really an accumulation of frustration and anger from all these years that where the government, they haven't been listening to anything that the people had to say. And so after the umbrella movements it sort of died down for a bit but the anger was still among the people. So this time when Carrie Lam, she decided to push ahead the extradition bill which means that if this amendment passed then Hong Kong would become just another China city that is controllable to the Chinese government and they could extradite anyone at any time as they please.

So this is really the last line for Hong Kong people because we are a very autonomous and, you know, we are a population who have had this freedom of speech and we are very afraid that this will go away from us. So this is really the last line. And probably I think Carrie Lam, she did not expect all these people on the streets.

And with the way that she has announced a suspension of the bill yesterday, it is still not enough for us because we have been tricked and lied to enough for all these years and Hong Kong people are smart enough to know that that is a tactic from the Chinese and Hong Kong government.

[10:10:03] And we do not accept that suspension. We want this bill to be withdrawn. And even with the apology to just right now we got the apology in the statement, and that is also not enough. We cannot feel Carrie Lam genuinely apologizing and retracting this bill. You know, until this day, I think we will still fight on.

ZAKARIA: Does that mean you want the chief executive to resign and nothing less will end the protests?

HO: Yes, of course. We want her resignation and also the extraction of this extradition bill. We do not want a path to this bill because that is something that has been done before. And we have been, you know, tricked a lot of times. So our demands are very clear. The withdrawal of this bill and also her resignation. Yes.

ZAKARIA: You are up against one of the most powerful governments in the world, the Beijing government. What makes you think you can prevail? You know, do -- is there a sense -- do people realize they're up against an 800-pound gorilla?

HO: I think this is not only something that is happening between Hong Kong and China. I think this is something that concerns the global -- the whole world as if we have this bill that is passing, there are a lot of people who might have relationships with Hong Kong, then this will be something that prevents them to come to Hong Kong and also I think many countries such as the United Kingdom or Canada, they have a lot of citizens in Hong Kong.

So I think we -- the whole world is facing the same problem right now which is in fact China is a very big power that is overshadowing everyone. And with a country who does not respect human rights and, you know, is a very dangerous thing for the whole world.

So I believe that, you know, everyone should be aware of this -- that is happening in Hong Kong right now and also I believe in the power of people from different countries empowering others. Like something happening in Hong Kong it can affect something in Taiwan which is happening right now. The elections in Taiwan is having a very big twist because of what's

happening in Hong Kong. And so, you know, I have hope in the people. As long as we keep being as flexible and as creative and as united as we are, I think there is still hope.

ZAKARIA: You know, a lot of people in China will tell you that the Chinese people don't want democracy. They don't want Western freedoms. What do you say to them?

HO: Human rights are something that is, you know, that everyone needs and is -- we have the right to have these freedoms. And I don't think that all of the population in China believes that they don't need democracy. I know a lot of at least my friends like they are very frustrated and angry at what is happening right now even in China. All the censorship and all these lawyers and activists being locked up. It is only a matter of time where things will change and the people will stand up.

ZAKARIA: Thank you so much, Denise. We are losing our satellite. Pleasure to have you on.

HO: Thank you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Stay safe and best of luck.

Next on GPS, Nancy Pelosi.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[10:17:33] GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tonight I have the high tonight I have the high privilege and distinct honor of my own as the first presidents to begin the State of the Union with these words -- Madam Speaker.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: That was President George W. Bush in his 2007 State of the Union address referring to my next guest, Nancy Pelosi.

Today, of course, she answers once again to those same words, madam speaker. And if Pelosi thought the situation was tense between Democrats and Republicans in 2007, and it was, she has since learned just how much worse it can get. Today she leads the House Democrats as they work to counter what she has called an assault on democracy by Donald Trump.

I had the honor of speaking to the speaker at the Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: The secretary of State says that the attacks on the two tankers in the -- around the Straits of Hormuz were Iranian, done by the Iranian government. Do you think that we are in for a possible military confrontation between the United States and Iran?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, I certainly hope not, but we have absolutely no appetite for going to war or to be provocative to create situations that might evoke responses where mistakes could be made. You know, countries exercise leverage. They threaten this or that, but there could be mistakes made. And that's a very dangerous thing.

If I might just go back a little bit. What is his motivation? What is their motivation to be provocative with the Iranians? Why did the president turn his back on the Iranian nuclear agreement? What's the logic except some other issue? That it was negotiated by President Obama?

We had so many national security experts, there were ambassadors, generals, admirals, and all the rest supporting the agreement as well so it had official, diplomatic, national security, techno, nuclear, et cetera support along the way. So why? So then he comes in and does -- undoes that and, you know, inflames the U.S.-Iran issue. Why? What is -- what is the purpose?

[10:20:02] And then to -- I'm not going to accuse anybody of instigating anything but for not having a policy that would smooth the waters so to speak. So again, I don't -- I think he probably knows there's no appetite for war among the American people.

ZAKARIA: Let me ask you, though, about presidential power. Is there a kind of usurpation of congressional authority? Since 1976 when Congress declared a National Emergency Act, Gerald Ford signed it, the presidents have declared 59 emergencies, 32 are still in place. We still have national emergencies in place about Macedonia, about Lebanon, about the Iran hostage crisis. Is it time for Congress to start much more seriously overseeing these kind of executive usurpations of power.

PELOSI: Yes, I think Congress were accomplices in some of these things but we're dealing with presidents with whom we had shared values. And to give the president a facility to do what he needed or hopefully one day she needed to do. But the -- has gone too far. And if it's a national emergency, it's one thing. But if it's to declare a national emergency that doesn't exist is an exploitation of an opportunity that shouldn't be taking place.

ZAKARIA: He's doing a Saudi arm sales. There's an end run around Congress. Is there something you intend to do to prevent that or to counter it?

PELOSI: We have -- no, Congress will vote against the arm sales to Saudi Arabia. And the other countries, too. It's unfortunate that the emirates and countries that had nothing to do with Yemen or to do with Khashoggi or with other things are caught in that, but it is what we have to address. So there will be a vote to remove any authority to make those sales to Saudi Arabia, but there's something more about Saudi Arabia and that is, this is nuclear technology that he is transferring to Saudi Arabia.

So it runs into other acts of Congress that he must that cannot be ignored. So this is going to be quite a discussion. And you have to wonder, what's with Saudi Arabia? Why of all the countries in the world did the president of the United States choose as his first country to visit Saudi Arabia? President Bush and President Clinton, for all the presidents since Reagan went to either Canada or Mexico. There are plenty of other allies that this president could have visited.

What of the purpose of giving so much face to Saudi Arabia? Follow the money. What's going on here? And there is a question of who is financially benefiting from the nuclear part of the sale to Saudi Arabia. So this is something that we will fight and we'll have bipartisan support to fight.

But it's about Yemen. You know, we already had that vote. He vetoed it but it was a strong bipartisan vote in the Congress and so the case against Saudi Arabia in terms of Yemen, in terms of Khashoggi, in terms of so much that they should not be receiving this kind of -- what these weapons sales is very strongly bipartisan in the Congress.

ZAKARIA: Will President Trump be able to build his wall using Defense Department monies in --

PELOSI: No. No. The bill that entered at 7:00 a.m. prohibits that from happening but we're also in the courts and we won in one of the courts that said you can't use defense money for that purpose. But again, you never know about the courts. It depends on the venue and the judge and the rest. So we'll continue to make that case. The decision was the Congress of the United States has the authority to appropriate funds.

And that's the law. That's the Constitution. It's right there in the Second Amendment, but it's also in the court decision. So always think of it, the Cs. The Constitution, the Congress, the courts. And that's the path that we're taking with them.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, to impeach or not to impeach? That is the very delicate and important question that Nancy Pelosi is confronted with every day. Her latest thinking when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[10:28:34] ZAKARIA: Do you think that the country is ready for impeachment hearings?

PELOSI: Here's my thing. Our founders were so blessed, Fareed, with our founders and many of us are history buffs, many of us are here. And we do believe that foreign policy should be nonpartisan, should stop -- that debate should stop at the water's edge. It doesn't always. But basically, coming back to one guidance that our founders gave us of all the great documents and thank God they made the Constitution amendable, but with all the greatness of the documents they gave us, they gave us a guidance.

E pluribus unum, for many one. They couldn't imagine how many we would bottom become or how different we would be from each other but they knew that we had to be one. And in all that we do -- in my role as speaker of the House and I believe my -- most of my colleagues subscribe to it is try to find as much common ground as you can, strive for oneness rather than division.

I don't think there's anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States. And so you have to handle it with great care. It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there. It should by no means be done politically. You shouldn't impeach politically or you shouldn't not impeach politically.

[10:30:06]

But we must always remember we have a responsibility for oneness because that is the strength of our country.

I always say our diversity is our strength. In our caucus, we're very diverse. Our diversity is our strength but our unity is our power. That's what gives us leverage from the rest of the world that we are the United States of America.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: There are several Democrats who are running for president who are calling for impeachment. Elizabeth Warren, if one of them gets nominated, the two leaders of the Democratic Party will be somewhat at odds on this issue.

PELOSI: Well, you never know where we'll be by the time of one of them gets nominated. But it is -- again, we are on legislate, that's our responsibility. We promised lower healthcare costs, bigger paychecks, building the infrastructure of America, cleaner government, introducing legislation to make our government cleaner, taking out voter suppression, all of that. So that's what we promised. That's what we're doing. We've passed legislation to that effect and we continue to do so.

Legislate, investigate, we have cause. There was an assault on our country, an assault on our Democratic institution of elections. We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of that. And because of the resistance that we're getting from the White House, we must litigate. So as we investigate and litigate, we'll go where the facts take us.

With all due respect to whoever may be President of the United States, it really doesn't matter. What matters are the facts. It's not about partisanship. It's not Democrats and republicans. It's not about partisanship. It's about the patriotism, about what we must do.

And how can I say this? I love the press. They are the guardians of our democracy. Freedom of the press is so important. However, they just have an obsession with talking about impeachment. And every time one of my members says the pressure is on, the pressure is not on.

I respect everybody's opinion about where they think we are on this. But I also respect the work of our Chairman in terms of legislate, investigate, litigate, and we have that responsibility to find out what happened.

What's sad for us is that this is an admitted assault on our democracy. Every agency, intelligence agency has high confidence that this happened. There's proof and the rest. The Mueller report subscribes to that. And the President of the United States says it's a hoax. It's a hoax. The President of the United States should be the one taking the lead to look into what happened there, and instead, he's saying they could do it again. There's something very wrong with this picture.

And so in any event, the facts, the truth, what's right for our country and the most unifying way, not dividing way.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, Speaker Pelosi is in the trenches battling against Donald Trump every day. So what better person to offer advice to the 2020 candidates, one of whom will take on the President? Her message to Democrats when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOAPE)

ZAKARIA: If you were to give advice to some of the candidates who are running for the Democratic primary as somebody again who seems to have handled President Trump very well, what would you tell them? What is the advice you would give them about how to run against Donald Trump?

PELOSI: Forget about him. Just talk about what you have to offer. Everybody knows the situation that exists in the White House. My whole thing what I tell everybody, my candidates for Congress and the rest and that's, I think, one of the reasons we won in 2018. I said don't even mention his name. This is about what you have to offer.

People are concerned about health Care in America. They're concerned about the stagnation of their wages. They're concerned and skeptical about even government working for them rather than for the special interests. So just talk about what you have to offer.

So I would say to them and as I say to these presidentials, so them your why. What is your vision, why are you running? Show them your knowledge. What do you know about it? Is it climate change, is it economic security? What is your -- what is your why. What motivates you to run and think that you will be the best President of the United States?

Your why, your what, what do you know, and what judgments can you demonstrate by the knowledge that you have, how are you going to get it done? Vision, knowledge, strategic thinking. Show them all of that because that's what a leader has to demonstrate.

But none of it counts for anything unless you connect with them heart to heart about your authenticity, about the United States of America and your connection to their hopes and dreams, aspirations and apprehensions, the fears that they have. Authenticity is everything in terms of how they make a judgment about it. They figure we're all about the greatness of America.

They don't know -- I mean they want to see a demonstration of knowledge and, therefore, judgment and want plans. Everybody has got plans. Go to my website. But the connection, the connection is the most important thing.

So I would just tell them why you're running, what you care about and how you intend to make it happen to improve their lives. If you ask them about him, you could talk about a level of integrity that you would bring to the White House, but I wouldn't -- I really wouldn't go there so much. How to deal with him because you see what he does is, he projects.

[10:40:01]

Like when he says, Nancy is a mess, that means he's a mess. When he says Nancy is nervous, that means he's nervous. He's always projecting, he's disowning his own, somebody doesn't have stamina. It's always about him. He's always talking about himself no matter who the subject of the sentence is. It's always about him.

I mean, I have -- I mean, really, there has to be an intervention here. But that's -- I don't recommend that any candidate for president make that intervention.

ZAKARIA: Well, you're the one to do it if there's an intervention.

PELOSI: Well, the thing is is that I respect the Office of President of the United States. Sometimes I think I respect it more than the person holding the office right now. I respect the Office of President of the United States. I respect the people who voted for Donald Trump for president.

They have their fears, their apprehensions, their hopes. He gave them reason to think. But I also know that he did -- what is the one bill he's passed in Congress? Tax break to give 83 percent of the bill of the tax benefits to the top 1 percent in the country. That's not about the people who voted for him.

So you do have to get to a place to talk about policy and make a contrast.

ZAKARIA: Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for that great conversation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

ZAKARIA: Kim Jong-un is perhaps the biggest enigma on the world stage. We know he was educated in Switzerland. We know he can be absolutely brutal. We know that he loves basketball. And Donald Trump says the two of them fell in love. But much of the rest of Kim's life is a mystery.

Well, my next guest has a new book out that sheds great light on this enigmatic man. Anna Fifield is the Beijing Bureau Chief for "The Washington Post" and the author of The Great Successor, The Divinely Perfect Destiny of Brilliant Comrade, Kim Jong-un. Anna, a pleasure to have you on.

ANNA FIFIELD, BEIJING BUREAU CHIEF, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thanks, great to be here.

ZAKARIA: So people know so little about this guy. What was the -- what was the sort of dominant impression you came away from after all this research? Who is he?

FIFIELD: You know, that's what I wanted to try and figure out because the general perception is because of his funny haircut and weird outfits that he's a crazy guy, you know, a total nut job, as the President of the United States once said.

So I set out to figure out how he had managed to defy all the expectations and survive now for 7 1/2 years as the leader of North Korea. And I discovered he's been very calculating and very shrewd about this. He's acted in a very rational way to make sure he can keep the grip of this totalitarian state.

So he has ruled by fear and by favor. You know, he's focused on the nuclear program and the economic program to try to make sure everybody is sufficiently scared and sufficiently happy at the same time to obey his orders.

ZAKARIA: You know, you point out that even the weird look that we notice is actually very calculated. He is trying to look like his grandfather and not his father. Explain why.

FIFIELD: Exactly. So his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, was the Founding President of North Korea. And he ruled through the good times. You know, North Korea was prosperous, it was strong, it had the support of the Soviet Union and communist China.

ZAKARIA: In those days, the North Korean economy was larger than the South Korean economy.

FIFIELD: Exactly, until the mid-70s. So North Koreans, still to this day, associate Kim Il-sung with the good times, the times when North Korea was strong and prosperous. And Kim Jong-un has very much tried to channel that.

ZAKARIA: There's one extraordinary part of his story, which is he went to private school in Switzerland. And there, he came across as sort of a playboy rich kid. There weren't premonitions of this ruthless and effective leader.

FIFIELD: Right. When he was at school in Switzerland between the ages of 12 and 16, he lived a relatively normal life. He lived in a normal apartment building in a pretty middle class suburb of the Swiss capital of Bern. He went to school. He had friends. You know, he had about four good friends. They were all the children of immigrants as well.

But he lived a relatively normal life, playing basketball. He didn't like going to school. And he was able to kind of fit in there a bit and learn some German, learn some English.

But at the same time, you know, I think that this was a very formative experience for him, not because it taught him about how great liberal democracy is, but because it taught him that if it wasn't for his family's bizarre, you know, mythology, if he was to live anywhere but North Korea, he would just be a totally normal kid. And he would not be a special little princeling, you know, with everybody waiting and bowing to him.

ZAKARIA: And, in fact, you have this extraordinary anecdote where you get a premonition of the kind of cultive personality. He goes fishing with his sushi chef and the sushi chef catches a fish and then --

FIFIELD: Yes. So he had this Japanese sushi chef. They go out on the boat together. The sushi chef catches a bass, Kim Jong-il's favorite fish. Kim Jong-un, who was about six or seven at that stage, grabs the rod out of his hand and starts yelling, I caught a fish, and take in the credit for something he hadn't done even at that very early age.

ZAKARIA: So when you watched these negotiations between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, if you were briefing Trump before the meetings, what had you tell him about Kim Jong-un?

FIFIELD: I would tell tell him that Kim Jong-un has proven to be very savvy and shrewd, and all of this like benevolent dictator stuff we're seeing now. The charm offensive is all an act. You know, he -- Kim Jong-un has studied Donald Trump very well. You know, his people have read the Art of the Deal. They have an encyclopedic knowledge of Donald Trump's Tweets.

So they figured out how to play him. They know to flatter him, they know when they send him a letter, not to send a little envelope but a huge one. And this is the kind of thing that Donald Trump responds to. So I would say, you know, focus on the substance, not on the style.

ZAKARIA: The core value for the North Korean regime, which Kim Jong- un seems to understand, is survival. It has remarkably survived 75 years. It survived the breakdown off the Soviet Union. It survived the Arab Spring and all that.

[10:50:01]

And so it seems unlikely to me that they would give up the nuclear weapons that guarantee, in a sense, the regime's survival.

FIFIELD: And to me too. I cannot see a situation where Kim Jong-un would feel secure enough to give up these weapons. You know, he was taking control of the regime during 2011 at the same time as the Arab Spring was happening, right? He saw Muammar Gaddafi who had struck a deal with the United States to give up his nuclear weapons, dragged from a ditch and killed. So this is like seared in his brain, I think.

So I can't see a situation where he would give up his nuclear weapons and feel that he could be secure in doing so, especially as you know, the downside of democracy, you could say, is that people tend to change in the system. He cannot can be guaranteed that future presidents would not act in a different way.

ZAKARIA: Anna, a pleasure to have you on.

FIFIELD: Thank you. It was my pleasure to be here.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: New York City's Police Department released its midyear crime statistics. It's good news. Overall, crime is dropping in the nation's biggest city, but there is one exception.

[10:55:02]

Hate crimes are up by a shocking 64 percent when compared to this time last year. And it brings me to my question. In New York City, which of the following groups experienced the highest number of hate crimes in 2018? Black people, Jewish people, gay and lesbian people, or white people? Stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer.

For a book recommendation, this week, I'll turn to my special guest, House Speaker and voracious reader, Nancy Pelosi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: So I sent two books. One was The Island of the Day Before, which is a novel, and the other one is Longitude, about how finally longitude was able to be determined and maintained on a ship in the salty seas and the rest of that.

If that doesn't really turn you on, for a complete change of total pace of one thing I was reading recently was something called Circe, which is about Greek mythology. So that's to get your mind off of your day job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The answer to my GPS challenge this week is B, attacks on Jews in New York City nearly doubled over the same period in 2018, jumping from 58 to 110.

In London, anti-Semitic attacks have been on the rise for years, and by April, were up 19 percent over the first part of last year, reaching 200.

And in Berlin, the commissioner for anti-Semitism warned that attacks in 2018 were up by nearly 250 percent. That rise accounts for a jump from 7 in 2017 for 24 for the entire year, a mere fraction of the attacks in those other cities, New York and London, but, of course, any single attack is a cause for concern.

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