>> HELLO, EVERYONE.

AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. "

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

A QUARTER CENTURY LATER AMERICA AND THE WORLD REMEMBER SEPTEMBER 11th.

NICHOLAS BURNS, U. S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO AT THE TIME, JOINS ME WITH REFLECTIONS ON THAT DARK DAY AND JUST HOW IT CHANGED EVERYTHING.

> >> THEN, NEARLY 1,000 YEARS AFTER IT LEFT, THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY IS BACK ON BRITISH SOIL.

I SPEET TO LORD PETER RICKETTS, THE YOU CAN SPECIAL ENVOY WHO HELPED PULL OFF THE IMPOSSIBLE.

PLUS -- >> I THINK THE UNITED STATES CONSUMERS ARE GOING TO BE HURT.

I THINK UNITED STATES BUSINESSES THAT DO BUSINESS WITH CANADA ARE GOING TO BE HURT.

>> DAVID COHEN, THE U. S. AMBASSADOR TO CANADA UNDER BIDEN, TELLS WALTER ISAACSON THAT TRUMP'S TARIFFS MAY PUSH OTTAWA INTO THE ARMS OF BEIJING.

> >> "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE STRAUS FAMILY FOUNDATION.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

MONIQUE SCHOEN WARSHAW.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

> >> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

25 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK AMERICA AND THE WORLD CHANGED FOREVER.

THE 9/11 ATTACKS SHOCKED PEOPLE EVERYWHERE AND PROMPTED AN OUTPOURING OF GLOBAL SYMPATHY FOR THE UNITED STATES WITH NATO FOR THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME IN ITS HISTORY INVOKING ARTICLE 5, THAT AN ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL.

ALLIES RUSHED TO AMERICA'S SIDE, AND HUNDREDS OF THEIR SOLDIERS GAVE THEIR LIVES IN THE WARS IN AFGHANISTAN AND LATER IRAQ.

TODAY AMERICA'S STANDING, THOUGH, APPEARS VERY DIFFERENT.

ALLIES NOW VIEW THE U. S. WITH SUSPICION, SOME DISTRUST, AND WORKAROUND, AS IT REPEATEDLY QUESTIONS --AS THE UNITED STATES REPEATEDLY QUESTIONS DEFENDING NATO ALLIES, AND AS IT ENGAGES IN A FOREVER WAR WITH IRAN.

SO HOW DID THINGS GET TO THIS PLACE, AND IS THERE ANY WAY BACK TOWARDS GLOBAL LEADERSHIP FOR THE UNITED STATES?

NICHOLAS BURNS HAS HELD MANY SENIOR POSITIONS WITHIN THE U. S. GOVERNMENT, MOST RECENTLY AS AMBASSADOR TO CHINA.

ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, HE WAS AMERICA'S AMBASSADOR TO NATO, WHEN ARTICLE 5 WAS FIRST INVOKED.

AND HE'S JOINING ME NOW.

NICHOLAS BURNS, AMBASSADOR, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU, CHRISTINE.

CHRISTIANE, THANK YOU.

>> I GUESS, I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU WHAT DO YOU THINK NOW --YOU'RE KIND OF FORCED TO CONTEND WITH THAT DAY 25 YEARS AGO.

WHAT'S FLASHING ACROSS YOUR VIEW AND THROUGH YOUR MIND?

>> WELL, CHRISTIANE, I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL LESSON THAT I LEARNED ON 9/11 IN TERMS OF AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD IS WE NEED FRIENDS AND ALLIES IN THE WORLD.

I WAS A VERY NEW AMBASSADOR.

I'D ONLY BEEN THERE 12 DAYS ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001, AND YOU'LL REMEMBER THIS, WE WERE HIT VERY HARD.

NEARLY 3,000 PEOPLE DEAD IN THE UNITED STATES, PEOPLE FROM 90 COUNTRIES, BY THE WAY.

AND MY PHONE --I COULDN'T REACH THE WHITE HOUSE STATE DEPARTMENT OR PENTAGON, BUT MY PHONE STARTED TO RING.

THE CANADIAN AMBASSADOR, DAVID WRIGHT, THE DANNISH AMBASSADOR, THE NORWEGIAN AMBASSADOR, THE ICELAND AMBASSADOR, AND THEY ALL SAID WE'RE WITH YOU AND WE'LL GO INTO AFGHANISTAN WITH YOU IF NECESSARY, AND WE'LL INVOKE ARTICLE 5 OF THE NATO TREATY AND AN ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL.

BY THE NEXT DAY EVERY ALLY AGREED IT WAS A SHOT IN THE ARM TO OUR COUNTRY THAT HAD BEEN SHATTERED BY THIS CATASTROPHIC ATTACK.

IN A CONVERSATION WITH CONDOLEEZA RICE, THEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, SHE SAID TO ME - -IT'S GOOD TO HAVE FRIENDS IN THE WORLD.

THAT WAS OUR CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 12th THE NEXT DAY.

CHRISTIANE, AS I REFLECT ON THAT DAY, THANK GOODNESS THAT AMERICA HAD ALLIES THAT DAY THAT WOULD HELP US, THAT WOULD STEP IN.

AND SOME OF THEM, OF COURSE, IN VERY DANGEROUS MISSIONS IN AFGHANISTAN WITH LOTS OF CASUALTIES.

AND I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT A LOT ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS AND WEEKS AND DAYS.

THE UNITED STATES IS POWERFUL, BUT WE NEED TO BE RESPECTFUL OF OUR ALLIES AND TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT AND WORK WITH THEM AND LISTEN TO THEM BECAUSE WE NEED THEM.

>> I KNOW, AND IT'S JUST SO INCREDIBLE TO HEAR YOUR MEMORIES.

YOU WERE RIGHT THERE WHEN ARTICLE 5 WAS INVOKED.

AND IF YOU REMEMBER, AND I'M GOING TO READ THIS, THE FRENCH NEWSPAPER LESPD MONDE DECLARED "WE'RE ALL AMERICANS AT THIS TIME. "

AND YOU FAST FORWARD TO TODAY AND NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

NOT BECAUSE THE ALLIES DON'T WANT IT BE BUT BECAUSE THIS ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO BE PUSHING THEM BACK.

DID YOU EVER THINK THIS WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY SOMEWHERE IN THE HISTORY OF TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS?

>> NO, I DID NOT, CHRISTIANE.

I ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THROUGH THICK AND THIN THE UNITED STATES, EVERY PRESIDENT WOULD REALIZE THAT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE 31 ALLIES IN NATO, THE FACT WE HAVE IN EAST ASIA ALLIES IN JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA AND THE PHILIPPINES, IN THAILAND, AND IN AUSTRALIA --THIS IS THE GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA, THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA.

THEY HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT FEAR BOTH COUNTRIES.

WE HAVE HAD NEIGHBORS ALL DEMOCRACIES WHO BELIEVE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE BELIEVE ABOUT THE WORLD.

AND FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO CUT TIES WITH THE NATO ALLIES, TO THREATEN TO INVADE DENMARK, GREENLAND, TO THREATEN THAT CANADA SHOULD BE THE 51st STATE, AND TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PEOPLE OF CANADA.

OVER THE WEEKEND, CHRISTIANE, YOU SAW WHAT I SAW.

A MAP PUT OUT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON HIS SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT CLAIMING ICELAND AS A NATO ALLY AS WELL AS GREENLAND AS WELL AS MEXICO AS SOME KIND OF FUTURE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS MADNESS.

IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR THE UNITED STATES, AND YOU KNOW AND I KNOW THAT IF YOU POLL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 99.

9% WOULD SAY WE WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THESE COUNTRIES.

WE'RE NOT TRYING TO ACQUIRE THEM IN SOME KIND OF 18th CENTURY, 19th CENTURY IMPERIALIST WAY.

SO I THINK IT'S A VERY SAD COMMENTARY, AND I HOPE VERY MUCH THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, CAN REVERSE THIS STRATEGY.

>> SO DO YOU THINK THAT IT CAN?

IS THIS A BLIP IN THE HISTORY OF LET'S SAY THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY AND IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN RELATIONS WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD?

OR AS SOME SAY EVEN, YOU KNOW, PRIME MINISTER CARNEY, WHO'S THE TARGET OF A LOT OF THIS OUT POURING FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE SAID IN DAVOS, AS YOU HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR THIS IS NOT A TRANSITION, THIS IS A RUPTURE.

AND TALKED ABOUT HOW MIDDLE POWERS AND NONSUPER POWERS HAD TO FIGURE OUT THE WORKAROUND INCLUDING U. S. ALLIES.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE READ CARNEY'S SPEECH CLOSELY.

IT WAS IN MANY WAYS A BRILLIANT SPEECH, BRILLIANTLY DELIVERED.

I HOPE AND I THINK PROBABLY HE HOPES THAT THIS DOES NOT COME TO PASS, THAT THERE'S SOME KIND OF PERMANENT BREAK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ESPECIALLY ITS DEMOCRATIC ALLIES IN NATO AND IN EAST ASIA.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PUBLIC OPINION POLLS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, VERY STRONG SUPPORT BY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FOR NATO.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE CHAIRS IN THE SENATE, IN THE HOUSE, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT NATO REMAINS A GREAT AND ENDURING ALLIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, SO I DO THINK IT'S ABOUT LEADERSHIP.

OBVIOUSLY, MUCH CHANGES IN FOREIGN POLICY.

SOME OF THESE CHANGES MIGHT BE PERMANENT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE SO ON NATO, AN ALLIANCES PARTICULARLY AS AMERICANS FOCUS ON THE THREAT FROM PUTIN IN EUROPE TO IMPOSE AUTHORITARIANISM AND TO TRY TO DEFEAT UKRAINE, AND THE THREAT FROM CHINA, AND AS YOU KNOW, CHRISTIANE, I WAS AMBASSADOR THERE FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN.

THESE ARE MAJOR CHALLENGES, AND SO WE'VE GOT TO GROUP TOGETHER, RALLY TOGETHER TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH THESE COUNTRIES BUT NOT TO BE DOMINATED BY THEM AND TO STAND UP FOR OUR DEMOCRATIC VALUES.

>> YEAH, AND YOU'VE BEEN AMBASSADOR AND HELD SENIOR POSITIONS UNDER BOTH --UNDER BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS FROM BOTH PARTIES.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO THIS IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE INSTITUTIONAL AMERICAN SYSTEM AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY AND ALL OTHER POLICIES.

YOU JUST MENTIONED PUTIN, SO I WANT TO ASK YOU --YOU SEE AS WE'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT TRUMP KIND OF DISRESPECTING AND THREATENING THE IDEA OF THE NATO ALLIANCE AND WHETHER OR NOT HE'D COME TO THE AID OF OTHER NATO NATIONS IF THEY WERE ATTACKED.

AND THEN SUDDENLY YOU SEE PUTIN DEFINITELY EMBOLDENED AND EUROPE AND NATO COUNTRIES WARNING HE MIGHT TRY SOMETHING ON IN EUROPE.

BUT TRUMP PRESUMABLY, IT WAS HIM WHO SENT HIS CIA DIRECTOR TO PUTIN OR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS TO TELL HIM DON'T MISREAD OR DON'T MISUNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING FROM THE UNITED STATES.

DON'T TRY ANYTHING.

SO THAT'S KIND OF MY ANSWER TO WHAT DO YOU THINK THE EFFECT TRUMP'S PUBLIC STANCE TO NATO HAS HAD.

>> I THINK IT'S WEAKENED DETERRENCE BY THE NATO ALLIES.

WE LEARNED, CHRISTIANE, THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR THE WAY TO KEEP THE PEACE --AND WE HAVE TO HAVE PEACE IN THE GLOBAL POWER RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA --IS TO BE STRONG AND TO SEND A MESSAGE DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT IF HE EVER ATTEMPTED TO INVADE ESTONIA OR LATVIA OR LITHUANIA OR POLAND, I'M THINKING OF FIVE CLOSE ALLIES TO RUSSIA THAT'S THE WAY TO STOP PUTIN.

I WAS JUST IN NORWAY OVER THE LAST FOUR DAYS.

THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED BY RUSSIA'S CUTTING CABLES IN THE BALTIC SEA AND NORTH SEA, BY THESE DRONES PENETRATING THE TERRITORY OF NATO ALLIES.

AND I THINK THAT ALL THE PUBLICS AS WELL AS THE GOVERNMENTS OF THESE ALLIES ARE WAITING FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO SPEAK CLEARLY AND FIRMLY THAT WE'RE IN THE NATO CAMP, WE'RE WITH DEMOCRACIES, AND WE'RE NOT WITH PUTIN AT ALL.

AND, FRANKLY, WHEN YOU SEND AN AMERICAN NEGOTIATING DELEGATION, AS THE PRESIDENT DID THIS WEEK, AND WHERE THEY SAY IN PUBLIC IT'S QUITE AN HONOR TO MEET PRESIDENT PUTIN, IT'S ONE OF THE UNFORGETTABLE EXPERIENCES OF THEIR LIVES --THAT IS EXACTLY THE WRONG MESSAGE TO SEND TO VLADIMIR PUTIN.

SO I HOPE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF CONVERSION HERE IN WASHINGTON AND A RETHINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO BE MUCH STRONGER AND PURPOSEFUL ON UKRAINE'S SIDE OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS RATHER THAN THE RUSSIA SIDE AND SEND THE RIGHT MESSAGE ON NATO.

>> AND DO YOU THINK, AS MANY HAVE SORT OF --SORT OF COME TO THE CONCLUSION OVER THE YEARS SINCE 9/11, THAT PERHAPS THE UNITED STATES OVERREACTED, THAT THE AFGHAN WAR WAS A JUST WAR, THAT THE U. S. WAS TRYING TO DEFEAT THE ENEMY THAT HAD ATTACKED THE HOMELAND AND IT WAS DOING SO WITH ALL ITS ALLIES.

BUT THEN CAME IRAQ, AND FAST FORWARD TO THIS NEW APPARENTLY NEW FOREVER WAR OF CHOICE WHICH IS AGAINST IRAN, WHICH IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES, AS FAR AS WE CAN SEE RIGHT NOW.

DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU LOOK BACK THAT POLICY, THIS SO-CALLED NEBULOUS WAR ON TERROR AND ALL THAT IT ENTAILED WAS AN OVERREACTION?

>> CHRISTIANE, I'D SAY --OBVIOUSLY I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT.

I'VE TALKED TO MY CLASS ABOUT THIS THIS MORNING HERE AT HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL.

WE HAD TO GO INTO AFGHANISTAN IN THE AUTUMN OF 2001.

WE'D BEEN HIT STRATEGICALLY VERY HARD, AND TOO MANY PEOPLE HAD DIED IN OUR COUNTRY.

WE HAD TO GO AFTER OSAMA BIN LADEN.

AND IT'S INTERESTING TO LOOK BACK.

RUSSIA AND CHINA SUPPORTED THE UNITED STATES GOING INTO AFGHANISTAN.

THE WHOLE WORLD SUPPORTED US, SO I THINK THAT WAS A JUST INTERVENTION BY THE UNITED STATES.

I THINK THE MISTAKE WE MADE WAS NO ONE EVER FELT IN 2001 OR TWO IN OUR GOVERNMENT THAT WE'D BE THERE FOR 20 YEARS.

WE STAYED A LONG TIME, KIND OF LOST A SENSE OF THE CLEAR MISSION.

BUT THE BIG MISTAKE --AND I SAY THIS IN RETROSPECT --IN 27 HINDSIGHT WAS GOING INTO IRAQ IN 2003.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU I WAS AMBASSADOR AT NATO AT THAT TIME.

I SUPPORTED THE WAR, I SUPPORTED THE INTERVENTION.

I REGRET THAT NOW.

I THINK IT WAS THE WRONG DECISION TO GO IN AND CERTAINLY THE WRONG DECISION TO GET CAUGHT IN THE QUICKSAND, IF YOU WILL, OF IRAQ TO STAY FOR 11 YEARS AND SO MANY PEOPLE KILLED.

SO ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS IN GLOBAL POLITICS --AND YOU KNOW THIS WELL FROM YOUR CAREER AS A REPORTER --WHEN DO WE INTERVENE, AND WHEN DO WE DO NOT?

AND SOMETIMES THE RIGHT ANSWER IS TO INTERVENE.

OUR MUTUAL FRIEND MADELEINE ALBRIGHT TOLD US AT HARVARD WHEN SHE VISITED US SOME YEARS AGO WE DID NOT INTERVENE IN RWANDA IN JUST A FEW MONTHS TIME IN 1994.

SO GETTING THIS RIGHT I THINK IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT LEADERS MAKE.

CLEARLY WE WERE RIGHT ABOUT AFGHANISTAN.

I THINK IN RETROSPECT I WAS WRONG AND OUR GOVERNMENT WAS WRONG TO GO INTO IRAQ THE WAY WE DID IN 2003.

>> YOU'VE ALSO --YOU TALK ABOUT MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, AND OF COURSE I DO --I DO REMEMBER THAT AND THE HORROR OF --OF THE OMISSION, YOU KNOW, OF NOT INTERVENING, AND IT CAUSED NEARLY A MILLION DEATHS, AS YOU SAY, IN SUCH A QUICK TIME.

BUT THEN YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT THE LACK OF DIPLOMACY AND DIP LUPLATS AND THE REAL IDEA OF DEGRADING OF DIPLOMACY.

NOW 25 YEARS LATER WE'RE IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS OF TRUMP'S SECOND ADMINISTRATION, AND IT APPEARS A LOT OF THE PROFESSIONALS ARE SIDELINED EITHER OUT OF THE PICTURE OR DO NOT HAVE SWAY.

AND I WONDER WHAT YOU THINK WHAT EFFECT THAT'S HAVING NOW.

YOU MENTIONED BRIEFLY, YOU KNOW, THE PERSONAL FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES AND FAMILIES WHO TRUMP TASKED WITH SOME VERY IMPORTANT DIPLOMACY.

BUT OVER IRAN, I MEAN, DID NOBODY TELL THE PRESIDENT, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN WITH A WAR OF CHOICE AGAINST IRAN THAT COULD LEAD --AND WHAT'S THE DANGER OF CAREENING INTO THESE WARS WITH NO FIXED EXIT PLAN OR STRATEGY?

>> CHRISTIANE, I THINK ONE OF THE GREATEST MISTAKES PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE IS THAT HE HAS REALLY NEGLECTED, IN FACT, EVEN CAST ASIDE OUR CAREER DIPLOMATS IN THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN SERVICE.

YOU KNOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE VERY WELL.

THERE WAS NO CAREER DIP LOMAT IN THE ROOM WHEN THEY HAD THAT FINAL CONVERSATION WITH THE IANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER WHEN THE WAR BEGAN FEBRUARY 28th.

WE HAVE MANY PEOPLE WHO SPEAK FARSI, PERSIAN, THEY'VE BEEN SIDE LINED.

NO CAREER DIPLOMATS IN THE ROOM.

WHEN THEY GO IN TO MEET WHITKOFF AND KUSHNER, PRESIDENT PUTIN IN MOSKOW, THIS IS DIPLOMATIC MALPRACTICE TO BASICALLY CASTAWAY YOUR FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS, MANY OF THEM FIRED, MANY OF OUR BEST PEOPLE PUSHED ASIDE AND TOLD TO RETIRE.

AND TO RELY ON FRANKLY PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE, THEY DON'T SPEAK THE LANGUAGE, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GREAT POWER ASPECTS OF THIS.

I HAVE TO HOPE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OR NEXT SECRETARY OF STATE OF EITHER PARTY AFTER 2028 ARE GOING TO RIGHT THE SHIP AND BRING BACK OUR CAREER IPLOMATS AND CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS.

IT'S NOT A GREAT WAY TO GO ARE FOR A COUNTRY LIKE OURS.

>> MANY PEOPLE WOULD SAY OSAMA BIN LADEN'S MAIN OBJECTIVE IN 2011 AND AS HE KEPT TRYING TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES, WAS TO ATTACK AMERICA'S POSITION IN THE WORLD, TO UPEND THAT POST-WAR STRUCTURE.

AND NOW 20 YEARS LATER PEOPLE ARE SAYING, WELL, ACTUALLY IT'S THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION THAT IS KIND OF GIVING AWAY AMERICA'S SUPER POWER IN THE WAYS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, AND GIVING IT PERHAPS TO CHINA.

AND YOU HAVE BEEN AMBASSADOR TO CHINA, AS YOU MENTIONED IN THE EARLY PART OF THE INTERVIEW, AND I JUST WONDERED WHETHER YOU THINK THIS IS A MOMENT WHERE THE RELATIVE STRENGTH OF THESE -- YOU KNOW, THE SUPER POWER AND THE WANNABE SUPER POWER ARE AT SORT OF A TIPPING POINT.

>> WELL, I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, AND I'M WORRIED.

I'M WORRIED THE UNITED STATES IS GIVING THE IMPRESSION, WELL, WE'VE BROKEN THE BONDS OF TRUST IN THE ALLIES.

ON THE TARIFF REGIME WE PLACE SOME OF THE BEST TARIFFS IN THE WORLD WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE WORLD.

WE'RE OUT OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE.

WE'RE GOING IN A VERY UNILATERAL DIRECTION.

IT ALLOWS XI JINPING TO STAND UP AND SAY I'M THE STABLE LEADER.

I BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW.

THIS IS ALL CYNICAL, BY THE WAY, ON THE PART OF THE CHINESE, BUT THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO START TRADE WARS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, ET CETERA.

SO I DO THINK WE'RE GIVING NOT JUST A PASS TO THE CHINESE, WE'RE GIVING THEM A PEDESTAL TO STAND ON, THAT THEY'RE THE COUNTRY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GLOBAL ORDER AND LOOK AT THAT RENEGADE COUNTRY TO THE UNITED STATES.

WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE COURSE HERE.

AND IF WE DON'T, I DO THINK WE'LL SEE CHINA VAULT AHEAD OF THE UNITED STATES.

ENMANY WAYS THE LATEST PEW, P-E-W, GLOBAL PUBLIC OPINION POLL SHOWS FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT ALLIED COUNTRIES LIKE AUSTRALIA, FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY NOW HAVE GREATER FAITH IN CHINA TO BE A GLOBAL LEADER THAN THE UNITED STATES.

HOW SAD IS THAT?

SO I DO THINK THIS BATTLE OF IDEAS FOR THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD TRENDING IN CHINA'S FAVOR, IT PAINS ME TO SAY THAT.

AND WE AMERICANS, I THINK, ARE BETTER THAN THAT AND NEED A GOVERNMENT THAT CAN BE MORE RESPECTFUL AND OPEN TO THE DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES AND EVERYONE ELSE AROUND THE WORLD.

>> AND JUST FINALLY, AS U. S. AMBASSADOR TO CHINA, WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE THE CURRENT PRESIDENT IF YOU WERE IN THE ROOM WHEN HE MET PRESIDENT XI OF CHINA, WHICH IS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE SUMMIT IN WASHINGTON ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER?

>> MY ADVICE WOULD BE WE'VE GOT TO STANDBY TAIWAN.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH THE ARMS SALES PACKAGE HE HAS BEEN DELAYING SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, THAT WE SHOULD SPEAK UP FOR JAPAN, OUR ALLY.

CHINA HAS BEEN TRYING TO INTIMIDATE JAPAN.

THE PHILIPPINES --CHINA IS TRYING TO THE INTIMIDATE THE PHILIPPINES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA.

SPEAK UP FOR OUR ALLIES.

TELL THEM WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT THEM.

AT THE SAME TIME OBVIOUSLY COMPLAIN TO THE CHINESE ABOUT THEIR UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICES.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO SHOW THE STRENGTH IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA.

AND WE WANT TO LIVE PEACEFULLY WITH CHINA.

WE WANT TO GO BACK TO WORKING, WE SHOULD, ON CLIMATE CHANGE WITH CHINA.

I THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TOO SOFT ON BOTH XI JINPING AND VLADIMIR PUTIN, AND THIS IS HURLTING HURTING THE UNITED STATES, AND AEROALLIES ARE WATCHING.

AND I THINK THEY'RE VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING IN.

>> AMBASSADOR NICHOLAS BURNS, THANK YOU FOR THIS PERSPECTIVE 25 YEARS AFTER 9/11.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

> >> NEXT TO AN ACT OF DIPLOMACY NEARLY 1,000 YEARS IN THE MAKING.

THIS WEEK THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY WILL GO ON PUBLIC DISPLAY IN BRITAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME IN CENTURIES, AFTER THE FRENCH PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON AGREED TO A HISTORIC LOAN.

>> ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE HERE, MR.

PRESIDENT, CAN I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HUGE PERSONAL GESTURE OF GOODWILL, TRUST, AND FRIENDSHIP WITH BRITAIN IN ALLOWING THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY TO BE DISPLAYED HERE.

>> IT IS A REMARKABLE MOMENT AND A POPULAR ONE.

TICKETS TO VIEW THE TAPESTRY AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM SOLD OUT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THEY WENT ON SALE.

THE ARTWORK ITSELF IS ASTONISHING, DEPICTING THE 1066 NORMENED CONQUEST OF BRITAIN IN VIVID, COLORFUL DETAIL.

AMONGST THOSE TASKED WITH MAKING THIS MOMENT A REALITY WAS LORD PETER RICKETS, WHO SERVED AS YOU CAN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, AS AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE, AND HE'S NOW THE YOU CAN SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE HISTORIC LOAN OF THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY, AND HE'S JOINING ME NOW.

LORD RICKETTS, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO SEE IT.

I RAN INTO YOU THERE AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM EARLIER THIS WEEK, AND I DIDN'T GET TO ASK YOU ENOUGH ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF THE NEGOTIATION.

CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH HOW LONG IT TOOK, WHAT WERE THE PITFALLS, WHAT WERE THE OBSTACLES, IF ANY, HOW YOU DID IT?

>> CHRISTIANE, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

IT IS A MOST WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THIS 950-YEAR-OLD EMBROIDERY, ACTUALLY NOT TAPESTRY.

THE INITIATIVE CAME FROM FRENCH PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON WHO SAID AT A SUMMIT MEETING WITH TERESA MAY, THE PRIME MINISTER HERE IN 2018, THAT HIS OBJECTIVE WAS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE TAPESTRY ON LOAN.

I THINK THE PARTICULAR REASON FOR THAT WAS THAT THE BAYEUX MUSEUM WAS CLOSING, WHERE IT'S BEEN ON DISPLAY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS FOR REFURBISHMENT, FOR REBUILD, AND OTHERWISE IT WAS GOING TO GO INTO STORAGE.

I THINK MACRON UNDERSTOOD THIS ARTWORK, THIS OBJECT TELLS THE FOUNDATIONAL STORY OF ENGLAND IN A WAY.

206 10/66 IS THE DATE EVERY CHILD HERE KNOWS, AND IT HAS IMPACT.

AND HE UNDERSTOOD THAT.

THEN THERE WAS COVID AND WE WENT THROUGH A BAD PATCH WITH FRANCE OVER BREXIT AND ALL THE DIFFICULTIES AND THAT.

SO IT WAS ONLY ABOUT 2024 OR SOMETHING THAT MOMENTUM PICKED UP AGAIN AND PLANS REALLY BEGAN TO BE MADE.

AND THE PROBLEMS, OF COURSE, ARE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS WHEN THE DECISION OF PRINCIPLE IS TAKEN, THEN IT'S A QUESTION OF GETTING THIS OBJECT TO THE U. K. AND DISPLAYING IT SAFELY.

IT IS FRAGILE.

IT'S VERY LARGE.

IT'S 70 METERS LONG.

IT NEEDS CAREFUL CLIMATE CONTROL, AND IN PARTICULAR THE MINIMUM POSSIBLE VIBRATION SO THAT THE THREADS AREN'T DETACHED.

AND SO WE HAD TO SOLVE PROBLEMS OF TRANSPORT AND OF THEN DESIGNING AN EXHIBITION IN LONDON WHICH MET VERY TIGHT PARAMETERS TO ENSURE THIS EXTRAORDINARY SURVIVAL FROM THE 11th CENTURY IS SAFE AND SOUND HERE AND GOES BACK SAFE AND SOUND TO FRANCE AT THE END OF THE SHOW.

>> YEAH, AND WE WERE LOOKING AT AT BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL IMAGES OF THE VARIOUS POINTS IN THE TRANSFER.

AND IT HAS BEEN BEAUTIFULLY DISPLAYED AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM COMPLETE WITH AN MATED EXPLANATION THAT'S ON THE WALL, AS WE LOOK DOWN AT THE TAPESTRY, WHICH IS AS YOU SAY IS EMBROIDERY.

LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT JUST SUM UP WHY THIS 1066, THE NORMAN INVASION AND CONQUEST COMPLETELY CHANGED BRITISH HISTORY?

WHAT WAS IT BEFORE AND WHAT HAS IT BEEN SINCE?

>> WELL, BEFORE THE ANGLO SAXONS RULED IN ENGLAND AND IN OTHER PARTS OF THE U. K. , OTHER RULERS.

WHEN THE NORMANDS CAME THEY BROUGHT THEIR GOVERNANCE, THEY BROUGHT THEIR KING, BROUGHT THEIR ARCHITECTURE.

MANY OF THE GREAT MONUMENTS OF THE CATHEDRALS AND GREAT CASTLES IN NORMANDY WERE BUILT BY THE NORMANDS AFTER THE GREAT CONQUEST AND NO DOUBT CHANGED OUR FOOD AS WELL.

AND THAT IS THE POINT FOR MOST PEOPLE HISTORY BEGAN.

BEFORE THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH IN THE WAY OF RECORDS OF THE ANGLO SAXON PERIOD.

AND SOME OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THOUGH MOST HAVEN'T SEEN THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY IN ENGLAND, THE IMOBJECT TF IS VERY WELL-KNOWN.

IT'S IN ALMOST EVERY CHILDREN'S SCHOOLBOOK.

IT'S A COMIC STRIP OUT OF THE 11th CENTURY FULL OF MOVEMENT AND DETAIL.

IT REALLY IS A WINDOW INTO ANOTHER WORLD, AND THEREFORE IT HAS A SPECIAL MAGIC, ALSO EXTREMELY WELL ADAPTED TO SOCIAL MEDIA.

AS YOU SEE IT'S FLOODING SOCIAL MEDIA WITH MEMES OF EVERY POSSIBLE DESCRIPTION.

THEREFORE IT'S GOING TO BE A SENSATIONAL SHOW, A REAL BLOCKBUSTER.

>> YES, INDEED.

AND ACTUALLY JUST WATCHING IT AND SEEING THE COLORS AND THE CLARITY, OBVIOUSLY, AND THE STATE OF HEALTH THAT OBVIOUSLY THE TAPESTRY IS IN, YOU JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAID, 950 YEARS OLD.

HOW DID IT STAY SO PRISTINE AND SO ALMOST --YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S HAD A SINGLE, YOU KNOW, TEAR IN IT, BUT I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME REPAIRS AND SOME RESTORATIONS.

>> YES.

IT'S A FAIRLY LIVED IN OBJECT BY NOW.

I MEAN, THE ANSWER IS THAT I THINK FOR MOST OF THE TIME IT WAS IN A BOX IN A CATHEDRAL.

IT WAS TAKEN OUT ONCE A YEAR AND PUT ON DISPLAY AND THEN PUT AWAY AGAIN.

SO FOR MANY CENTURIES IT DIDN'T REALLY SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, WHICH IS CRUCIAL BECAUSE AN AS AN EMBROIDERY, IT WOULD HAVE EASILY FADED.

FROM THE 19th CENTURY IT'S BEEN DISPLAY AND HASN'T BEEN ALL THAT WELL LOOKED AFTER.

IT'S A PRETTY RESILIENT THING, AND AS YOU SAY FINE DETAIL.

ONE OF IT STAR OF THE SHOW FOR ME IS THE SHOWCASE BECAUSE WE DESIGNED A HI-TECH SHOWCASE, SO IT'S SAFE, IT'S PROTECTED, IT'S CLIMATE CONTROLLED.

AND YOU CAN GET UP REALLY CLOSE TO IT.

BECAUSE IT'S LYING FLAT YOU CAN SEE ALL THE DETAIL AND ALL THE FABRIC AND COLOR AND EVERYTHING THEY PUT IN, THE DAILY LIFE AS WELL AS THE SCENES OF BATTLE, THE SCENES OF DIPLOMACY.

IT REALLY IS ALL LIFE IS THERE, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S GOING TO REALLY ABSORB PEOPLE'S ATTENTION.

IT PAYS TO HAVE DONE SOME HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU WENT.

I'M SURE YOU DID, CHRISTIANE, LIKE I DID TO UNDERSTAND A BIT OF WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.

THERE ARE GRAPHICS IN THE MUSEUM WHICH HELP WITH THAT AS WELL.

BUT, NO, IT'S AN OBJECT THAT SPEAKS VERY DIRECTLY TO PEOPLE.

>> YEAH.

AND IT'S REALLY MOVING.

AS YOU SAY IT'S A COMIC STRIP.

WHEN I FIRST SAW IT WAS IN BAYEUX AND IT'S LIKE A COMIC STRIP LIKE YOU SAY AND IT'S TRUE AND IT'S REALLY I GUESS ACCESSIBLE AND COMPELLING FOR ALL AGES.

AND THE BEAUTY IS A THING OF TRUE MAGNIFICENCE.

THE QUESTION IS WHO DID IT?

WAS IT ONE -- WE UNDERSTAND IT WAS WOMEN.

WAS IT ONE WOMAN?

WAS IT A TEAM OF WOMEN?

HOW LONG DID IT TAKE?

WHO ORDERED IT?

WHOSE PERSPECTIVE IS IT MADE FROM?

>> I MEAN ALL GOOD QUESTIONS, AND THE SCHOLARS I THINK HAVE DISCUSSED THAT OVER MANY YEARS.

WHO IT WAS MADE FOR IS RELATIVELY EASY.

THERE'S ONE MAN WHO COMES OUT AS, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS BEING IN THE RIGHT PLACE, ALWAYS ON THE RIGHT SIDE ALONGSIDE WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, AND THAT'S A GUY CALLED BISHOP ODO, WHO I THINK WAS A BROTHER-IN-LAW WHO CAME ACROSS IN THE CONQUEST, AND THEN HE WAS MADE BISHOP OF BAYEUX CATHEDRAL.

SO NO SURPRISE THIS OBJECT WAS PROBABLY MADE IN SOME SORT OF TRIBUTE TO BISHOP ODO AND WENT TO HIS CATHEDRAL AND RESTORED THERE.

THE SCHOLARS THINK IT WAS PROBABLY DONE BY WOMEN IN CANTERBURY IN THE YEARS QUITE SOON AFTER 1066?

WHY BECAUSE THERE ARE IMAGES THAT CORRESPOND VERY MUCH ON THE LIBRARY IN CANTERBURY.

THAT'S WHAT IT SORT OF LOOKS LIKE AND THERE WERE NOBLE WOMEN WHO EMBROIDERED.

IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN SEVERAL YEARS, BUT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DONE, YOU KNOW, BY THE END OF THE 1060s.

SO QUITE SOON AFTER THE EVENTS, THE PEOPLE EMBROIDERED IT WOULD HAVE LIVED QUITE SOON AFTER THE EVENTS DEPICTED IN THE TAPESTRY.

>> YEAH, WHICH MAKES IT EVEN MORE SPECIAL.

I'M GOING TO BRING UP ONE IMAGE WE HAVE.

WE HAVE SO MANY, BUT JUST I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S COME UP AS A REAL TALKING POINT, AND THAT IS KING HERALD LEGEND HAS IT THAT HE WAS KILLED WITH AN ARROW THROUGH THE EYE.

THAT'S WHAT WE LEARNED AT SCHOOL WHEN WE LEARNED 1066, AND NOW THERE IS A LOT OF DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

SO THERE'S THIS IMAGE WE'RE SEEING, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S THE KING PULLING AN ARROW OUT OF HIS EYE, AND THEN THERE'S AN IMAGE THAT ALSO LOOKS LIKE THE KING, BUT HE'S BEING HACKED BY A NORMAN SOLDIER ON THAT HORSE WITH HIS SWORD.

SO WHICH IS IT, DO YOU THINK?

AND WHY THE CONTROVERSY OVER THAT?

>> WE'RE ALL SETTING OURSELVES UP AS THE HISTORIANS OF THE 11th CENTURY, AREN'T WE?

WHAT THE EXPERTS THINK IS THAT ARROW WAS PROBABLY ADDED A LOT LATER, PROBABLY WASN'T IN THE TAPESTRY.

IN THE CHRONICLES I DON'T THINK ANYONE SPEAKS ABOUT HAROLD BEING KILLED WITH AN ARROW IN HIS EYE.

SO I THINK THE BEST OPINION I'VE URD IS THAT PROBABLY IT'S THE MAN BEING HACKED DOWN ONE SCENE FURTHER ON, AND A MYTH HAS GROWN UP AROUND THE FIGURE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN ARROW IN HIS EYE.

AS YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGES, THIS IS NOT A ROSE TINTED HISTORICAL PORTRAIT.

>> YES.

>> YOU KNOW, THE GRAPHIC DETAILS OF WAR AND SUFFERING AND VIOLENCE ARE THERE AS WELL, YOU KNOW, AS THE HOMILY SCENES OF COOKING AND EATING IN THE HOUSES.

SO IT --IT'S VERY, VERY GRAPHIC.

BUT APPARENTLY HE DIDN'T HAVE THE ARROW IN THE EYE, AS FAR AS PEOPLE CAN TELL.

HOWEVER, IT'S STILL A GOOD STORY.

>> IT IS A GOOD STORY.

LET ME BRING UP ANOTHER SPECIFIC PICTURE WE HAVE TO YOUR POINT, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF THE HORROR OF WAR, OBVIOUSLY.

AND IT'S BEEN BRILLIANTLY DEPICTED AS WELL IN FULL COLOR AND FULL DETAIL.

SO THERE'S ONE WHERE THERE'S A WOMAN WHO'S FLEEING WITH HER CHILD AND HER HOUSE IS BEING BURNT DOWN OR ABOUT TO BE BURNT DOWN BY THE NORMANDY SELL OJURES AS WE CAN SEE HERE.

SHE'S ONE OF ABOUT SIX WOMEN DEPICTED IN THE TAPESTRY.

SOME HAVE SAID THEY FEEL THE LOOK EVEN ON THE NORMAND SOLDIER'S FACE HAS BEEN DEPICTED AS ONE OF SORROW OR REGRET.

THEY DON'T LOOK AVARICIOUS OR REPATIENCE ABOUT IT, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SCENES OF RAPE ELSEWHERE.

THE PROJECT CREATOR SAYS THIS WOMAN'S EXPERIENCE IS THE EXPERIENCE OF THE EVERYWOMAN, IF YOU WILL, THE EXPERIENCE THAT A LOT OF ENGLISH WOMEN INCLUDING THE ENGLISH WOMEN WHO PROBABLY MADE THE TAPESTRY WOULD HAVE LIVED THROUGH AND WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED.

WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT SCENE?

>> IT'S A VERY HARROWING SCENE, INDEED.

AND IT REMINDS US THIS WAS WAR.

THIS WAS BRUTAL WAR IN WHICH CIVILIANS WERE CAUGHT UP, OBVIOUSLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED, WERE RAPED.

HOUSES WERE BURNT, VILLAGES WERE BURNED.

WE KNOW THAT THE NORMANDS WENT THROUGH ITALY PRETTY BRUTALLY IN THE YEAR AFTER THE CONQUEST TO SUBDUE THE SAXONS.

AND THE TAPESTRY DOESN'T SHY AWAY FROM THAT.

IT'S ONE OF THE MOST POIGNANT AND DIFFICULT PICTURES TO SEE ACTUALLY BECAUSE THIS IS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE COURSE OF A BRUTAL WAR, AND ON THE FACE OF THE TAPESTRIES, AS YOU SAY I THINK THERE ARE THREE NOBLE WOMEN ON THE WHOLE TAPESTRY, OTHERWISE IT IS MEN.

BUT THE WOMEN WERE SUFFERING AS WELL AND THE CHILDREN, AND IT DOESN'T FORGET THAT.

>> LET ME FAST FORWARD TO TODAY BECAUSE I EXPLAIN THAT YOU'VE BEEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, YOU'VE BEEN U. K. AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE, AND YOU'VE BEEN A PRETTY STRONG VOICE COMMENTING ABOUT RUSSIA'S WAR ON UKRAINE.

RECENTLY ONE OF THE SENIOR PENTAGON OFFICIALS, ELDRIDGE COLBY, AS SAID THAT EUROPE, QUOTE, MUST NOT SLACK IN THEIR MILITARY BACKING FOR UKRAINE.

HOW DID YOU TAKE THOSE COMMENTS?

>> IT WAS WONDERFUL TO LISTEN TO MY GOOD FRIEND NICK BURNS SPEAKING TO YOU JUST BEFORE, CHRISTIANE.

I AGREED VERY MUCH WITH WHAT HE SAID.

WE DON'T NEED ANY ENCOURAGEMENT FROM ANYONE IN WASHINGTON TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE GOT TO SPEND MORE IN EUROPE BECAUSE OF THE THREAT FROM PUTIN, BECAUSE OF THE URGENT NEED TO SUPPORT UKRAINE, AND IT IS HAPPENING.

IT'S BEEN HAPPENING IT FOR THE LAST DECADE THANKS LARGELY TO PUTIN, BUT ALSO A LOT OF PUSHING FROM FIRST TRUMP REGIME AND THE SECOND PRESIDENCY.

SO U. K. EUROPEAN DEFENSE SPENDING IS RISING.

NOT ENOUGH IN MY VIEW, NOT FAST ENOUGH, AND NOT FAR ENOUGH.

BUT ABSOLUTELY I MEAN SUCCESSION OF BRITISH PRIME MINISTERS, AND MY GOODNESS WE'VE HAD A LOT OF BRITISH PRIME MINISTERS, SIX IN THE LAST SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS.

THEY'VE ALL BEEN IN ABSOLUTELY STAUNCH SUPPORT OF UKRAINE AND ANDY BIRCH IS CARRYING ON WITH THAT.

WE DO NEED TO REBUILD OUR ARM FORCES.

I THINK WE'RE HOPING OVER HERE THE FORCED POSTURE GOING ON IN THE PENTAGON ABOUT THE AMERICAN SCALE WILL NOT MOVE FAST BEFORE WE CAN REBUILD SOME OF THE CAPACITY WE NEED IN ORDER TO TAKE MORE OF A STRAIN HERE.

BUT I THINK THERE'S A POLITICAL CONSENSUS HERE THAT WE DO NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE STRAIN.

>> AND I JUST WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK TO THE TAPESTRY.

THERE WAS THIS IMAGE OF HALEY'S COMET, APPARENTLY THE FIRST EVER RECORDED IMAGE OF HALEY'S COMET.

IT WAS INCREDIBLE TO SEE.

I HAD NEVER SAW THAT BEFORE.

>> YEAH, AND IT DID INDEED PASS OVER ENGLAND IN 1066.

THIS WAS ANOTHER LIVED EXPERIENCE.

RIGHT NEXT TO IT HERALD IS BY THEN KING, AND HE'S GOT A VERY, SAD, WORRIED LOOK ON HIS FACE AS HIS CURTIER IS TELLING HIM HALEY'S COMET WAS SEEN IN THE SKY BECAUSE COMETS WERE NOT GOOD NEWS FOR KINGS IN THE 11th CENTURY, AND PORTENDS DISASTER.

UNDERNEATH THAT IMAGE THERE'S PHANTOM SHIPS, SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE A NIGHTMARE OF INVADING FLEETS COMING OVER, WHICH HAPPENS LATER.

HALEY'S COMET IS ON THERE, AND IT WAS BAD NEWS FOR KING HERALD.

>> LORD PETER RICKETTS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND EVERYBODY HOPES THE BRITISH MUSEUM WILL GIVE OUT MORE TICKETS AND ACCOMMODATE THE HOARDS THAT ARE REALLY CLAMORING TO SEE THE AMAZING DEPICTION OF 1,000 YEARS THAT CHANGED THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY AND THE WAY IT IS GOVERNED AND THE WAY IT LIVES ITS DAILY LIFE AND COMMUNAL AND GOVERNANCE.

IT'S AMAZING TO SEE, SO THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

> >> NOW, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE PROGRAM THE ESCALATING TRADE WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA IS HEATING UP.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS THREATENED TO PREVENT THE U. S. GOVERNMENT FROM BUYING CERTAIN CANADIAN MADE PRODUCTS.

THAT'S IN RESPONSE TO OTTAWA YESTERDAY CARRYING OUT THREATS TO SLAP TARIFFS ORCH ON AMERICAN GOODS.

AS FORMER U. S. AMBASSADOR TO CANADA, DAVID COHEN, TELLS WALTER ISAACSON, IT COULD INDEED PUSH OTTAWA CLOSER TO BEIJING.

>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE, AND DAVID COHEN, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME, WALTER.

IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> THIS WEEK CANADA RETALIATED WITH LARGE TARIFFS BASED ON THE TRADE WAR BACK AND FORTH WITH THE UNITED STATES.

THIS KEEPS GOING BACK AND FORTH, BUT THIS LOOKS LIKE A REALLY BAD ROUND NOW.

SECRETARY OF TREASURY SCOTT BESSENT SAID "I DON'T THINK YOU CAN BE IN A TIT FOR TAT WITH AN ECONOMY THAT'S 13 TIMES BIGGER THAN YOU. "

IN OTHER WORDS, CANADA JUST CAN'T WIN THIS.

AS A FORMER AMBASSADOR FOR THE U. S. TO CANADA, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?

>> WELL, I TRY TO APPROACH THESE QUESTIONS WITH AS MUCH OBJECTATIVITY AS I CAN, AND I ALSO REALLY DON'T LIKE CRITICIZING MY PRESIDENT, WHETHER I AGREE WITH HIM OR NOT.

SO I TRY TO TREAD A DELICATE LINE, BUT I TRY TO BE VERY FAIR IN WHAT I SAY.

I THINK ON THAT POINT SECRETARYBESCENT SECRETARY BESSENT IS BASICALLY RIGHT.

LET'S UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE RETALIATORY TARIFFS ARE.

THEY'RE TEARS OF 5, 15, AND 25% OF A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT CANADIAN PRODUCTS EXPORTED TO THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING STEEL, JUST BY WAY OF EXAMPLE.

BUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRADE IMPACTED BY THESE TARIFFS IS ABOUT $20 BILLION U. S. AND THERE'S A --THE TOTAL CANADIAN EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES IN ANY YEAR IS ABOUT $400 BILLION.

SO ALTHOUGH THE TARIFFS HAVE A HIGH STICKER PRICE, THEY ONLY APPLY TO A RELATIVELY SMALL PERCENTAGE, ABOUT 5% OF CANADA'S EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES.

>> SO WHO IN THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO GET HURT BY THIS?

>> I THINK UNITED STATES CONSUMERS ARE GOING TO BE HURT.

I THINK UNITED STATES BUSINESSES THAT DO BUSINESS WITH CANADA ARE GOING TO BE HURT, PARTICULARLY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES WHO ARE REALLY GOING TO BE -- ALL THESE TARIFFS ARE NOT PAID BY CANADA.

THE U. S. TARIFFS AREN'T PAID BY CANADA, AND THE CANADIAN TARIFFS AREN'T PAID BY THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S A MYTH THAT FRANKLY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS HELPED TO PERPETUATE BY SAYING IT'S THE FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHO PAY THE TARIFFS.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

IT IS THE COMPANIES IN THE TWO COUNTRIES.

IT IS THE CONSUMERS IN THE TWO COUNTRIES WHO PAY THE TARIFFS, SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A PRETTY QUICK IMPACT.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON SMALL AUTOMOBILE PARTS MANUFACTURERS IN THE UNITED STATES IN DETROIT, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT IN OTHER BORDER CITIES, WHERE THESE TARIFFS ARE GOING TO BE IMPOSED ON THEM.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THEM.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PASS THEM ON.

IMAGINE A SMALL BUSINESS IN DETROIT THAT IS PROVIDING AUTOMOBILE PARTS MANUFACTURED IN CANADA TO FORD OR TO GENERAL MOTORS.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PASS THOSE TARIFFS ONTO THEM.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ABSORB THEM.

AND IF CAUSES THEM TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS OR LAYOFF EMPLOYEES, AMERICAN EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES, THAT'S WHERE THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE FELT.

>> WELL, THE LATEST THING FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TO TRY TO STOP BOMBARDIER FROM SELLING PLANES IN THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S A GREAT CANADIAN JET MANUFACTURER, AND SUDDENLY THERE'S A BACKLASH AND KANSAS AMONG REPUBLICANS BECAUSE BOMBARDIER MAKES A WHOLE LOT IN KANSAS.

>> RIGHT.

SO THIS IS THE REASON WHY EVEN TRADITIONAL TARIFF POLICY --AND I'M NOT IN LOVE WITH TARIFFS.

YOU KNOW ME A LONG TIME.

I VIEW TARIFFS AS SORT OF A GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE IN THE WAY THE MARKET WORKS.

I'M NEVER A FAN OF THOSE, BUT PARTICULARLY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA WITH INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAINS, THE TARIFFS JUST DON'T WORK THE WAY THEY WOULD WORK AS IF YOU'RE IMPOSING TARIFFS ON CHINA, WHICH IS THE MODEL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TARIFF POLICY SEEMS TO FOLLOW.

BOMBARDIER IS A GREAT EXAMPLE BECAUSE 55% OF BOMBARDIER'S MANUFACTURING IS, IN FACT, EITHER DONE IN THE UNITED STATES OR USES UNITED STATES PARTS.

BOMBARDIER'S U. S. HEADQUARTERS IS IN WICHITA, KANSAS.

THERE ARE A THOUSAND AMERICAN EMPLOYEES IN WICHITA WORKING FOR BOMBARDIER, WHICH IS WHY SENATOR MORAN REACTED SO VOCIFEROUSLY TO THE APPLICATION OF THE TARIFFS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO ADVERSELY IMPACT HIS CONSTITUENTS IN KANSAS.

>> WELL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BOMBARDIER IN KANSAS.

NOT ONLY DID THEY REACT, BUT THERE'S A LOT --THERE'S MID-TERM ELECTIONS THERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF ELECTIONS HAPPENING THERE.

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU KNOW POLITICS PRETTY WELL.

PEOPLE SEEM TO BE RALLYING AROUND PRIME MINISTER MARK CARNEY IN CANADA, AND YET HERE IN THE UNITED STATES YOU'VE GOT MID- TERMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THE COST OF -- MAKING FERTILIZERS MORE SPENSIVE AM.

POLITICALLY IS THE UNITED STATES MORE EXPOSED THAN CANADA IS?

>> SO THERE IS THAT ARGUMENT, AND I THINK THIS IS CERTAINLY A PLACE WHERE THERE IS POLITICAL EXPOSURE FOR THE UNITED STATES.

I HAVE TO ASK MYSELF, THOUGH, WHETHER THE SOMEWHAT ATTENUATED IMPACT OF TARIFFS ON PRICES THAT CONSUMERS ARE ACTUALLY PAYING OR ON PARTICULAR JOBS IN A PARTICULAR CITY OR STATE WILL BE UNDERSTOOD AND WILL OCCUR QUICKLY ENOUGH TO IMPACT THE MID-TERM ELECTION.

THE NOISE IS CERTAINLY NOT HELPFUL TO THE REPUBLICANS IN THE MID- TERM ELECTIONS, PARTICULARLY IN THE BORDER STATES.

AND SO MANY OF THOSE STATES ARE STATES THAT ARE IN PLAY IN THESE ELECTIONS.

MY FAVORITE EXAMPLE OF THIS BEFORE BOMBARDIER WAS SUSAN COLLINS IN MAINE.

CERTAINLY IN A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE RACE, WHERE SHE IS AT RISK.

MAINE IS ONE OF THE MOST DRAMATICALLY IMPACTED OF THE U. S. STATES BY THIS TARIFF WAR.

AND MAINE SMALL BUSINESSES AND MAINE CUSTOMERS, CONSUMERS ARE DEFINITELY IMPACTED BY THIS TARIFF WAR, WHICH IS WHY SUSAN COLLINS HAS COME OUT AGAINST THE TARIFF WAR AND AGAINST THE TARIFFS BEING IMPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE AS A POLITICAL MATTER, SHE SORT OF HAS TO BE AGAINST TARIFFS AND THEIR IMPACT ON HER CONSTITUENTS AND ON HER COMPANIES.

BUT WHETHER A VOTER WHO WILL PAY --LET ME DO A FULL ATTENIAATION HERE.

WHETHER A VOTER WHO'S GOING TO PAY MORE FOR TOMATOES AND LETTUCE IN THE SUPERMARKETS IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE POTASH FOR FERTILIZER HAS GONE UP AND DRIVEN THE COSTS FOR U. S. FARMERS AND AGRICULTURE UP, WHETHER THE VOTER IS GOING TO TRANSLATE THOSE HIGHER GROCERY PRICES TO UNITED STATES TARIFF POLICIES, I THINK THAT'S --IT MAY BE TRUE, BUT IT'S NOT AS DIRECT A LINK AS YOU'D EXPECT.

>> IS THERE ANY MERIT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESIRE TO REBALANCE TRADE WITH CANADA?

AND DO THE CANADIANS NEED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO?

>> SO I THINK --I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT THERE IS SOME MERIT TO SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TARIFF POLICIES.

I'M NOT SURE BALANCING TRADE IS --IS THE RIGHT ISSUE.

AND, BY THE WAY, THAT'S NOT JUST WITH CANADA.

THERE ARE A HUNDRED COUNTRIES THAT HAVE AN IMBALANCE OF TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPOSING TARIFFS ON ALL OF THOSE COUNTRIES.

SO I THINK THAT BALANCE OF TRADE ISSUE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE ISSUE TO IMPOSE TARIFFS ON MYSELF.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST --I THINK THAT'S THE WRONG JUSTIFICATION BECAUSE I THINK IT MISSTATES BALANCE OF TRADE AS A --AS BOTH THE CAUSE OF IT AS WELL AS A RESULT OF IT.

THERE IS A IMBALANCE OF TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, BUT THE UNITED STATES IS GETTING A LOT OF GOODS FOR THAT MONEY THEY'RE PAYING.

AND HERE IS THE REAL HEADLINE.

THE GOODS THEY'RE GETTING THAT'S DRIVING THE IMBALANCE OF TRADE IS ENERGY.

IT'S OIL AND GAS.

IF YOU BACK OUT THE OIL AND GAS THAT THE UNITED STATES BUYS FROM CANADA, IT IS CANADA THAT HAS A SLIGHT BALANCE OF TRADE PROBLEM WITH THE UNITED STATES.

OR BALANCE OF TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES IS ALMOST EQUAL, SLIGHTLY FAVORING THE UNITED STATES OVER CANADA WITHOUT ENERGY.

IT IS THE ENERGY IMPORTS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA THAT IS DRIVING THE IMBALANCE OF TRADE NUMBERS.

AND SO IF YOU DEPOSIT THAT BY PINNING TARIFFS BY TRADE --IF HE WERE SUCCESSFUL HE'D CUTTING DOWN ENERGY IMPORTS FROM CANADA, AND THAT WOULD DRAMATICALLY AFFECT IN AN ADVERSE WAY STATES LIKE MICHIGAN, WHERE WE TALK ABOUT STATES WHERE MID-TERM ELECTIONS ARE IMPORTANT --MICHIGAN, OHIO, KANSAS, AND EVEN IN THE NORTHEAST BECAUSE OF THE IMBALANCE OF TRADE FOR ELECTRICAL ENERGY WITH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY MOVING FROM KANSAS TO THE UNITED STATES IN MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, NORTHEASTERN STATES.

AND I DON'T --I DON'T THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION IS ADVOCATING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO BUY LESS ENERGY FROM CANADA BECAUSE IT'S CHEAP.

IT'S CONVENIENT.

IT'S A FRIENDLY COUNTRY, OR IT HAS BEEN A FRIENDLY COUNTRY UNTIL THIS TRADE WAR.

>> IF THIS TRADE WAR CONTINUES, LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CANADA COULD DO MORE IN RETALIATION.

COULD THEY CUT BACK OR CUT DOWN ON ENERGY SUPPLIES TO AMERICA, AND WHAT EFFECT WOULD THAT HAVE?

>> SO TWO THINGS.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME IN CANADA WHO HAVE ADVOCATED FOR PUTTING CANADA'S ENERGY EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES IN PLAY.

ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IS A FAIRLY IMPORTANT PERSON, PREMIER FORD, WHO THE IS THE PREMIER OF ONTARIO, WHICH IS THE LARGEST TRADING PROVINCE OF CANADA WITH THE UNITED STATES.

THE PRIME MINISTER TO DATE HAS SAID THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PUT ENERGY IN PLAY, AND THERE ARE OTHER PREMIERES, PRIMARILY PREMIER SMITH FROM ALBERTA, WHERE MOST OF THAT OIL AND GAS COMES FROM WHO HAVE VEHEMENTLY PUSHED BACK ON PUTTING ENERGY IN PLAY AND USING ENERGY AS A CARD IN --IN THIS TARIFF WAR.

AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF OIL AND GAS CONSUMED IN EASTERN CANADA ACTUALLY RUNS THROUGH PIPELINES THAT RUN THROUGH THE UNITED STATES.

I MEAN, IF CANADA RETALIATED BY PUTTING ENERGY IN PLAY, THE UNITED STATES COULD RETALIATE BY SHUTTING DOWN CANADIAN ACCESS TO THOSE PIPELINES, WHICH WOULD MEAN THE FIRST PROVINCES HURT BY AN ENERGY WAR WOULD BE ONTARIO AND QUEBEC, TWO OF THE LARGER CANADIAN PROVINCES.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS PROBABLY WHY PRIME MINISTER CARNEY HAS BEEN AGAINST INJECTING ENERGY INTO THE TARIFF WAR.

THE OTHER THING THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT CANADA HAS A WEALTH OF CRITICAL MINERALS.

IT IS SOMETHING THE UNITED STATES COVETS.

AND, AGAIN, THERE HAS BEEN CONVERSATION THAT MAYBE CANADA SHOULD BEGIN TO LIMIT UNITED STATES ACCESS TO CRITICAL MINERALS.

AGAIN, PRIME MINISTER CARNEY HAS SAID THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO USE CRITICAL MINERALS IN A TARIFF WAR, AND ONE OF THEIR GREAT CALLING CARDS IS THE RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CANADA WHEN YOU MAKE A DEAL TO BUY CRITICAL MINERALS OR MAKE A DEAL TO BUY ENERGY.

CANADA WILL HONOR THAT DEAL.

SO AS OF NOW PRIME MINISTER CARNEY HAS SORT OF REJECTED THE TWO BIG CALLING CARDS THAT CANADA HAS, ENERGY AND CRITICAL MINERALS, AS RETALIATORY TOOLS.

>> COULD CANADA END UP MAKING A TRADE DEAL WITH CHINA?

>> I THINK YOU SEE A LOT OF FOOTSIE BEING PLAYED.

AND IF YOU WILL, IT'S NOT JUST CANADAMISM I CANADA.

I THINK THE IRONY OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TRADE POLICY, AND THIS IS NOT --I'M NOT MAKING A JUDGMENT HERE.

I THINK I'M JUST STATING FACTS.

THE IRONY OF UNITED STATES TRADE POLICY IS THAT IT IS PUSHING MANY TRADITIONAL TRADING PARTNERS INCLUDING CANADA, BUT MANY OTHERS --THE EU, THE U. K. , JAPAN.

IT IS PUSHING ALL THOSE COUNTRIES TO MAKE DEALS WITH CHINA.

AND OF COURSE THE SIGNATURE ELEMENT OF UNITED STATES TRADE POLICY REMAINS TO HAVE TRIED TO WALL OFF CHINA AND NOT TO MAKE TRADE DEALS WITH CHINA.

AND THE PROOF POINT OF THIS IS THAT A FEW MONTHS AGO CANADA MADE A SMALL DEAL WITH CHINA RELATING TO CANOLA BECAUSE CANADA IS A HUGE EXPORTER OF CANOLA AND CHINA IS BIG IMPORTER OF CANOLA.

AND THAT SMALL DEAL DREW A VERY NEGATIVE REACTION FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OF DON'T GET INTO BED WITH CHINA, YOU'LL GIVE US NO CHOICE BUT TO RETALIATE AGAINST YOU FOR DOING BUSINESS WITH CHINA.

>> IF CANADA DOES MAKE SOME DEFENSE ARRANGEMENTS WITH CHINA, AND IF THIS TRADE DISPUTE WITH THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES, HOW COULD THAT AFFECT NORAD, THE NORTH AMERICAN DEFENSE WE HAVE WITH CANADA?

>> SO IF --OF COURSE THEY'RE COMPLETELY COUNTER TO EACH OTHER.

NORAD IS A VERY IMPORTANT BINATIONAL DEFENSE ARRANGEMENT.

BY THE WAY, IT IS A JOINT DEFENSE COMMAND UNDER THE JOINT COMMAND OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.

IT IS THE ONLY BINATIONAL DEFENSE COMMAND IN THE WORLD, WHICH TELLS YOU HOW CLOSE HISTORICALLY THE U. S.

-CANADA RELATIONSHIP WAS.

NORAD WAS ALL ABOUT CONTINENTAL DEFENSE.

IT'S ABOUT DEFENSE OF NORTH AMERICA, AND CANADA IS A CENTRAL PARTNER IN THAT DEFENSE.

I'LL REMIND YOU --I DON'T HAVE TO REMIND YOU, YOU'LL REMEMBER.

BUT REMEENLD IND YOUR LISTENERS A COUPLE OF SUMMERS AGO ABOUT THOSE BALLOONS FLOATING OVER CANADA, FLOATING OVER THE ARCTIC.

THEY TURNED OUT TO BE CHINESE SPY BALLOONS.

AND ULTIMATELY THEY WERE SHOT DOWN BY NORAD AIRCRAFT.

NOW, THE INTERESTING THING IS THE NORAD AIRCRAFT THAT SHOT THEM DOWN WERE UNITED STATES FIGHTER JETS BECAUSE THE CANADIAN AIR FORCE DID NOT HAVE THE RANGE AND TYPE OF AIRCRAFT ON ASSIGNMENT TO NORAD OR ELSEWHERE THAT WERE CAPABLE OF SHOOTING THOSE BALLOONS DOWN, WHICH GOES TO THE UNDERINVESTMENT OF DEFENSE BY CANADA, WHICH IS ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGITIMATE GRIPES, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO CANADA AS WELL AS OTHER NATO ALLIES THAT WE'VE SEEN PLAY OUT.

A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE OF COMMITMENTS TO NATO BY CANADA AND OTHER NATIONS.

I THINK THE PRIME MINISTER HAS PLAYED HIS HAND EXCEEDINGLY --PRIME MINISTER CARNEY HAS PLAYED HIS HAND EXCEEDINGLY WELL.

I MEAN, HE DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF CARDS BECAUSE OF THIS DIFFERENCE IN SCALE, BUT I THINK HE'S TRIED TO NEGOTIATE AS A SOVEREIGN NATION.

HE'S PUSHED BACK IN A RESPECTFUL WAY WHEN HE NEEDS TO PUSH BACK.

HE HAS NOT ENGAGED IN NAME-CALLING.

HE HAS TRIED NOT TO PERSONALLY ENGAGE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE'S ENGAGED PROFESSIONALLY AND TRIED TO NEGOTIATE, SO I HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT ANY DEFENSE-ORIENTED CONVERSATIONS AND DEALS THAT CANADA WOULD MAKE WITH CHINA WOULD PROTECT CONTINENTAL DEFENSE ISSUES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.

>> DAVID COHEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> WALTER, THANKS FOR HAVING ME ON.

> >> AND FINALLY, HERE COMES THE BRIDE AND EVEN A RUSSIAN STRIKE CAN'T STOP HER.

IT WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE HER WEDDING WHEN A BLAST WAVE TORE THROUGH THE KYIV APARTMENT OF 33-YEAR-OLD LUDMALA REJARK AND HER SOLDIER PARTNER.

BUT INSTEAD OF POSTPONING THE NUPTIALS, THE COUPLE DUG THROUGH THE RUBBLE, CLEARED AND DUSTED DEBRIS OF THEIR BRIDLE SPECIAL CLOTHES AND HEADED OUT TO BE HITCHED.

THE NEWLYWEDS TOLD "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS" WHO CAN GUARANTEE THIS WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN TOMORROW?

AT LEAST FOR NOW I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HAPPY, BOTH HIM AND ME.

AND ISN'T THAT A FACT?

HOPE AND LIFE HAS TO CONTINUE.

AND THAT IS IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.

ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING, AND GOOD-BYE FROM LONDON.

>