tv Amanpour on PBS PBS March 27, 2018 12:00am-12:31am PDT
pbs. what nexts president trump pick a hard liner john bolton, and imposes punishing new trade tariffs on china. my conversation with theme f deputy national security adviser james jeffrey many washington, and frombeijing, the former australianrime ministe plus, after another weekend, a new revelation, we meet the whistle blower at the center of the storm surrounding facebook and cambridge analytica.
>> announcer man pur-- good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in london. the president is surrounding himself hawks and hardliners, while the white house filters out opposing views. enter john bolton, the new national security adviser to donald trump. he's called for bombing and regime change in north korea and iran. he remains a fiercede def of the iraq war that trump himself calls a big mistake. now he'll have the ear of the president at a time of acutely difficult diplomacy ahead with rth korea, iran and russia. he u.s., in fact, is today expelled 60 diplomats from moscow with 1eu member states following suit after the poisoning of an ex-russian spy
here ithe united kingdom. what will john bolton bring to the job? james jeffrey, the former deputy national security adviser joined me from washington, and kev rud, the former prime minister from australiapoke to me from beijing. lcome to both of you. ambassador jeffrey in washington, big deal today, the u.s. admintration has expelled 60 russian diplomats, the most its ever expelled in history. what do you make of this? and trump isoing a 180, isn't he? >> to some degree,hristiane. 's also closing the consulate in haragon. it'se step not only to show the russians we're serious, but also to alignh ourselves w the european union that's taken ag str position on the assassination attempt in england, but also with nato ally britain. and it's very important, if you
will,n the evolution of donald trump towards a confrontational move against vladimir putin. >> is bolton already making himselffelt? he is more hard on the russians than trump has been.is really, thi a whole new trump, vis-a-visladimir putin, or is it just a show for this particular unacceptable alleged assassination attempt? >> good question. i think under the circumstances the evidence is so clear the united states h no other choice. also, you'll remember, congress 9ssed 9 to 1, or 99 to 0, the senate, anti-russian sanctions a few months ago. the president knows that the u.s. congress is very, very angry at the russiansor many good reasons, and he has to bend to that >> to you, the former prime minister of australia, there in beijg, kevin rudd, who knows beijing very well, and all the associations, what do you make of this -- at least the threats
of a tra war? it is something that president trump, in terms of tariffs and the like, promised his voters that he would throw at china. and people are angry about the size of the trade surplus deficit, and about the theft of intellectual property. does trump have a point when he's trying to punish beijing? >> well, in terms of chinese unfair trading practices, there are a range of people, including myself, who belie that the chinese need to lift their game hugely a trade standards, including on intellectual property. but then the question, christiane, becomes one of the mechanism that you use to resolv the disputes. that's why we all invented the world trade organizationn the backs of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which goes back to 1944. we've got a set oful and procedures and dispute resolution mecnisms under the wto designed for these sorts of issues. the problemis, if the united
states, under the president altrump's administration around them, and begins to act unilerally, then thereomes a point where the rules of the verall system begin to collapse, which is why not just china, but other states, europeans, australians and others in the wto in geneva in the last 24en hours have railing against american actions, for example on steel and aluminum, so far. >> so let's now get to the heart of another matter, and that is the hardeningsi of pnt trump's america first policy, at least as far as we can tell. jim jeffrey, this idea of having john bolton, a very polarizing, incredibly hard line individual his national security adviser, just a heart beebeat ay from his office, a couple of doors down from the president'se of on a 24/7 basis, there are rumbles andea going
through the allies and probably the adversaries as to what this means for u.s. foreign policy. what do you think, jim jeffrey? >> i think we have to wait to some degree. what we know is, and i've worked a bit with john bolton, bolton is brilliant. he's very good bureaucratically. and he's very hard on russia, which president trump up to now has not been, and he appears to have trump's confidence, at least from what we've seen so far. those are all pluses. the problem is, as national security adviser, you're not really on an equal level with the cabinet members, with secretary mattis of fense, with mike pompeo, if he gets confirmed at state with nikki haley, you have to coordinate them and basically do the nose to the grindstone work of ensuring the policies are executed. you cannotire the player, the only exception was kiss inr, and there is no second kissinger. we'll see if he can adapt
himself to that. but that's crucially important for him to do the job of being the honest broker among these very important players. >> he's very close, and known for very hardline policies. for instance, where kev rudd is sitting, what are the chinese going to thi t isde nationalism going to become the mantra of the day in theho whit e? is president trump going to be urged by his new security adviser to dump the iran deal as both of them want todo? what about regime change in north korea? i mean, bolton has himself on both of those issues in that regard, jim. right, you're absolutely right. pulling out of the iran nuclear deal is a big mistake, and i think most people recognize this. i don't think the president does, and i don't think john bolton does. in terms of north korea, there is no regime change scenario. we're notoing to do thi militarily. bolton will not command any divisions, there's no way the u.s. military will do it.
the risk is, if he thinks there is a fantasy island, as i call it, solution to forobgn policy ms where you don't have to do the hard work, mobilizing thl nati community and then accept compromises, then he up theossibly blow opening that we now have with north korea's freeze of its nuclear program and the summit with president trump by demanding things a commitment to total nydenuclearization before meeting happens, and the north koreans will never do that. that's the kind of worry i have in practical terms. >> kevin rudd, you know john bolton, interacted with him, and you obviouslyna know c and the whole north korean issue. do you have these kinds of concerns that a john bolton could torpedo it one way or another, including ditching the iran deal? >> well, i know john bolton tmia d extent. i met him a couple of times in his work during the bush administration. he's certainly a hawk.
let's call a spadepa a here. i agree with ambassador jeffrey. we needo give ambassador bolton time to settle in. he's never occupied the position before. let's see how he plays the game ahead ofhim. i would say this on the question of north korea, i would agree again with ambassador jeffrey, the military option frankly ads us to a world of pain, much greater than we currently confront. but secondly, we now have, i think, a realroblem in terms of the china-u.s.p relations on north korea. why do i say that? i mean, up until now, china basically has accepted the uperican lead on north korea, hasrted u.s. proposals for sanctions in the u.n. security council against the north koreans, multiple sets ofs sanctietting harder and harder. and then we have this unilateral action by president bush -- president trump someeeks ago when he indicated that he would have this k summit with
jong-un. now, the chinese were blind erded by this, as were the japanese, and as a whole bunch of american allies in addition to those as well. so this leaves the chinese out in the cold. that's bad, particularly if the north ko summit with president trump itself goes bad because n need to ensure that china is still with the united states in bringing future leverage together against the north koreans, against a failed summit if, indeed, the summit occurs. this m chinese reactio well be, well, thank you, uncle sam, we notice we've been left out of the cold on this, we might try eome of our own bilateral diplomacy with north koreans and see what contribution we can make to this equation as well. i don't want to see a fracturing of the u.s. china position on north korea, that's not helpful for anybody at is stage. >> i see ambassador jeffrey nodding, and particularly, of course, it raise it is questiont if yoully want, as you described, china's good offices,
or its help, you know, to add these ideasf a trade and tariff, and all of this business, ambassador, doesn't really help, does it? >> think in ter of the overall approach, both to nth korea a china, i don't think trump is doing all that badly because you can separate out security issues and trade issues to some degree. but what do need is better coordination. i was smiling when kevin mentioned china being left out in the cold. because the perfect example of what a national security adviser shouldeto is when you the offer to meet with the north koreans, let the boss say yes, but before anybody says anything, say how about a call to president xi and make sure he's not blind sided? this is exactly the kind of nose to the grindstone detail work you have to do as a national security adviser. >> let's talk a little bitbout bolton. he is not known for diplomacy.
i don't know whethersaw, but "the new york times" is carrying an op-ed by a deputy secretary of state, a former obama administrational offi anthony blinken who reminds all of uswa i the republicans in congress who basically -- so worried were the republicans in congress about boltonol and hisies that bush had to make him a recess appointment. it's not very encouraging, amssador jeffrey. you have a point, as does tony blinken. on the otherhand,again, when he was up in new york, that's where i worked with him on negotiating a very sensitive security deal with the u.n. secretariat, and i found him effective. he is a guy who is in the limelight. and that's what he is not going to be able to do working for the president because among the people what will take the
he's got to watch that resident, carefully. he is a hardliner, very tough. and that's not where the other t members cabinet are in some cases. >> except for pompeo is. people are actually a bit concerned that it's now an alignment of views aroundp, president trhich i want to put to kevin rudd. this perception of an alignment of views, not jt of america first, but on specific policies around president trump now, but also especially john bolton, we were reminded, h you know, he a reputation of dismissing or distancing or getting ridpe of le who don't agree with his viewpoint. he has a big reputation of getting rid of the experts whose views do not align wit his political views. how worried are you about that aspects of it, kevin rudd? well, the history of the iraq war and the decision in 2003 t invade iraq on the grounds that there were weapons
destruction about to destroy us all, frankly, is a sobering lesson for all of us today, particarly in the case of those who supported that action in 2003, and for those who may continue to defend it to this however, i go back to my point, which is part of practical diplomac it is what it is. ambassador bolton has been appoinred, and he is tre the point man on this critical relationship with china and this critical question of north korea. and i go back to what i think ambassador jeffrey wasointing to before, which is mr. bolton quite sharp professional skills when he is given atask. that is to execute. given the dimensions of the rupture in the u.s. china present, which is not just the trade issue we've talked about before and theossibility of a trade war, not just a beginnings of a
temporarying of the position on north korea, and not just, what tonight, t discussed which is the decision by the united states to pass the taiwan travel act which enables administration offic go officially to taiwan, we now ve a u.s.-china relationship which is looking spectacularly ragged. what i would strongly say is, we need to rely -- we need to give, i think, ambassador boltonopn rtunity to congressman strait his wares. this relationship needs to be harnessed to solve major global problems. inituding, most ally, the north korean security question. but also to frankly put the trade question to bed as well. otherwise we leave far t much damage in our wake. so let's give the guy a bit of time to prove himself. >> all right. on that note, kevin rudd in beijing, jim jeffrey insh gton, thank you both for joining me tonight. >> thank you. >> good to be with you. so while we wait really for
that big unknown, we're turning now to the ongoing cambridge analytica data privacy scandal en gulfi en -- another whistle blower said the official campaign broke the law by coordinating overspending. the man at the center of all this is the former cambridge analytica employee and the crucial link between all these campaigns,ns and christopher wiley who's now telling all to the authorities and joining me here in the studio. welcome to the program. >> thanks for having me. >> it has been yet another weekd of revelations. but i want to start first, since we were just talking about john bolton, former u.n. ambassador, now to be president trump's national security adviser, yst were the f to reveal that he, too, had auperpack many years ago. >> yes. >> that used cambridge analytica. is that correct? >> yeah. so the boln pack was actually
one of the first clients of cambridge analytica to use and exploit the algorithms that were developed using the misappropriated faceboo data. they spent half a million dollars on tha program where we deployed advertising online, a looked at essentially how to make aericans m militaristic in their views. >> more militaristic. what do you mean? >> the purpose of the pack, as i understood it, and as i understood the project, was to anally make amer you know, more conscious of national security issues and more generally the thesis of the pack was that america and americans have become too limp wriste as it were. and that in order for america to maintain its place in the world, you know, john bolton and his pack wanted americans to feel more militaristicn their world
views. >> we have been just been talking with the ambassador and the former prime minister about l e potential views of a john bolton as a natiocurity adviser. so it's really interesting to hear you say that. because he obviously,ers ody knows, has a great love of the use of the military. >> yeah. it's ironic that john bolton's pack used, you know, cambridge analytica whose parent company i scl gros a military contractor. >> so just to get this straight, it was in 2014, before the trump campaign, before brexit. so you're saying it had nothing to do with the political campais, the boll ton pack was just this issue. their contract describes the services as ehavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging." what does that mean. >> cambridge analytica uses behavioralicrotargeting as its term to describe the modeling that predicts personality traits in the targetudnce.
so the facebook data was taken and combined with survey data that asked questions about personality traits, psychologicalosisposition. models were then combined, that survey data and tat facebook das then combined so that we could predict personality traits and d psychologicaposition in the target voters so that we could figure out ways to exploit mental vulnerabilities and targetsa ms at underlying l psychologisposition. >> it really is extraordinary. and, of course, we have to say at this point that bolton's pack, the superpack says it no idea that -- >> tactually,t's not true. if you look at the documentation of the projt, it made very clear that the source of a lot of this data was from facebook, from, you know, facebook apps that were harvesting data of mill >> we're going to put that to him, obviously, if you say that.
you say the tactics and messaging used by superpark were designed to exploit people's mental vulneran es. do you mying to engage and see who's more militaristic? >> a mental vulnerability is where you -- no one is perfect,a righ so, you know, i'm the first person to admit that. and when you look at, you know, different psychological dispositions, people are mor prone to believe certain things, or think in a certain way. and that whe you profile people, and you look for, for example, people who are more prone to coneartorial thinking, or highly anxious responses or highly disgusted responses, for example, if you know this person looks like a type of person who is more prone to believing conspiraci, that gives you the ability to target messaging exploit that disposition. >> so, in other words, you're
revealing her a whole new layer of this microtargeting, noctjust to win ens or influence elections, but to actually, let me put it this way, to influen foreign policy, for instance. >> yes. the idea -- military policies. >> one of the things the bolton pack was interested in is that you can lby in washington. you can buy expensive dinners. you can put pressure onowyou senators and congressmen all you want. but, really, at the end of the day, wha talks is voters, right? an r if you cane up voters, and make them more militariic, yo don't need to lobby senators. the lobbying. bubbles >> has it had an impact, this particular pack? >> you know, well, john bolton is now the national security adviser and donald trump is lpresident. me ask you about something i was fascinated the whey you described this microtargeting. you compared it to reaching voters of old in the town square
versus -- >> versus. so when you think about what is democracy, right, and how democracy has evolved, it used to be that if you were a candidate or you wanted your voice heard, you would stand in a town square, ring your bell, and people would gather and you would talk to them about your the fundamental, you know, the t fundamental f of that scenario is that everybody is hearing exactly the same thing. you e saying the same thing to everybody. there's a common understanding of the reality of that iftuation. therence is, here, that we are able to understand the -- d get to know every single person in that town square, understand howhey tick, and then go and individually whisper something in each of their ears. and that this person hears onen thinghis person hears another thing and this person hears another thing. and fundamentally y start to erode a common understanding of, first of all, what you're actually saying and w you're proposing and also morely bro the common reality of what this
election is about. >>he revelations were by a different whistle blower, alleging that brexit vote leave the official campaighad, by far, overspent, and you have termed it improper, and potentially illegal. >> yes. so that is -- that's major thing. obviously they're all busy denying it. let me just read you what they're saying. they basically deny it. p but in tt, domonic cummings, the head of the vote leave dcampaign, s this on aggregate iq, the whole other name linked to cambridge analytica. without a doubt the vote leave campaign owes a great deal of success to aggregate iq, we tuldn't have done i without them. he's kind of admitting that it was vital. >> they played pivotal role. 40% of vote leave's spending went t aggregate iq, which was set up during my time at cambridge analytica to support cambrie analytica projects. during the time of the
referendum, all of its clients were cambridge analytica clients. although thisompany has a different name, it is so closely linked to cambridge analytica. the concern here is that this company was used to funnel money that allowed vote leave to massively overspend, potentially one of the largest, you know, breaches of eleoral spending limits in british history, or at least modern british hianory. that's deeply concerning because brexit was won by less than 2% of the vote. >> that's so crucial to remember. itas less than 2%. let me ask you this, the new head of cambridge analytica's, the other one, the new guy says christopr wiley was part-time contractor who left in july 2014 and has no direct knowledge of our work or practices tence that he was at the company for less than a year, after which he was made the subjectf restraining undertaking to prevent his misusef the company'sec
inteal property while attempting to set up a rival one of his own. >> let me clarify some of these points here. first of all, i was research director at scl group before cambridge analytica existed. they're using weasel words here. condly, i did not sign any intellectual property license. i did not sign any of the contracts they were trying to force on me. i contest the claim that i took any ip that they developed because i never licensed any ip to tn the first place. and thirdly, the july date that they're referencing is when i handed my notice is. it isn'then i finished working. >> let me ask you very briefly, 30 seconds left. you were fundamental to cambridge analytica. why are you coming out and sort of bnging the houf cards down? >> because when you look at the impact that this firm has had on the 2016 political cycle, electing trump, and then being involved in brexit, both directly, and then through a related company, aiq, i felt
compelled to tell people about some of the unlawful activities of this company because it has had such a huge impact on the political cycle. >> it's reall extraordinary. i'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more in the days and weeks to come. and hardball tactics being played to try d toy all this by those you've outed. christopher wiley, thank you so much indeed. appreciate it. >> thank you for h>ing me. hat is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour" on pbs, and join us again tomorrow night. ♪ >> announcer: "amanpour" on pbs was made possible b the generous support of rosalynn p. walter. ♪ >> y
christian: you are watching beyond 100 days on pbs. 21 countries expelled over 100 russian intelligence agents in response to the nerve agent attack in the u.k. katty: the british foreign secretary says or stands in hihas the longest collective expulsion of collective diplomats. christn: the kremlin promises to respond in kind. president trump tells friends oach of the stormy daniels stuff is a political the point star says sheo was warneday quiet. >> a guy said to me leave trump alone, forget the story. he looked at my daughter a said it woulmebe a shame if ing happened to her mom. christian:si the predent says his white house is running like a well oiled machine.