Q&A: Does the UN have any real power?

Summary

Summary of Episode: Q&A: Does the UN Have Any Real Power?

Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files hosted by Global features an insightful Q&A episode released on July 3, 2025. In this episode, renowned journalist Christiane Amanpour and her ex-husband, Jamie Rubin, a former US State Department official, delve into pressing global issues through listener-submitted questions. The episode provides a nuanced exploration of geopolitical tensions, the efficacy of international institutions, and human rights challenges in conflict zones.

---

1. Misunderstandings Between Israelis and Iranians

Question from Albert (YouTube): Albert seeks to understand the core misunderstandings between Israeli and Iranian civilians and what is required to restore credible diplomacy between the two nations.

Key Discussion Points:

• Civilian Relations vs. Government Actions:

  • Jamie Rubin clarifies that personal relationships between Iranians and Jews are generally amicable, citing instances where Jewish team members traveled safely to Iran and acknowledging the presence of a small Jewish community there. However, he emphasizes that the primary misunderstandings stem from longstanding governmental hostilities and shadow wars that have become overt over the past 45 years. (00:10-02:25)

    "All the Iranians I know have no problem with anyone who's Jewish... the misunderstanding mostly comes from the governments." – Jamie Rubin (00:10)

• Impact of Government Rhetoric:

  • Christiane Amanpour underscores the psychological impact of hostile government rhetoric on civilians. She points out Iranian leaders’ anti-Israel slogans and how they perpetuate fear and misunderstanding among Israelis. Conversely, Amanpour highlights that many Iranians oppose their government's aggressive policies, yearning for a more peaceful approach. (02:25-08:37)

    "I think if Israelis appreciated that the average Iranian... has stood up on many occasions to seek change in its regime." – Christiane Amanpour (06:25)

• Pathways to Diplomacy:

  • Both hosts agree that resolving key issues like the Gaza conflict is essential for reestablishing trust and diplomatic relations. They advocate for mutual understanding and compromise, noting that both sides have historically maintained close ties despite governmental conflicts. (02:25-08:37)

    "Diplomacy doesn't work unless both sides compromise." – Christiane Amanpour (06:25)

2. The Power and Efficacy of the United Nations

Question from Adrian (Email): Adrian questions the United Nations' effectiveness, labeling it as "toothless" and "politically paralyzed," especially when powerful nations violate international law without facing repercussions.

Key Discussion Points:

• Historical Context and Declining Influence:

  • Christiane Amanpour reflects on the UN's past efficacy during the early 1990s, such as its role in the Gulf War and peacekeeping missions. She notes the decline in the UN's credibility due to perceived incompetence and corruption in peacekeeping efforts. (08:37-12:35)

    "With Vladimir Putin in power and now Xi Jinping... I don't see the UN as a plausible place to do business." – Christiane Amanpour (12:35)

• Security Council Limitations:

  • Amanpour discusses how the Security Council has become ineffective, particularly with Russia and China often vetoing or ignoring resolutions that do not align with their national interests. This paralysis undermines the UN's ability to enforce international law consistently. (12:35-16:29)

• Case Studies of UN Failure:

  • The hosts cite the UN’s failures in situations like the Bosnian War, where peacekeepers lacked the authority to protect civilians, and the ongoing inability to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine effectively. (08:37-16:29)

    "The biggest and clearly the most significant was Russia's invasion of Ukraine... the UN in Kosovo... a disaster." – Christiane Amanpour (12:35)

• Comparative Analysis:

  • Jamie Rubin adds that unilateral actions by nations, such as the US and UK’s intervention in Kosovo without explicit UN approval, set dangerous precedents. He notes that while these actions may sometimes be morally justified, they further erode the UN's authority by demonstrating selective adherence to international law. (12:35-16:29)

    "It's very hard to follow all the rules of the UN... the world is turning into a place of regional powers." – Christiane Amanpour (08:37)

3. Rights of Afghan Women Post US Withdrawal

Question from Amelie (Email): Amelie inquires about the international community’s efforts to support Afghan women following the US withdrawal and the Taliban's return to power.

Key Discussion Points:

• Deteriorating Conditions:

  • Christiane Amanpour describes the dire situation for Afghan women, highlighting severe restrictions on their rights and the regression from previous decades of progress. She notes the lack of substantial international intervention to aid Afghan women, pointing out that organizations like the UN and NGOs are struggling to make significant impacts. (14:29-21:24)

    "Women are basically... shut away... It puts Afghan people more into poverty and it's just immoral and incorrect." – Christiane Amanpour (14:29)

• Policy Critique:

  • The discussion critiques the US administrations' handling of the withdrawal, particularly under Biden, emphasizing the chaotic retreat that left many Afghan allies vulnerable. Jamie Rubin elaborates on the failed coordination between the Defense and State Departments, which exacerbated the crisis for Afghan women and other vulnerable populations. (15:44-21:24)

    "The coordination between the Defense Department and the State Department was extremely poor." – Jamie Rubin (16:29)

• Future Prospects and Leverage:

  • Christiane Amanpour suggests that international leverage, such as using frozen assets belonging to the Taliban regime, could pressure the group to improve human rights standards. However, she laments that the international community has not yet effectively utilized this strategy. (20:29-21:24)

    "Maybe going forward the regime will realize... they're going to have to evolve to the point of allowing some minimal human rights for the women there." – Christiane Amanpour (20:29)

• Internal Divisions Within the Taliban:

  • Jamie Rubin points out the internal conflict between hardliners and pragmatists within the Taliban, suggesting that meaningful improvements for Afghan women depend on the resolution of these internal divisions. (21:24-21:42)

    "There is some obviously division between the ultra hardliners and the more pragmatics." – Jamie Rubin (21:24)

4. Becoming a Role Model for Young Journalists

Listener Question: A listener mentions that Rory from Gilmore Girls idolizes Christiane Amanpour and asks about the experience of being a role model to aspiring journalists.

Key Discussion Points:

• Impact and Responsibility:

  • Jamie Rubin shares his appreciation for being represented in popular culture, particularly in Gilmore Girls, where Rory aspires to be a journalist like Christiane. He expresses pride in being part of a narrative that encourages young women to pursue journalism, highlighting the importance of intelligent and passionate portrayals. (23:00-31:49)

    "It's a super smart series... promoting the intelligence and the dreams and the passions of young women." – Jamie Rubin (30:22)

• Christiane Amanpour’s Influence:

  • Christiane Amanpour acknowledges the honor and responsibility that comes with being a role model. She reflects on her mentors and the lessons learned throughout her career, emphasizing the importance of moral clarity and effective communication in journalism. (23:00-31:49)

    "Moral clarity is something I learned from him [Vachla Havel]." – Christiane Amanpour (25:14)

• Personal Anecdotes:

  • The hosts reminisce about their professional interactions and mentorship experiences, illustrating the profound influence mentors have had on their careers and leadership styles.

5. Mentorship and Career Development

Additional Discussion: The hosts delve into their personal mentorship experiences, highlighting influential figures who shaped their professional paths.

• Christiane Amanpour credits mentors like Madeleine Albright and Vachla Havel for imparting lessons on bureaucratic politics, moral clarity, and effective diplomacy. These mentors helped her navigate complex international relations and hone her journalistic integrity. (23:00-31:49)

  "Madeleine helped mold my edges a bit and helped me to win friends rather than making a point." – Christiane Amanpour (25:14)

• Jamie Rubin reflects on influential military figures like Colin Powell, discussing the interplay between military strategy and diplomatic outcomes. He critiques Powell's cautious approach during the Bosnian conflict, arguing that it limited the UN's effectiveness. (25:14-30:03)

  "Colin Powell was very wrong on Bosnia. Wrong again, again and again." – Jamie Rubin (29:38)

---

Conclusion: This episode of The Ex Files offers a comprehensive examination of complex international issues through the lens of experienced professionals. Amanpour and Rubin provide deep insights into the challenges facing diplomacy between Israel and Iran, the diminishing role of the United Nations, and the ongoing struggle for women's rights in Afghanistan. Additionally, they share personal reflections on mentorship and the importance of inspiring the next generation of journalists. The candid discussions, enriched with firsthand experiences and thoughtful analysis, make this episode a valuable resource for listeners seeking to understand the intricacies of contemporary global affairs.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[Jamie Rubin]

Hello, and welcome to this bonus episode of the X Files with me, Christian Amanpour and Jamie Rubin. This is the Q and A episode where we answer your questions. So thank you to everyone who sent one in so far. Please do keep sending them and ask us about anything you like from our experience in the field or. Or in government service, encounters with world leaders, and anyone else you can find us on social media. Our handle is Manpurpod. Or email us. We're amanpourpodlobal.com okay, let's get started. Right, let's get started with the question. So Albert on YouTube wants to know, as someone from outside the region, I'd like to understand, what do you think both Israel and Iranian civilians misunderstand the most about each other? What would it take for diplomacy to become credible again for both sides? Okay, I know a little bit about this because I've been both covering Israel in the past and Iran, obviously. Look, this is what I think. All the Iranians I know have no problem with anyone who's Jewish. I have gone to Iran many times with members of teams who are Jewish, and there's never been a problem. There still exists at least one Jewish mp, a synagogue, you know, and a small group of Jews in Iran. But I think the misunderstanding mostly comes from the governments. And it's not even a misunderstanding. It's a setup whereby over the last 45 years, the governments have been at war with each other, mostly shadow war, but now out into the open. And I really do think that with credible diplomacy, and most particularly with the resolution of the Gaza and the Palestinian question, it's possible that both sides could slowly get back together. Because, to be fair, Arabs are Semites, but Persians aren't. But we've had a long history of being close to Israel. And the Jews remember, Cyrus the Great liberated and protected the Jews who had been enslaved by the Babylonians. But, Jamie, what do you think? Cause it's an important question to get behind the, you know, behind the stereotypes and behind the government brouhaha between them.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, I think they're two very separate issues. What people in Iran and people in Israel think and what their governments need for diplomacy. So let's start with the people. Look, I've met many Iranians. I've met many Israelis. Israelis are people. Iranians are people, too. And that really, when you boil it down to the average person, you often find there's very little that divides people. But I do believe, as in the case with Arabs and, and Israelis and Jews, that There are some fundamental things that would help each side understand each other. For Israelis, I think if they knew that people in Iran, the average Iranian understood what it meant to have parents, grandparents and relations killed in the Holocaust when Hitler tried to wipe out all the Jews, that would help Israelis believe Iranians understood them better. And let's remember that there are maps which Ahmadinejad, the former president, said Israel should be wiped off of. There are signs that say Death to Israel. So if Iranians understood the effect that sort of signage and those sort of slogans had on average Israelis, then maybe they wouldn't use them so frequently. And not that the people actually do. It's mostly paid people who use those slogans. But still understanding how directly those kind of slogans affect the average Israeli. Similarly, Israelis should understand that Iranians are not the Iranian regime. The Islamic Republic takes policies and pursues things that the average Iranians don't believe in, like spending billions of dollars supporting Hamas, supporting Hezbollah, supporting Assad in Syria, supporting, you know, extremist groups in Iraq, supporting extremists like the Houthis. The Iranian government does that. But their people don't want them wasting their scarce resources on those, on those groups that are attacking Israel or killing innocent people. So I think if Israelis appreciated that. The average Iranian, frankly has stood up on many occasions and sought to make changes in its regime, but then stands down when the regime uses force. So I think those are sort of attitudes as far as diplomacy is concerned. Again, I would point to the fact that Iranians regime has over played its hand in the nuclear field and this has harmed their diplomacy by constantly threatening to go nuclear. Not that they have a nuclear weapons program, we've talked about that. But they are building the hardest part of a nuclear weapons program, which is the enriched uranium, and then brandishing their capability to produce that enriched uranium dramatically to the world and breaking the agreements with the International Atomic Energy Energy Agency that has made Iran a pariah in the world and has made it hard for diplomatic solutions to come to pass in Israel. I think it would be really smart if the Israeli government stopped acting like it was going to topple the Iranian regime and attacking regime targets like it did during those airstrikes or having Bibi Netanyahu call for the Iranian people to rise up. Not only is that not likely to happen when he says it, but it's a stupid thing to be waiting for. It may or may not happen in the future, but Israeli diplomacy would be a lot better off if they didn't promote regime change and a Lot better off if they understood the need for compromise. Diplomacy doesn't work unless both sides compromise. Too often the Netanyahu regime thinks the other side is going to capitulate. That's what they did with the Obama accord, same with Trump. And that's a mistake.

[Jamie Rubin]

A couple of points which have to be said. Of course, you know, the Holocaust is a major issue, and many Iranians do know it. I remember Ahmadinejad being so awful when he, you know, denied the Holocaust, when he really did everything he could to appear as aggressive and as unpleasant as he could to everybody, especially Israelis and Americans. I then took the brave step of continuing to ask presidents of Iran whether they believed that the Holocaust happened. And I finally got an answer from President Hassan Rouhani when he came to power in 2013. And again, I got the first interview with this Iranian president and I asked him, and he gave me an answer in which he agreed that this horrendous thing, horrible, horrible thing had happened. And when I put that on the air, right wing media accused me of mistranslating what he said and that. No, he never said anything like that. And there isn't the word Holocaust and this and that, and maybe there isn't specifically, but he used the event of the Holocaust to denounce it. So that's one thing. The other thing I think is very important for this question, because as much as Israelis get scared and horrified by what Iranian leaders say and the death to Israel, the Iranian people, who are highly educated and by and large mostly pro Western, pro democratic, anti their regime, also strongly feel about the Palestinian people, it's not just their government. You know, they strongly feel that what's happening in Gaza right now is horrendous. So all of these things play, play into it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And let me just add on that, Christiane, as you know, when we talk about the Arab Israeli dispute, I bring up the famous quote, Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, in which he says, until Arabs understand the meaning of the Holocaust and until Israelis understand how much suffering has occurred among the Palestinian people and how that suffering continues dramatically every day now in Gaza, that there is very little chance for the governments to come to a real agreement. So I agree with you.

[Jamie Rubin]

Okay, so let's ask. Jamie, you take Adrian on email because you know a lot about the UN having worked there, Right?

[Christiane Amanpour]

The UN has been exposed as largely toothless. Adrian on email asks, expensive and politically paralyzed, especially when powerful states are involved. This creates a dangerous precedent. If the US And Israel can openly violate international law with impunity, what stops Other nations, for example China, Russia, or emerging powers from doing the same, citing these very cases as justification. So, good question. The UN is not really the best place to get things done and hasn't been for a long, long time. When I first entered the executive branc under President Clinton in the early 90s, there was hope that the UN was going to be a place where business could be done. It was the Yeltsin era. Russia was cooperating. China at the time was adopting its policy of being quiet and biding its time. And so they were generally abstaining on any significant resolution so things could pass, and the Russians were cooperating. During the first Gulf War, the UN famously stood up and demanded that Saddam Hussein pull out of Kuwait and authorized the use of force. So that was a happy time. There were peacekeepers going all over the world. That then caused another problem, which was incompetence and corruption at the UN in all these peacekeeping missions all over the world. But nevertheless, the Security Council was a place to do business. A lot has changed since then. Certainly the Iraq war by the United States made many people think that it was in violation of UN resolutions. The US and the British believed that it was consistent with resolutions because Iraq had viol violated them. Nevertheless, the perception was the United States was picking and choosing what to comply with. But I have to say, of all the fundamental violations of the UN Charter in my lifetime, the biggest and clearly the most significant was Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A large country gobbling up or trying to gobble up its neighbor. That was what the UN was created to stop after World War II. So with Vladimir Putin in power and now Xi Jinping in Russia thinking that the UN shouldn't prevent China from doing whatever it wants in Asia, from gobbling up the South China Sea, the East China Sea, I don't see the UN as a plausible place to do business. This questioner obviously is focused on the question of why Israel and the United States could attack Iran without a resolution. And they're right. That's not really plausible under the UN resolutions, as a legal thing, I have to say, sometimes you have to act. Despite the UN in Kosovo, there was no resolution. The Russians wouldn't allow it, and so we acted. And it was deemed to be not legally justified, but accepted by the international community because most countries thought it was the right thing to do. So it's very hard to follow all the rules of the un. But now that the world is turning into a place of regional powers and Russia, China and the United States trying to have their interests in their own regions, decided by them. A kind of global Monroe Doctrine sort of thing. I don't see the UN playing a role at all.

[Jamie Rubin]

Yeah, of course, Kosovo, you're talking about in 1999 when President Clinton lent. I think maybe that was the first time we heard coalition of the willing. It wasn't officially NATO, it wasn't the un, but they saved the Kosovar Albanians from essentially genocide and ethnic cleansing committed by Serbia. Like what was going on in Bosnia. I would just say one thing. My first encounter with the UN was when they were peacekeepers in Bosnia from 92 to the end of the war. And literally, sadly, they lost a lot of credibility because they were put in there to sort of keep the two sides together, but without any powers at those safe areas.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right, yeah.

[Jamie Rubin]

No. Anyway, even in Sarajevo, they had no power. They were just viewed in the end as sort of overseeing this terrible.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And we met at the United nations in the Security Council.

[Jamie Rubin]

We certainly did. We did, we did. But that doesn't make it any. Actually, I was actually doing a documentary.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Then for CNN about how the UN had failed.

[Jamie Rubin]

Well, yeah, and it was the 50th anniversary of the UN, and I just remember them being, you know, sort of a little thin line of blue helmets in between, you know, Serbs, Bosnian Serbs and the. And the Bosnian victims. And they became very discredited, and it was very, very sad to see. And they had no teeth. They had no ability to pull the two sides apart. Anyway, we did this documentary and Ted Turner, who loves the un, our founder at cnn, was quite disappointed with my documentary, but instead of saying we can't air it, and this is why Ted is so great, he commissioned another one about all the good things the UN did around the world. It was very funny. Anyway, shall we carry on to questions relating to other current events that some would like us to answer? Amelie, on email, says, since the U.S. withdrawal and the return of the Taliban, the rights of the Afghan population, particularly women, have been severely restricted. I'd like to know what the international community is currently doing to help Afghan women. Is it actively engaged on this issue, or are Afghan women largely left to fend for themselves? So I've been there in the last couple of years since the US withdrawal, and it is really, really sad. And it gets worse and worse and worse, and women are basically, again, shut away as they were in the first Taliban regime before the US came in and essentially liberated Afghanistan women from the Taliban and drove them out after 9, 11. And they were able to pursue their rights and vote and Work and study and do all the things the Taliban was not allow, allowing them to do before. Now it's as bad, if not worse. And I don't think, Jamie, you might know what was going on under the Biden administration, but I don't think anything massively formal is happening for them. But this generation of Afghan women have a lot more education. They are successfully, you know, kind of behind closed doors, sadly, communicating, getting educated, working to an extent. But their public, you know, activities are hugely, hugely restricted. And it's depressing and it's sad and it's bad for their economy. They can't go out and work. So it puts Afghan people more into poverty and it's just immoral and incorrect. And I have to say, look, I know it was Donald Trump who handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban in the so called negotiations to get American forces out, but it was also Biden who pulled out. And maybe he didn't need to pull out. And it was a disastrous pullout. But I don't know. I mean, I don't know what's gonna happen for those Afghan women because, you know, the UN does a little bit here and a little bit there and NGOs try their best, but it's a real disaster for them. Jamie, what would you say?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, thank you for reminding me of one of President Biden's least popular activities, which was pulling out of Afghanistan.

[Jamie Rubin]

Least successful, least moral and least successful.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yes, thank you for all that. Well, there is a certain, how should I put it? Hypocrisy on the part of many in the United States and the Democratic Party on the left who want very much to have the United States do all it can to protect women's rights in places like Afghanistan. And yet when the United States was deployed in Afghanistan protecting those rights, wanted the United States to pull out and promoted and pushed for the end of this so called forever war. And so it's hard to have it both ways.

[Jamie Rubin]

So did Trump voters. Right. Not just Democrats.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right. But the hypocrisy is that the Trump voters didn't really care about the human rights of women. So that's the point I'm making. And there is a.

[Jamie Rubin]

You sure about that? All of them.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Not every single one. Thank you for pointing that out, but I'm sure that wasn't a driving.

[Jamie Rubin]

Honestly, I'm sorry to interrupt you. It was a fairly conservative Bush administration. I mean, Laura Bush was very, very.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Very little in common with Trump voters in the Bush administration.

[Jamie Rubin]

I know, I know. But when you think about Republicans, Laura Bush was Incredibly engaged on the issue of Afghan women.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right. But when Donald Trump took over the Republican Party, that Laura Bush wing of the party became increasingly irrelevant, continuing to be, till this day, irrelevant in the Republican Party of Donald Trump. So back to the point that I was making, which is that on the left, where there's often a very strong, if not intense, focus on women's rights, they can't quite wrap their heads around the fact that sometimes to protect women's rights, you have to do things like use military power. And they didn't want the United States engaged in a war in Afghanistan indefinitely. And so they pushed very, very hard, along with the Trump voters that you're talking about and Trump himself, to have the United States pull out of Afghanistan. And then they got what they wanted, which was the pullout. Now, it was not done very well. The. The Biden administration had a military that invented a new doctrine that if they had used on the Titanic, things would have been a lot different. The doctrine was soldiers first, women and children last. And the soldiers in the military rushed to remove themselves from Afghanistan, removing themselves from the base around Kabul and removing the United States military, which was holding up the regime. Now, some people would tell you that we could have had a long term, forever deployment of forces around Kabul that would have protected the Afghan government, and the rest of Afghanistan would have had to fend for itself. I don't know whether that's possible. It's always easy in the aftermath to invent a perfect solution. There was a strong, powerful political push for a withdrawal from Afghanistan on the part of the Trump presidency and Biden's presidency. So we pulled out, and we did do some amazing things in getting a lot of people out who would otherwise. Otherwise have suffered greatly, but it was not done well. The blame for that has been examined extensively. I would say that there's lots of blame to go around. The coordination between the Defense Department and the State Department was extremely poor. The idea was to have a big embassy with lots of activities protecting women's rights, but there were no troops to defend that embassy, and the air base was evacuated. And the disasters that you mentioned happened, and those are real and something that all of us regret.

[Jamie Rubin]

Yeah. And I've covered Afghan women for years and years and years before in Taliban 1.0, in 96, after they were thrown out. Now, again, and they are some of the most incredible women, brave, brave beyond belief and enduring and patient. It is incredible what they have had to endure and where they've been relegated in, frankly, on the scale of human value. It's really, really sad because actually one of the things that is very shameful is that and you I know many American military are horrified that their Afghan colleagues, the people who help them with security, with translating, with all sorts of things, so many of them were left behind. It's terrible, of course, to the mercy of whatever the Taliban wanted to do with these people, if they judged them to be spies or agents of the enemy us, I mean, just terrible, just terrible.

[Christiane Amanpour]

But to get to the question of going forward, look, the situation now is that there is a few, I don't know exactly how many, but several billion dollars of frozen assets that the Taliban government would like to get its hands on. And the best leverage I think the international community has to try to promote the best possible outcomes in Afghanistan are to use those assets as leverage to try to force the regime to at least provide minimum standards of freedom and security for the people there. But they haven't been doing it so far. It's a pretty grim sit. But maybe going forward the regime will realize that if they want to ever be anything but an isolated, poor regime, they're going to have to evolve to the point of allowing some minimal human rights for the women there.

[Jamie Rubin]

Well, there is some obviously division between the ultra hardliners, the mullah, you know, Ahunzade, who's the spiritual leader, and the more pragmatics. But still, it hasn't been resolved to a level that would benefit the women there.

[Unknown]

This July 4th, celebrate freedom from spills, stains and overpriced furniture with Annabe, the only machine washable sofa inside and out where designer quality meets budget friendly pricing. Sofas start at just $699, making it the perfect time to upgrade your space. Annabe's pet friendly stainless steel resistant and interchangeable slipcovers are made with high performance fabric that's built for real life. You'll love the cloud like comfort of hypoallergenic high resilience foam that never needs fluffing and a durable steel frame that stands the test of time with modular pieces you can rearrange anytime. It's a sofa that adapts to your Life. Now through July 4th, get up to 60% off site [e-mail] Every order comes with a 30 day sack satisfaction guarantee. If you're not in love, send it back for a full refund. No return shipping, no restocking fees, every penny back. Declare independence from dirty outdated furniture. Shop [e-mail] Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions May apply.

[Jamie Rubin]

Let's just move on in our remaining minutes to some questions relating to us and let's say, general interest. Can you tell us about any mentors you both had at the start of your careers helped shape who you are today?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Good one. Well, I had some interesting mentors in the arms control days. They were some of the people who were called the whiz kids of Robert McNamara and the Vietnam era, Morton Halperin and Spurgeon Kini and others. And they really taught me one of the great lessons of Washington, which is about bureaucratic politics, about how the Pentagons pursue certain interests. The uniform military have certain interests. The civilian military, defense officials have certain interests. The White House has its own set of interests, the State Department, the Congress. And really helped me understand how all of those different players interact and what the results can be. And that helped me when the time came on Bosnia and, you know, I think obviously my mentor and the person I was closest to was Madeleine Albright, who I joined precisely because of Bosnia in 1993. I went to work for her, joining her because she was the one in this Clinton administration that wanted to do something about Bosnia. And I learned a lot from Madeleine. I mean, if she were around, you know, we could talk about what the most important lessons are. But remember, I was very strident, I was very youngish, and I really wanted to do something. And I was a bit of a bull in a china shop. And she helped mold my edges a bit and helped me to win friends rather than making a point. Point. And I hopefully have done better at that over the years. Others have tried as well. And so I've had a lot of. I mean, Vachla Havel was one of her friends, and he was a mentor to me about the former president of Czech Republic, who was a playwright, who was a famous dissident. And moral clarity is something I learned from him. The lucidity that is so powerful when it's spoken and. And uttered clearly and even at difficult times. And he was one who understood that Russia, again, was gonna be a threat. And that's why he wanted the Czech, then Czechoslovakia, to be part of NATO after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. So there's been a few great mentors I've had. Those are a few of them. What about you?

[Jamie Rubin]

Yours are more interesting right now. It's hard for me to pick them up. Some of the great journalists, obviously, first of all, I just need to. You know, you mentioned McNamara. Uh. Oh, McNamara. Was you thoroughly discredited after the Vietnam War? But I understand what you mean by his people. But, you know, you said you were bullied in a china shop and you wanted to always intervene on behalf of, for instance, the Bosnians, humanitarian intervention. But it always reminds me of that moment when, you know, was it. Was it Colin Powell as chairman of the Joint Chiefs or something, when he said, you know, every time I hear you guys saying, let's bomb somebody, I get an aneurysm.

[Christiane Amanpour]

That's right. Madeleine had a famous interaction with Colin Powell where he was viciously against the use of force in Bosnia and he tried to intimidate the young players of the Clinton administration because he had been the hero of the Gulf War and he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and he really used his role politically, and it really exceeded what a military officer ought to have done. And he tried to intimidate them by suggesting that even the most modest uses of force would inevitably lead to the ground forces of the United States engaged in a ground war with the Serbian military. None of which was true. It was a slippery slope argument that was defeated completely and utterly by the intervention in Bosnia, where limited force was used for limited purposes. And Colin Powell had this thing called the doctrine of overwhelming military force that.

[Jamie Rubin]

Came from the first Gulf War, and it was successful there.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It was successful except when Colin Powell stopped the war before defeating the Iraqi military. Remember, Colin Powell's most famous moment was his sound bite in the run up to the Gulf War where he said about the Iraqi military, we're going to cut it off and kill it. That was his sound bite. And they did cut it off, but they didn't kill it. And that wasn't the same as going all the way to Baghdad and overthrowing the regime. No, it was destroying the Republican Guard. That could have been done. But Colin Powell was so averse to any possibility of the perception being that the US Military had gone too far or was engaged in what called the turkey shoot, and they stopped the war too soon. They should have completed the destruction of the Republican Guard. So Colin Powell was effective to a degree, but he was often more beloved in his Persona than his actual views.

[Jamie Rubin]

Well, listen, I understand what you're saying about the. Because I covered that and the end of the Gulf War and everything. But clearly when we did all. Or you all. Sorry, we. No, not me. You all went into Iraq the second time around in 2003 and did regime change. It wasn't very successful. I mean, even neutralizing the Republican Guard in Iraq, just a quickie on Kolin Pala and Bosnia when Srebrenica and Gorazde and the safe areas were under siege and terrible siege. And there was a lot of evidence coming out that terrible crimes were being committed there by the Bosnians, Serbs against the Muslim, Bosnian inhabitants. I asked whether. Because they announced at the military that they were going to airdrop food and stuff. So I asked my boss to ask Colin Powell if I could get airdropped in on one of those pallets into the safe areas because we couldn't get through. And Colin Powell looked at him and he said, look, if you want to kill Christiane Amanpour, I can think of many other ways to do it. It. No, I'm not airdropping her. I always remember that.

[Christiane Amanpour]

But that was a classic case of Colin Powell always seeing the downside. Remember Borda?

[Jamie Rubin]

Oh, stop. There was no way he was gonna airdrop me into Garage Day or Srebrenica.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hold on. But I want to tell you a funny story you may not remember. Admiral Borda was the supreme commander of Southcom, it was called, and he airdropped a bottle of whiskey to General Morial and Ser Benito. Anyway, so there was airdropping. And Powell always wanted to say how the airdrops were never going to work. He said it was all going to be a disaster, and if we airdrop, then we end up with ground forces. Colin Powell was very wrong on Bosnia. Wrong again, again and again.

[Jamie Rubin]

And a lot of commentators were wrong about Bosnia, too. Don't get involved. And of course, the involvement was, you know, very, as you say, targeted and light and from the air. And it ended it in a second without. Without many Serbian deaths and without any more Bosnian deaths either. So.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Because force was married to diplomacy.

[Jamie Rubin]

Exactly.

[Christiane Amanpour]

It was diplomacy backed by force.

[Jamie Rubin]

Next question.

[Christiane Amanpour]

In Gilmore Girls, Rory idolizes Christiane. Can you reflect on what it's like to become a role model to young, aspiring journalists? Is it exciting, or can the expectation be nerfed?

[Jamie Rubin]

Okay, so I really wanted you to read that, because I couldn't read it about myself, but this was in the early 2000s.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I hope I read it. Well.

[Jamie Rubin]

Well, you did, but I. You know, living here in. In the UK and there was no social media and streaming and this. That. I had no idea that this program called the Gilmore Girls was on in America. And they mentioned me a lot because Rory wanted to be the young. The young teenage student wanted to be a journalist. And it was absolutely fantastic. And I loved it when I saw it, because CNN PR sent me a whole bun. I guess they were.

[Christiane Amanpour]

What.

[Jamie Rubin]

What were they then? DVDs or whatever. And we watched them and I thought it was great. It was a super smart series. Not because it was extolling the virtues of me, but because it was really well written and it was Smart Girls with a. And it was really excellent, excellently written and promoting, you know, the intelligence and the dreams and the passions of young women. So I really loved it. And then do you remember they asked me to be in the final finale series and we all went on set onto the, onto the film.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You went, as I recall.

[Jamie Rubin]

I did. You did. Darius did. He sat on the big.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I don't, I didn't go to that.

[Jamie Rubin]

No. Well, Darius did.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah.

[Jamie Rubin]

And, you know, I was stiff and awful as a cameo, but nonetheless, it's followed me since and I do really appreciate and take, take it as a responsibility to, you know, be a bit of a mentor and not a mentor. So whatever you want to call it, I'm glad for me, it makes me feel good. And that's it. Jamie, I'm ending right there. We're ending right there. So.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, the end of this episode.

[Jamie Rubin]

Thanks for listening to this bonus episode of the X Files with me, Christiana Monpour and Jamie Rubin. Remember, if you have a question for us that you'd like us to answer about something in the news or anything we've done during our careers or any news you're interested in, as I said, you can find us on all the major social media platforms. Our handle is Manpod. Or email us because we'[e-mail] our next episode is out on Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts. And remember, you can listen for free on Global Player. You can download it from the App Store or go to globalplayer.com.

[Christiane Amanpour]

This is a Global Player Original podcast.

[Unknown]

This July 4th, celebrate freedom from spills, stains and overpriced furniture with Annabe, the only machine washable sofa inside and out. Where designer quality meets budget friendly pricing. Sofas start at just $699, making it the perfect time to upgrade your space. Anna Bay's pet friend Stain resistant and interchangeable slipcovers are made with high performance fabric that's built for real life. You'll love the cloud like comfort of hypoallergenic, high resilience foam that never needs fluffing and a durable steel frame that stands the test of time with modular pieces you can rearrange anytime. It's a sofa that adapts to your Life. Now through July 4th, get up to 60% off site [e-mail] Every order comes with a 3030 day satisfaction guarantee. If you're not in love, send it back for a full refund. No return shipping, no restocking fees. Every penny back. Declare independence from dirty, outdated furniture. Shop now at washablesofas. Com. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.