Return to Transcripts main page


President Trump Cancels Summit with North Korea; Glenda Jackson on Her Return to Broadway. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired May 24, 2018 - 14:00:00   ET


CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST: Tonight, President Trump has canceled his nuclear summit with New North Korea, blaming the regime's anger and open

hostility for his decision. So, can diplomacy be revived or are we back to the road to confrontation? From Washington, I'm joined by Joseph Yun, who

is former special representative for North Korean policy, and Kurt Campbell who served as the U.S. senior diplomat dealing with Asia under President


Plus, my conversation with the Oscar-winning actress Glenda Jackson about her stellar return to Broadway and why, aged 82, she is not ready to hang

up her acting shoes just yet.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

The much-anticipated Trump-Kim Jong-un summit is no longer happening. The U.S. president canceled the meeting, delivering the news in a letter to the

North Korean leader, and he then spoke about it at the White House. Take a listen.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe that this is a tremendous setback for North Korea and indeed a setback for the world.

I've spoken to General Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our military, which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world, that has

been greatly enhanced recently, as you all know, is ready, if necessary.

Likewise, I've spoken to South Korea and Japan. And they are not only ready should foolish or reckless acts be taken by North Korea, but they are

willing to shoulder much of the cost of any financial burden, any of the costs associated by the United States in operations if such an unfortunate

situation is forced upon us.

Hopefully, positive things will be taking place with respect to the future of North Korea. But if they don't, we are more ready than we have ever

been before.

If and when Kim Jong-un chooses to engage in constructive dialogue and actions, I am waiting.


AMANPOUR: So, here now to discuss are Kurt Campbell. He served under Obama as U.S. assistant secretary of state for Pacific affairs and he's the

man behind America's so-called pivot to Asia and Joseph Yun, who recently stepped down as U.S. special representative for North Korean policy.

Gentlemen, both welcome to the program. Can I first turn to you first, Joseph Yun, because we were talking just a couple of days ago when the

South Korean president was in town?

Do you assign any blame? Who do you think is responsible for this, if anyone?


This is very, very disappointing. And you and I talked about it and we talked about what could go wrong. And you mentioned putting the cart

before the horse and that's what happened.

And the summit, the two leaders agreed to meet. And you talk about blame. I think it's their staff that were very much holding them back.

In this case, you saw John Bolton as well as Vice President Pence. I imagine there is a similar dynamic going on in North Korea where North

Korean officials, especially the military, might be holding back Kim Jong- un.

So, they're telling their boss, hey, boss, don't go to Singapore, you might end up looking like a chump, probably lot more politely than I just did

just now, but I think it's the fear that no summit is better than a bad summit, that's certainly holding back President Trump in my belief. And I

think that's similar in Pyongyang right now.

AMANPOUR: Just quickly before I pivot to Kurt Campbell, is it about issues, is it about not being close in the end or not having it hammered

out where the red lines are, where the give-and-take is on the concept of denuclearization or is it the Bolton/Libya, Pence/Libya model that they

hurled around over the last few weeks?

YUN: It is completely about issues. And we are so far apart on the basic issue of the denuclearization. And this is what happens if you go

immediately to the summit without all the pre-steps.

[14:05:05] I mean, these pre-steps can range from something as insignificant as the shape of the table, but very significant to agenda, to

outcome paper. What do we say in an agreement? And so, none of that has been done.

And so, you have, on the one hand, President Trump looking for a historic victory and something that's going to get him the big win he's looking for

and then you have Kim Jong-un who is looking for international respect, legitimacy. And so, that was driving them. And so, their staff, those

under them were not with them.

But the basic issue is differences over denuclearization.

AMANPOUR: So, Kurt Campbell, I mean, there was a very different attitude under the Obama administration. It's been criticized for not pressing more

for talks, et cetera, the whole strategic patience thing.

What do you think is the next step here now? What does China do? President Trump said he had talked to Japan and South Korea, but apparently

maybe not to China. What happens now in the region?

KURT CAMPBELL, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: So, two things. First, just on the previous thing very quickly, Christiane, I think what

you're seeing here is the contrast or the dichotomy between a president who really wants the spectacle of a remarkable diplomatic achievement, but is

actually uncomfortable with the details of diplomacy.

Anyone who's worked in Asia understands, like anywhere else, that diplomacy requires persistence, it requires patience, and it requires a plan. And I

think as Ambassador Yun indicated, we demonstrated that we didn't have any of those in this first round, but still I'm optimistic.

I think this is the opening gambit. I think more staff work - I think the president is going to realize it's hard to go back to the barricades and

put pressure on North Korea in the way that we saw earlier in the year.

What I think it really does is it puts China in the driver's seat. I think China understands that their role over the course the next couple of months

will be to cajole and engage the Trump administration, explain why only President Trump can achieve this development, to understand it will take

time with the North Koreans and then they will suddenly press North Korea behind the scenes.

So, the key that we have to remember, ultimately, this is about North Korea, yes, but it's also about the geostrategy, sort of the ultimate

distribution of power in North Korea -

AMANPOUR: Well, to that end, Kurt, you heard President Trump basically turn and blame China these last few days when it looked like the whole

thing was going off-kilter and off-track, and essentially said that ever since Kim Jong-un made his latest trip to China, Kim Jong-un's tone has

changed. And he's kind of blaming China. Do you think there's anything to that?

CAMPBELL: Probably in the short term. But I do believe his desire to have a good relationship with President Xi and also the Chinese ability to

engage and maneuver should not be underestimated.

So, my own view would be that the Chinese are going to weight in quickly about their strong desire to resurrect the diplomacy.

And I think even though the president tries to conceal it, it's clear to me that he desperately wants this diplomacy. And I think anyone who watches

it carefully sees the same thing.

AMANPOUR: Well, I think you're absolutely right. And in the president's body language today, it was incredibly indicative of that. He looked very

somber, very disappointed. And even his letter to Kim Jong-un was indicative of that.

But before I get to some of the veiled threats, or not so veiled threats about military action, I want to ask you again, Ambassador Yun, we've

talked about what China has at stake, but what about South Korea?

Again, this week, you told me that the President Moon Jae-in bet the farm on this diplomacy and now he's back in Seoul facing what? What is going to

happen to him?

YUN: I think a tremendous cost for President Moon. He has regional elections, quite important ones, coming up in June 13. And so, we will see

whether he has to pay any electoral costs.

But beyond the electoral costs, there is the issue of his own credibility that he has really, as we talked about, bet enormous amount on the

successful outcome of this summit.

So, I completely agree with Kurt - Dr. Campbell. China will now lead a new initiative, but South Korea has to be in that mix. And I would have to

believe that he's going to try, President Moon, his own method of trying to cajole North Korea into saving something.

[14:10:14] So I think you're going to see another round of active diplomacy from our South Korean as well as Chinese and, let's not forget, Japanese


AMANPOUR: OK. So, I was struck by the immediate reference in both the letter and the statement to the military. In the letter, President Trump

said we still have more nuclear weapons than you, a much bigger arsenal, God forbid we have to use them.

And in the verbal statement of the White House, he immediately said I've been talking to Secretary Mattis, our military is ready and prepared, the

allies in the region are prepared to help us in whichever way possible.

Are we going to see President Trump and his hardliners, you talk about staff, his hardliners ramp up the military option again?

CAMPBELL: Personally, I don't think so. I think they're going to realize it's very difficult. I think this is the language equivalent of elevator

shoes. You want to feel a little taller when you walk into the room.

I think it's aimed more at making sure everyone understands that the president is tough and hard and unrelenting. And I think now that that

point has been made, I think, privately, I agree with Ambassador Yun. I think we will subtly and carefully go back to diplomacy.

And I think the president, his feelings are hurt, he feels disappointed, but welcome to diplomacy 101.

AMANPOUR: And - yes. Sorry, go ahead.

CAMPBELL: And I think what's different this time around, I'm impressed by Secretary Pompeo. He is a tough guy. He's ruthless. And he's going to

put a team together that's going to be able to make the argument that diplomacy is the best way forward.

AMANPOUR: Well, presumably, he'll be able to corral the errant voices then, unless they're not errant, unless the Bolton-Pence-Libya grenades

that they hurled are deliberate. I don't know about that.

But, Joseph Yun, let me ask my final question to you as we run out of time. Kim Jong-un showed the press the blowing up, at least, of the tunnels at

the nuclear side. We don't really know exactly what happened, but something happened. There was smoke. There were explosions. And they

said that they had destroyed that nuclear site.

He has stopped nuclear tests or put a hold on them. He stopped testing missiles. He has given back the hostages, which he kept for this exact


Is he going to be feeling under pressure now?

YUN: I believe so. I think this will be the first signal whether we take the path of more trouble or path of diplomacy. If Kim Jong-un goes back

now and tests a nuclear device or tests ICBM, that is really bad news. We are back to where we were in November and December last year, talk of

military options and blood nose.

But I do believe, given diplomacy as Dr. Campbell mentioned, there is an opportunity to build on these initial steps that North Korea has taken.

And if we build on that, then we can build towards a summit.

I really do believe President Trump wants the summit, so does Kim Jong-un, and this is an opportunity we should not let go.

AMANPOUR: All right.

YUN: It did not work out for June 12, but I think it could work out.

AMANPOUR: Indeed. Well, let's see. Both of you, thank you so much. Joseph Yun, Kurt Campbell, thanks for joining me on this very important day

on the world stage.

But if all the world's a stage, as Shakespeare said, then Glenda Jackson is one of the greatest actors ever to storm across it. Bold and talented, she

earned two Oscars for the drama "Women in Love" and another for "A Touch of Class", which is a comedy.


GLENDA JACKSON, ACTRESS: In the past two days, you have picked me up in the rain, given me tea, bought me lunch, lured me to this hideaway with the

intention, I presume, of getting me into bed for what you Americans so charmingly call "a quickie." Is that a fair resume so far?

GEORGE SEGAL, ACTOR: Why do women always think the worst? Why does sex always have to be the first thing that - yes!


AMANPOUR: But Jackson is no Johnny one note. In 1992, she pivoted to politics. And she was elected member of Parliament here only to pivot back

to acting again in 2015. No easy feat for a woman at the ripe old age of 80 and no easy come back. She played "King Lear" to rave reviews.

And now, at 82, she's taking Broadway by a curmudgeonly (INAUDIBLE) storm, playing a sour 92-year-old on the verge of death in Edward Albee's

masterpiece, "Three Tall Women" and that turned her a Tony nomination.

[14:15:05] She stars alongside Laurie Metcalf and Alison Pill. She is fierce. She's funny and she's frank. Glenda Jackson discussed all of this

with me when she joined me from New York earlier in the week.

Glenda Jackson, welcome to the program.

JACKSON: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: So, I don't want to be indelicate, but you are a woman of a certain age. You're over 80 if I'm not mistaken. And you are having a

resurgence of your acting career.

Many, many women, yourself included, have complained - rightly! - that there aren't enough roles for women, especially older women. How do you

feel, though, doing this?

JACKSON: Well, I still concur with what you - thought you just said. Usually, there's only, if there is, one woman's part. And certainly, as

far as contemporary dramatists are concerned, it seems to me. And that has stayed the same in my experience ever since I first walked onto a stage and

got paid for it.

What is remarkable about this particular production is not only it's a great play, but there are three really good - three women's parts in it.

And one of the things that attracted me most to doing it was the opportunity to work with actresses of the caliber of the two actress I'm

privileged to work with.

AMANPOUR: And what about the role itself? You play "A." She's the much older woman. I think she's a decade older than you are in real life. And

pretty cantankerous. Pretty sort of iconoclastic. Maybe a little bit like you. I don't know. Did you feel a particular bond with her?

JACKSON: No, I felt a particular bond with what the author was trying to do, I think, which is to be almost - well, not almost, painfully honest

about what was clearly for him a tragic relationship between himself and his adoptive mother. He is absolutely upfront about that.

But then, he kicks off by saying, it isn't a revenge piece. Well, I disagree with him there. But the last part of it, he says that, during her

lifetime, he never met anyone who liked her. He is talking about his adoptive mother. He never met anyone who had seen the play who disliked

her. What have I done? It's all in that, isn't it?

AMANPOUR: It really is. It sort of made me laugh a little bit. But it is extraordinary if it's true what he says about his adoptive mother that she

bought him from adoption agency for about $133 or something like that -

JACKSON: Well, $110. And she wanted the money back.


JACKSON: Left home.

AMANPOUR: And then, apparently, he feels that she always wanted to give him back, is that right?

JACKSON: Well, there was clearly this endlessly dividing, divisive, truly, I think, in many instances, cruel attempts to make a relationship which

failed, I think, clearly on both sides. And I think she, at some point, clearly gave up on it.

AMANPOUR: What does it mean for you to be back? I mean, you put your career willingly on hiatus for more than 20 years when you became a

politician in England. You were an MP for -

JACKSON: There are people who regard being a member of Parliament as a career.

AMANPOUR: Well, yes.

JACKSON: Over that one.

AMANPOUR: Yes. But I said your acting career. Or maybe I didn't. I meant your acting career. But you put your acting career on hiatus to take

up another career. Did you ever think when you decided not to run again, you put politics aside, that you, Glenda Jackson, would not just be asked

to come back to one play, which was queenlier, right, here at The Old Vic, but now "Three Tall Women". I mean, these are huge monumental plays and


JACKSON: It didn't occur to me. No, I mean, I remember saying to my girls in the office when I said I wouldn't stand at the 2015 election, I'm going

to enter irresponsible episodes in my life only to discover that, in fact, when you don't have work, your responsibility increases. Who gets you out

of bed in the morning, if not you?

But the BBC asked me to do a series on radio, which I was very happy to do. They were great scripts. And I did that and I (INAUDIBLE) that. I was

then asked by The Old Vic instantly to do a play. I didn't want to do the play. They wanted me to do.

And "Lear" came after that. And I did it. And now, I'm doing "Three Tall Women" and I'm very, very lucky indeed.

AMANPOUR: So, isn't it incredible that you did "Lear" as a woman?

JACKSON: Well, one of the really interesting things about doing that incredible play, no one ever mentioned it. Nobody in the production,

nobody who watched it, in a curious way, nobody commented on it made anything off that.

It may be because there had been forerunners, certainly in London, of the kind of gender bender regime. I mean, marvelous productions, all-women

productions, for example, of Shakespeare's histories.

[14:20:12] What I found interesting over and above the greatness of the play was when I was a member of Parliament, I would visit old people's

homes, day centers, things of that nature, and one of the things that struck me most was how, as we get older, as we get higher and higher up the

age scale, the gender barriers start to fray, they become to fracture, they're sort of foggy, the absolutes aren't there anymore, and that I found

very useful when I was playing "Lear". It was really interesting.

AMANPOUR: Actually, that's a very encouraging thought for us coming up in the those footsteps of age. So, that's great.

Tell me about being a politician. Did you employ your acting abilities, credentials, your performing abilities in Parliament? I mean, how much did

that help you or was it unconscious?

JACKSON: It was never at the forefront of my mind, but what was, not infrequently at the forefront of my mind, was that years ago, there was a

scientific exploration of what we as human beings fear most.

And apparently, what we fear most is death and number two on the list is public speaking. So, I had that one covered, except when I rose to make my

maiden speech in Parliament, I had never been so frightened in my life.

AMANPOUR: You also took part in a tribute to Margaret Thatcher. Of course, yours was the - I mean, could I call it an anti-tribute.

JACKSON: I hope I told the truth. I had certainly told the truth as I had experienced it, as I'd seen my constituents experience it, even though when

I was first elected, she had long been elevated to the other place as we call the House of Lords.

Everything I had been taught to regard as a vice, she told me was a virtue. Greed wasn't a vice. It was doubty (ph) independence. Selfishness wasn't

a vice. It was ensuring you cared for yourself and your family, that there was no such thing as a society.

AMANPOUR: Can I just play it actually? I mean, you've paraphrased some of what you said, but I'm going to play it, so that our viewers will see you.



JACKSON: We were told that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice - and I still regard them as vices - under Thatcherism was, in fact, a

virtue. Greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees, they were the way forward.


JACKSON: So, Glenda Jackson, that was pretty bold and brave. Obviously, you were true to yourself and true to your politics.

How were you received in the chamber? And did they know what you were going to say? Did you have to - not permission, but did you have to sort

of warn people what you were going to say?

JACKSON: Good heavens, no! I mean, I was there. I wasn't guaranteed to be called. No one is guaranteed to be called in that sentence.

And, certainly, I remember when I kicked off with what I was saying, there was a certain amount of barracking from, obviously, the conservative

benches, but that died down.

AMANPOUR: I wonder - because we're in this moment now of so much focus on women need to - women running for office, women trying to really finally

change these sort of scales of inequity, would you call yourself a feminist?

JACKSON: I think I would, in the sense of it being more than demonstrating you're a feminist by burning your bra. I never burned a bra in my life

because I don't wear them.

But if I could just kind of cut to the bottom line about all this, as far as I'm concerned, I'd just say that, in the United Kingdom, two women die

every week at the hands of their partner, usually a male.

And we are deluding ourselves if we think that this movement that has arisen is going to transform the lives for all women around the world

overnight because it isn't. And we have to accept that the steps forward, we are moving forward, but they're small steps at the moment, they're not

giant strides, but we have to keep pushing for it.

AMANPOUR: And I want to go back to one of your earlier films. We're going to play a little clip of "Women in Love".

JACKSON: All right.


JACKSON: `Well you don't think you love, do you?


JACKSON: You don't think you can love me, do you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know what you mean by the word "love."

JACKSON: Yes, you do. You know very well that you have never loved me. But have you, do you think?



[14:25:03] AMANPOUR: Oh, that's so dramatic and so sad. Does it take you back at all?

JACKSON: I don't watch it. I don't like watching myself. I'm completely subjective about seeing myself on film. I only look at myself really and I

think, oh, my God, why did you choose to do that? It's all too late because there ain't nothing you can do to change it.

AMANPOUR: But you do have - you are quite known for being a bit irascible and you did not accept any of your Oscars. You got two Oscars. One for

that film. And you didn't go to Hollywood to pick them up.

JACKSON: Well, I was working. I mean, I couldn't go. I was extremely fortunate. I was employed. And that is still a very fortunate position to

be in if you're an actress. So, no, I didn't.

AMANPOUR: Are you glad you got them? Are you glad you get all the plaudits? And are you happy, well, now with all the reviews and playing

these amazing roles?

JACKSON: I'm very happy that we're playing to full houses. I'm very happy to be working with these two remarkable actresses. I'm very happy with the

way the audience listens and laughs and how we clearly are delivering what is really a remarkable play.

But I always gib at when you talk about the Oscars, people say to me, you won them. I never competed for anything. The winners are the people who

vote for you. And that's nice for them and always very nice to have a present, but it doesn't make you any better.

AMANPOUR: On that note, Glenda Jackson, thank you so much for joining us.

JACKSON: Pleasure talking to you.

AMANPOUR: Well, Glenda Jackson is mighty good enough to have won a Tony award for "Three Tall Women" - or rather be nominated for one.

And that is it for our program tonight. Remember, you can always listen to our podcast, see us online at and follow me on Facebook and


Thanks for watching. And goodbye from London.