Return to Transcripts main page

CNN'S AMANPOUR

Interview With Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto; Interview With Former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda; Interview with Kate Julian; America's Drinking Problem; Soccer Fans Support for Marcus Rashford. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired July 13, 2021 - 13:00:00   ET

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


[13:00:19]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR.

Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIGUEL DIAZ-CANEL, CUBAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We did not call the people to confront the people. We called on the people to defend their

revolution.

GOLODRYGA (voice-over): Cuba's president tells loyalists to fight back and blames the country's unrest on the U.S. We look at the challenges facing

the region with former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda.

Then: Hungary under fire for a new law many call homophobic. I will talk about this and more with Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto.

And violence in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. We get the story of a chilling massacre of Afghan commandos.

Plus: As many start to get a taste of freedom, should we be worried about how much we're drinking? We will find out.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour, who will be back next week.

President Biden has his hands full in the Caribbean, that is for sure, first with the assassination of Haiti's president and now with the unrest

in Cuba. The country's president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, is blaming rare anti- government protests on U.S. policies.

In a national address that lasted over four hours, he called on loyalists to defend to the revolution. Anti-government activists claim more than 100

people have been arrested following widespread protests on Sunday. Thousands took to the streets amid a crushing economic crisis made worse by

the pandemic and U.S. sanctions.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says placing the blame on America shoulders is wrong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it would be a grievous mistake for the Cuban regime to interpret what is happening in dozens of

towns and cities across the island as the result or product of anything the United States has done. It would be a grievous mistake because it would

show that they simply are not hearing the voices and will of the Cuban people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Let's go live to the capital of Havana, where CNN's Patrick Oppmann has the latest.

And, Patrick, you have been there on the ground since the beginning of these rare anti-government protests, the likes we haven't seen in decades.

Now a few days in, as you have reported, that thousands have even tried to flee on makeshift rafts and boats, what are you seeing today?

Are these protests continuing at the same rate?

PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, they're not being allowed to.

And that's because of several different things. The Cuban government, which was caught unawares by this wave of protests, not just in Havana, but in

cities across this island, even in some small towns, where everyone knows everyone and the people have had the courage or just felt they had nothing

left to lose to go out into the streets, even though everyone knows who they are, and say that they wanted change.

So now there are police throughout really Havana, and they are keeping a very close eye on things. We are hearing about mass arrests. Remember that

the president of Cuba said that all the protesters, thousands of them, were criminals, essentially, that they had broken and stolen things, broken into

stores.

So there's been no attempt here to mend this open wound and perhaps try to calm down the situation. The president Cuba as well, initially, you will

remember, said that he was giving an order of combat, for supporters of the revolution to go out and retake the streets. And that's what we are seeing

throughout Cuba, groups of pro-government supporters assisted with police going out and letting people know that the protests will not be tolerated

anymore.

On top of that, there is an Internet blackout across Cuba right now, makes it very, very hard to gather information, to report, to know what's going

on across the island. And we are not seeing what we saw all day on Sunday, really incredible images of people, by the thousands, going out and

protesting.

People are just unable right now to upload those images. And, of course, those were one of the main sparks for these widespread protests.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, let me let me ask you more about the Internet outages there and the role of social media, because, as in all of these protests

that we have seen throughout history, context is important.

[13:05:06]

And the one thing that we haven't seen in comparison to, let's say, the '90s, or even the revolution itself, obviously, was the Internet and the

role of social media. How significant has that been over these past four days? And given that there are so many outages now, is the government's

control and clampdown working?

OPPMANN: Well, I remember, when I first moved here nine years ago, and when I left our office, I was offline. It was only about three years ago

that Cubans got Internet on their cell phones.

And that has been a game-changer. And we have seen people sharing images and information that perhaps annoy the government. But this is very, very

different. The government sees this as an existential threat. And they are blocking now, according to companies that follow this, Internet usage,

blocking Cubans' ability to get online, to access social media, to post, to share videos, because they have seen now that this new technology for

Cubans is being used to thwart and support the government.

And that is perhaps why the Cuban government always was so reluctant over the years to give people this kind of access, and did so grudgingly,

because they realized it was holding Cuba back, and there was really no excuse.

But, again, this is something very new for Cubans, that they had this ability to share their daily existence with the outside world. But, on

Sunday, when the government saw how people were using this technology -- and the government controls all communications on this island -- the only

communications companies are state-controlled -- and they pulled the plug and pulled it quite hard.

And for much of this island, it is -- people are just in the dark.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it's interesting that it was Raul Castro over the last few years who has sort of eased up incrementally on some of these

restrictions like Internet access.

And speaking of Raul Castro, who stepped down last year, we know that he actually participated in high-level government meetings today. What should

we be reading into that, if anything?

OPPMANN: Oh, there's so much to read into that, because Raul Castro stepped down from his last leadership post in April. He said he was

retiring, that he could have stayed on and in some capacity, but he felt that was not needed.

He turned over his titles as president and head of the Communist Party to his handpicked successor, Miguel Diaz-Canel. And so the fact that Raul

Castro, we haven't seen images of this meeting, but took part in this meeting, this emergency meeting, about the protests really speaks a lot,

and certainly trying to perhaps comfort the nerves of some people who are government supporters who are a little concerned that, just within months

of Raul Castro stepping down, that we had this kind of widespread chaos, really.

That's what it was on Sunday. And, certainly, Raul Castro is letting people know that he's very involved in the decisions that are being made. And you

can certainly see how the government is not accepting any kind of criticism, any kind of protests, a very different scene from Sunday, where,

for the first time ever, I saw people yelling anti-government slogans into the faces of police.

But there were so many people doing it that the police simply could not do anything about it, at least not then. Now they are. We're hearing a lot of

people who were involved in the protests being arrested, and as well people just who were in the wrong place at the wrong time being arrested.

And while opposition activists say that they believe over 100 people have been arrested, they have 100 names, they say, the number is probably quite

a bit higher.

GOLODRYGA: Right, arrested or missing is another key word there and accounted for.

Patrick Oppmann, so important to have you on the ground there over these past few days. Thank you so much for your perspective and putting it into

context.

Well, now my next guest says that, if the Cuban army either fires on civilians or joins in the protests, it's game over for the regime.

Jorge Castaneda is a former Mexican foreign minister and now a professor of Latin America and Caribbean studies in New York at New York University. And

he's joining me from Mexico City.

Thank you so much, Mr. Foreign Minister, for joining us.

So let's follow-up on what we just heard from Patrick, that the scene on the ground there looks quite different from what we saw Sunday. it looks

like authorities were really able to crack down on these protesters.

What should be we reading -- what should we be reading into that?

JORGE CASTANEDA, FORMER MEXICAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, I think, Bianna, your correspondent is quite right.

They do seem to be able to have gotten a handle on all of this in two ways, one, by arresting people who participated in the demonstrations and the

protests, and, two, by shutting down the Internet. It's not so much only that they can't post videos and pictures and not -- they can't -- the

correspondents and others cannot learn what's going on, but that Cubans cannot communicate with each other.

The protesters cannot communicate with each other by WhatsApp or SMS or whatever to know what's going on in another neighborhood of Havana, in

another suburb of Havana or in other cities in Cuba. And that, of course, weakens enormously any protest movement. The minute there's no

communication among the protesters, there's a tendency to die down.

[13:10:20]

So it does look like, for now, the authorities, probably with a very heavy- handed repression, but without putting the army into the streets, and without any deaths reported so far, seem to have gotten a handle on all of

this, for now, as I say.

GOLODRYGA: So you say for now. This caught a lot of people by surprise. We haven't seen these kinds of protests in decades.

And I want to actually play for you what one of these protesters said, in the sense of not having the same fear that they once had before. This is a

Havana resident named Mykel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MYKEL, HAVANA RESIDENT (through translator): It is becoming impossible to live here. I do not know if it, unrest, could happen again. I don't know,

because, right now, Havana is militarized. The person you least suspect is a policeman.

I don't know. But Cubans are losing their fear. They are losing their fear. I don't know. Maybe this unrest will continue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: So is Mykel an outlier here? Or does he speak for many residents of Cuba? And what does that say about the future of the

revolution and the regime there?

CASTANEDA: I think, Bianna, the causes, the underlying causes are still there and will continue to be there, particularly through the month of

August, which is traditionally when many of these protests have taken place, because it's one of the hottest months, if not the hottest month, in

Cuba and in Havana, and, because of power shortages, et cetera, life becomes particularly difficult in July in August for city residents.

The food that -- there is no food available. There are no medicines available. There are not enough vaccines available. There is no electric

power for elevators. There's no gasoline for transportation. Literally, the country is at a standstill.

So these causes are still there. Part of them come from the economic reforms of eliminating several currencies they had at the very beginning of

the year. There is a sort of hyperinflation going on in Cuba today, in addition to the scarcities. Scarcity is that there's nothing available, but

hyperinflation is that it costs so much, whatever is available, that you can't pay for it.

So all of these causes are still there, and they're going to continue for many weeks or months. The issue is whether the people in Havana and other

towns are going to come back into the streets, let's say, on the weekend, or the day after tomorrow, or two weeks from now, or whether it was just a

one-hit wonder, let's put it in those terms, on Sunday.

It's very difficult to say. The regime is very sensitive to these things, although, obviously, Fidel Castro is not around, like he was in 1994, when

he went to the Malecon and basically stood down a crowd of protesters himself. Raul Castro can't do that.

And Diaz-Canel sort of did it in San Antonio de los Banos on Sunday, but it's not the same thing. The regime is very sensitive to this. And they

know they have to stop this from happening again.

We have no way of knowing whether they can. So then the issue becomes what the international community does, or nothing, with regard to these

protests.

GOLODRYGA: Well, so what should the international community, namely, the United States, be doing in terms of policy?

We know that President Obama had tried a detente of sorts with relations with Cuba and lifting of some of the tight sanctions there. They were

reimposed by President Trump and they still exist and are in place under the Biden administration. This is not an administration that had

prioritized Cuba.

But you see what happens in the world, whether it be Israel, whether it be Haiti, and now Cuba. And this is a front-and-center issue for this

administration. President Biden tweeted that he stands "with the people of Cuba "as they bravely assert their fundamental and universal rights and as

they all call for freedom and relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic and from the decades of repression and economic suffering."

Other politicians in his party and in the Republican Party are also pushing for this administration to do more. What is the right approach from the

Biden administration right now?

CASTANEDA: Well, first point would be, Bianna, is that this is a bit of a vindication of President Obama's policy from 2015 and '16, in the sense

that the availability of the Internet, the possibility of Cubans having cell phones, communicating among each other, et cetera, has led to these

protests.

This is only possible because of Obama's normalization of relations back then. Trump having clamped down through sanctions obviously made life

miserable for everyday Cubans, for Cubans on the street, but didn't seem to affect the regime a whole lot.

[13:15:03]

What the Biden administration has to look at today is whether, one, it wants to loosen the sanctions, which essentially is what it had insinuated

during the campaign, that Biden would go back to where Obama was five years ago.

But, conversely, he also has to decide if he wants to support the people of Cuba more actively, for example, by trying to set up Internet

communications by satellite, which the government, the Cuban government, cannot shut down. These are tough decisions because they can be viewed as

very hostile by the government.

(CROSSTALK)

GOLODRYGA: And that is what Senator -- that is what people like Senator Marco Rubio are suggesting that the president do as well. And, obviously,

domestic politics plays a huge role in President Biden's decision going forward.

Before we move to the region, I do want to ask you one more question the revolution and the meaning of the revolution, right, all of these decades

later, generationally, what it means and how significant it is for Cubans. I mean, you wrote the book, you wrote one of the most prominent and

biographies on Che Guevara and the meaning of the revolution, obviously, the leader there of it in Cuba.

What is your sense, personally, on the term revolution and what it means for the Cuban people right now?

CASTANEDA: Well, I think it means a tragedy, in a sense, because it's been now 62 years. And, basically, they are still going through extraordinarily

difficult conditions of everyday life, food, medicine, transportation, electric power, clothing.

Absolutely everything is scarce, expensive, unavailable, or only available under extraordinary means. They have been through 62 years of difficulties.

And what do they have to show for it now? Very, very little. Their vaunted health system has collapsed in the face of the pandemic and the absence of

vaccinations.

Their education system is in tatters because the schools are shut down. The revolution really has ended in a tragedy for the Cuban people. For many

years, there were ups and downs. There were a lot of defeats, a lot of setbacks. But there were also important achievements.

Today, there are no achievements. There's no Soviet Union left to support them.

GOLODRYGA: Right.

CASTANEDA: There's no Venezuela left to support them. It's a tragedy. It's not a revolution.

GOLODRYGA: And let me ask you, briefly, in final moments here, on Mexico, because you have been very critical of President Obrador there and his

policies, and how the United States, not just President Biden, but the presidents before him, his predecessors have approach the relationship with

Mexico, focusing, as you say too much on border and migration issues, and not enough on policies within the Mexican economy and government that you

say have a larger overall impact on the United States.

Can you explain that for us briefly?

CASTANEDA: Well, both Presidents Trump and Biden, the first one nastily, President Biden nicely, have basically made and carried out the same

policy.

As long as the Mexican government, as President Lopez Obrador, keeps the Central Americans away from the U.S. border, either by stopping them at the

southern border of Mexico or at Mexico's northern border, President Biden doesn't seem to care a whole lot what goes on in Mexico, what goes on in

terms of American interests, what goes on in terms of Mexican democracy, Mexican respect for human rights, et cetera.

He seems to be looking only at the immigration issue. The problem, of course, is that there are far more Mexicans leaving Mexico and entering the

United States without papers than there are Central Americans. And the problem, of course, is that, if the Mexican economy tanks, as it has been

tanking now for two years, there will be many more Mexicans going to the United States, and there will be more drug trafficking, and there will be

more erratic macroeconomic policies by President Lopez Obrador.

So I think President Biden should focus more on what's going on inside Mexico, what's going on in the economy, in society, in human rights, and

democracy issues and also, by the way, Bianna, speaking with President Lopez Obrador about Cuba.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

CASTANEDA: Is there are no way that Mexico and the United States cannot cooperate and find common ground to deal with this Cuban crisis?

I mean, these are two countries which are close to each other, and close to Cuba in different ways, and have been close to Cuba in different ways for

60 years now. Is there really nothing that the presidents have to say to each other?

(CROSSTALK)

GOLODRYGA: It really stood out to me that you compare Obrador in his approach to the migrant crisis to Erdogan of Turkey and how he approached

the crisis from Syria a few years ago.

[13:20:02]

We will have to leave it there. We appreciate your time so much. Thank you so much for joining us, Foreign Minister.

CASTANEDA: Thank you, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: And just a note that we have reached out to the Cuban government to invite an official on the show, and have yet to hear back.

Coming up after the break, live from Budapest, we're joined by the Hungarian foreign minister to discuss a controversial new law that critics

say targets the LGBTQ community.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Welcome back.

We turn now to Hungary, which is facing widespread backlash after passing what many describe as an anti-LGBTQ law. It bans the depiction of

homosexuality to anyone under the age of 18.

It's seen by critics as yet another assault on Hungary's LGBTQ community by right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The government claims that the law

is actually intended to protect children from pedophilia, but it sparked outspoken condemnation from leaders across the European bloc.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN COMMISSION (through translator): This law puts homosexuality and gender reassignment on a par with

pornography. This law uses the protection of children, to which we are all committed, as an excuse to severely discriminate against people because of

their sexual orientation.

This law is disgraceful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: And joining me now to discuss this is Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto.

Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today.

So, let's begin with this law, because it claims to be combating pedophilia and pornography. And I'm just curious, has there been a recent uptick in

reported pedophilia crimes in the country?

PETER SZIJJARTO, HUNGARIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Look, thank you very much, first of all, for giving me the chance to express our opinion as well. I

have seen many opposition politicians already joining that global fake news campaign which has been going on against my country regarding this law.

So, this law definitely has two parts. One part is about protecting children from pedophilia. This part of the law basically modifies the penal

code and puts very, very serious consequences to crimes committed against children on the field of pedophilia. It sets a very high limit for the

length of imprisonment.

And, on the other hand, it establishes a database, a registration system, where we will register those who have committed such kind of crimes. And

this database is going to be accessible for -- in cases when one takes a job where he or she gets in touch directly with children.

[13:25:05]

And in case of being involved in this database, such jobs cannot be definitely occupied.

(CROSSTALK)

SZIJJARTO: And the second part--

GOLODRYGA: But to go back to my question, quickly, has there -- I'm just curious, has there been an increase in cases over the past few years?

Because, typically, what leads to a law is a significant problem. And I'm just wondering if that's what you have seen within the country.

SZIJJARTO: Well, unfortunately, there have always been such kind of crimes committed against children.

I won't say that we have extraordinary high numbers when it comes to European comparison. But even one crime committed against children on the

field of pedophilia is too much.

GOLODRYGA: No doubt. And--

SZIJJARTO: So, we wanted to attach the strictest possible consequences to such kinds of crimes.

GOLODRYGA: Right, and no doubt. And one crime is too many. I agree with you.

But many are comparing it to a law that was -- a similar law that was passed in Russia in 2013 that connected it with gay propaganda. And I want

to get to some of the amendments that are attached to this law which impact the LGBT community in Hungary.

But in terms of the Russian law that many of view in similar light, that it is targeting the LGBTQ community and tying it in with child pornography,

there was a recent report that was put out by "The Economist" that showed some of the countries around the world, in particular, Europe, where

children are, in fact, the safest, and -- from child pornography and pedophilia.

The United Kingdom tops the list. Russia is close to the bottom. So this law has been in place in Russia in terms of protecting children for now

almost eight years, and the results don't seem to be indicating what Russia says they were set out for.

And I'm wondering if you are looking at this in the same light, because Russia doesn't seem to be a great role model in this perspective.

SZIJJARTO: I'm not quite sure that you know that I'm representing the government of Hungary, right?

GOLODRYGA: No, I am.

I'm just saying that there are those who suggest that this law looks very strikingly similar to the law passed in Russia, specifically since there

are amendments in which -- let me just read this to you -- that says school sexual education should not be aimed at changing gender or promoting

homosexuality. It prohibits those under the age of 18 from promoting and displaying homosexuality and gender reassignment.

It even prohibits broadcasters on TV from showing viewers under the age of 18 any images depicting sexuality for serving -- self-serving purposes.

People are wondering whether "Harry Potter" can be shown on air before a certain hour. What does this have to do with child pornography?

SZIJJARTO: Look, to be honest, I have no clue about the Russian law. And, to be honest, I don't even care about that. I'm not representing that

country. I'm not representing that government.

Now we have spent like two minutes with analyzing the Russian law in this regard, but I don't care that there's such a law in Russia or not.

GOLODRYGA: They're very similar. I'm surprised that you don't know anything about it. OK.

SZIJJARTO: But I don't know anything about that.

GOLODRYGA: OK.

SZIJJARTO: What I know about is the following, as being a member of Parliament.

We have passed this law into the two parts. The second part of the law modifies some of the already existing laws in Hungary, including the law on

families, the law on protection of children, the law on media.

And this law speaks very clearly that to conduct the education of the children under 18 regarding sexual orientation is the exclusive right of

the parents. This is what this law says. This law doesn't say anything about adults. It doesn't say anything about sexual orientation of anybody

above the age of 18.

In Hungary, according to Constitution, any kind of discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, is prohibited.

This law only says that it is the parents who have the right to conduct the education of their children under the 18 regarding sexual orientation.

And this law says that no pornographic content, no content on explicit sexuality, on promotion of changing gender, on promotion of homosexuality

should be accessible to children. That's what it says.

GOLODRYGA: Right.

SZIJJARTO: And I think it's the obligation, not only the right, but it's the obligation of the state to protect the children from such kind of

content. That's what the law says.

And you know what? I'm pretty certain that it's the job of the parents to conduct the education of their children regarding sexual orientation, and

not some NGOs. I'm absolutely sure about that.

GOLODRYGA: But the law -- the law, as you know -- the law, as you know, does not exist in a vacuum.

[13:30:00]

In 2013, your country banned same sex marriage. Late last year, your government banned same sex couples from adopting children. So, you can see

where some may draw a line in a connection between, you know, this pedophilia law and the idea that Hungary is not a welcomed place for LGBTQ

members.

SZIJJARTO: OK. Let me repeat. According to the Hungarian constitution, any kind of discrimination, including the discrimination on sexual orientation

is prohibited. No one has to be afraid in Hungary just because of his or her sexual orientation. No one can be discriminated on this basis.

Yes, our constitution says that marriage can be made between man and woman. Like many other constitutions of many other E.U. member states and many

other countries all around the world. And yes, our constitution says that that the father is a man and the mother is a woman. This is how our

constitution is speaking about family. But this is national competence. And on this basis, no nation can be considered verse than any other nation on

earth.

And I have to tell you one more thing. It is fake news that pedophilia and homosexuality would be confused in our law. You will not find a sentence

where these two phenomena would be confused. One part of the law speaks about very, very serious consequences of pedophilia. And the other part of

the law speaks about the protection of the children regarding the education of their sexual orientation. Two totally different and isolated parts of

the law. Nothing is being confused.

GOLODRYGA: Were there certain child psychologists and experts that you approached or whose research you are citing leading to this law in the

sense that you are so concerned about the impact of seeing homosexual couples together or any content about homosexuality for those under 18?

SZIJJARTO: Well, I'm pretty sure about the following. That me as a father, as a parent, know my own child much better than any ORO or any other

institution. That's why it is much better for my children that I conduct their education regarding sexual education and not an NGO who doesn't know

anything about my child, and I don't know who they are financed by and what's their aim and a what's their goal.

Now, the law does not prohibit, of course, education related to sexual culture or sexual orientation or sexual development addressed to minors.

But such kind of education must be conducted by authorized and professional staff.

What we would like to avoid is that LGBTQ activists go to kindergarten or go to schools and try to promote any kind of behavior or orientation to our

children. It must be only the parents. That is our very firm and very strict opinion in this regard. And I don't think that on this basis we

should be considered as worse than any other countries or any other legislators.

GOLODRYGA: There is a teacher whose quote I wanted to read to you. A teacher in Budapest who teaches English and she said that she will not be

adhering to this law. She says the law excludes young people at a developmentally very fragile time in their lives and say, "This is law

questions the core of the individual's personality. You should support them. You should show them that they are acceptable and they are lovable

the way they are and that this is what is being taken away." I know she's not the only teacher and educator in the country who feels that way.

SZIJJARTO: Well, I don't agree with that opinion, to be honest. I respect that opinion but I don't agree with that. And I hope that once you will

quote the opinion of those teachers who are deeply agree with this law. Because by only quoting one side, well, puts forward a portraying of the

situation as there are only teachers who think that way. There are teachers who are thinking the other way around.

But once again, I would like to tell you that education -- yes, please.

GOLODRYGA: I was just going to say that there is a poll conducted recently, in fact in May of 2021 that showed 56 percent of Hungarians say

that same sex couples should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexual couples do. So, in the sense of speaking for the people, the

majority have spoken and it seems to differ from what this law is putting in place.

[13:35:00]

SZIJJARTO: I don't know this poll, to be honest. And I don't know what basis it has been made.

GOLODRYGA: It's an Ipsos poll that we use a lot here.

SZIJJARTO: I don't by whom and on what basis. I don't know about that. I know for one -- I know one thing is that our constitution speaks very

clearly about this issue and the constitution was adopted by the Hungarian parliament by a twofold majority. And I'm not sure whether you know that

this law, which is now being under very heavy attack, has not only been voted in favor by the ruling party in the parliament. This has been voted

in favor by the leading opposition party as well.

The leading opposition party, which is part of the united opposition. I've seen that you have made reports are representatives of the united

opposition here in Hungary who have judged us and criticized us for this law. I regret that you have not asked them how it is possible that the

leading opposition party, which is part of the united opposition, have voted in favor of this law as well. So, portraying this situation as if

this was only the opinion of only the ruling party in Hungary is simply not true and not fair.

GOLODRYGA: Final question, we'll have to leave it there, Mr. Foreign Minister. This law has nothing to do with upcoming elections next year?

SZIJJARTO: The law has nothing do with the next year election. That was the question, right? Because I didn't get it properly.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, yes. That is the question.

SZIJJARTO: If this was the question, no, it doesn't have anything to do -- yes, yes. Sorry. Yes, yes. No, it has nothing to do with next year's

election. It has to be done with the protection of the Hungarian children. Because once again, the Hungarian children must be protected from any LGBTQ

activists and NGOs in the schools and in the kindergartens, and it must only be the parents who conduct the education regarding sexual education of

the kids in Hungary.

GOLODRYGA: Mr. Foreign Minister, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

SZIJJARTO: Thanks a lot. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: And still to come tonight, we take a closer look at the Taliban's reign of terror in Afghanistan. That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. We turn now to Afghanistan, where tens of thousands have been displaced amid a surge in fighting in recent months.

This follows President Biden's accouchement of the withdrawal of U.S. troops by September 11. The Taliban have made substantial gains in North,

Northwest and Southern Afghanistan in recent weeks. New video shows evidence of the brutal tactics used against Afghan Commandos in the

conflict.

CNN's Anna Coren has the story from Kabul. And just a warning. Her report contains some graphic images.

[13:40:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNA COREN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): After over two hours of heavy fighting, all ammunition spent, Afghan Commandos walk out

with hands in the air. Surrender commander, surrender, yells a Taliban member. But the rules of war don't exist on this battle field. Seconds

later, more than a dozen members of the elite special forces have been executed. The Red Cross confirmed the bodies of 22 Commandos were

retrieved.

A villager pleads with the Taliban to stop shooting asking, how are you Pashtun and you are killing Afghans? CNN has spoken the five eye witnesses

to this massacre which occurred last month in Jalalabad, a district of Faryab Province in Northern Afghanistan. All confirm these events took

place.

The Commando is called for air and ground support but none came, says this local resident. Then they surrendered, but the Taliban just shot them.

Among the dead, 32-year-old Commando, Sohrab Azimi, the son of a retired Afghan general. This born leader did his military training in the United

States and was due to marry his American fiancee next month.

His father said Sohrab tried to call in air support during the attack, but it never came. Anyone would be angry if that happened to their son, he

tells me. Why didn't they support the operation? And why did someone tell the Taliban they were coming?

Ever since the U.S. announced its withdrawal, an emboldened Taliban has launched offensives across the country. The militants have gone to great

lengths to show they are accepting the surrender of Afghan troops. But that PR effort is contradicted by the Commando execution.

A week before the massacre, this video was taken of Afghan Special Forces in the same district attempting a clearing operation. When that mission

proved unsuccessful, Sohrab's unit was called in. The Taliban said, when foreigners leave, they will stop fighting and make peace. How long will

they continue killing our brothers in this country?

Eye witnesses say they did not understand the language spoken by the militants. Evidence that fighters weren't local or that some may have come

from outside Afghanistan. And just last week, the Red Cross says it collected at least two dozen more bodies of Afghan commandos from Faryab,

the result of new fighting.

COREN (on camera): U.S. President Biden says he believes in the capability of the Afghan forces despite the mass casualties. But when U.S.-trained

soldiers like the Commandos are dying in such high numbers, many people in this traumatized country are questioning if the military can defeat the

Taliban on its own.

COREN (voiceover): These young Afghan warriors stretched thin and dying at an alarming rate, are now the last line of national defense. Without U.S.

troops support or intelligence, they alone are fighting for this country's survival.

Anna Coren, CNN. Kabul.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Thanks to Anna for that such harrowing scenes there.

And when we come back, does America have a drinking problem? I'll ask Kate Julian from "The Atlantic". Plus, soccer fans show their support for Marcus

Rashford. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:45:00]

GOLODRYGA: Welcome back.

While the cloud of COVID is still hanging over many of us, some are getting a taste of freedom for the first time in months. Meeting friends, eating in

restaurants and yes, drinking.

In her latest piece for "The Atlantic," Journalist Kate Julian looked back on the origins of American's drinking culture and asked the questions most

of us want answers to, how much is too much? And is alcohol really that bad for me? Kate Julian joins me now from Washington.

You have written quite the talker, Kate. Thank you for coming on this show.

Before we address those issues, can you talk about how drinking habits have changed over the past year and a half during the pandemic?

KATE JULIAN, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE ATLANTIC": So, what we know is that sort of almost by definition, much of the drinking that's been going on has been

drinking at home. With people you live with or even alone. As bars and restaurants were close, these parties went away. That type of drinking,

that sort of social drinking fell away with them.

And many of us at home either stopped drinking, if we were purely social drinkers, or if we were sort of glass of wine, you know, at home type

drinkers, we might have increased that drinking. So, research shows we were drinking more frequently, like more nights a week, more nights a month. And

also, that we were drinking more by volume.

GOLODRYGA: And that's Americans or around the world? Because it was interesting to see that there was actually a drop in consumption that you

saw in Europe versus the United States. Obviously, many European countries and most of the U.S. had been under lockdown. It appears though that

Americans decided to drink more at home and alone as opposed to out socially at bars and restaurants, which is what Europeans tend to do and

obviously, couldn't at the time.

JULIAN: Exactly. It is really fascinating this sort of divergence between America and Europe. There was a study in addiction journal last month in

which researchers looked at really big group of Europeans, 32,000 or so, and found that of the 21 countries that they looked at, alcohol use was

down in all but two. And those two, the U.K. and Ireland, it was more less flat. It hadn't had a statistically significant change.

And that is really striking for the reason you say, it suggests there is something about American drinking culture that met up with the pandemic and

sort of moved in a different direction than it did in Europe. And I think that really does go back to this question of why Americans are more

comfortable drinking at home. Why Americans have a long history of doing that.

And what some of the sort of unexpected down sideways of that may be. We haven't really focused that much on this question of why we drink, and that

really is sort of the heart of the matter here when we think about the differences between sun drinking, social drinking and solitary drinking,

which some emerging research suggests may actually not make us feel that much better.

[13:50:00]

GOLODRYGA: Solitary drinking as opposed to in groups with friends, with colleagues, at bars and restaurants. What's so fascinating about this piece

is that you don't just go back a few years prior to the pandemic, you go back to basically the founding of this country and the significance that

alcohol has played, even -- you know, starting literally with Plymouth Rock. Can you give us more detail on that and U.S. history in particular

with alcohol?

JULIAN: So, this was just really stunning to me, this anecdote that you alluded to. That the pilgrims actually landed at Plymouth Rock rather than

their intended destination, which had been the Hudson River because the ship was running low on beer. The sailors freaked out at the low quantities

and thought that they were not going to be able to get back home to England with the supplies that remained.

Now, back then, many people drink, most drank beer instead of water. They believed it was healthier and that water might be contaminated.

Nonetheless, the extent to which the pilgrims, that first winter in Massachusetts when they didn't have beer, complained bitterly about this in

their diaries. It is really something.

What's sort of interesting as you go on through American history from there is the extent to which we have a really conflicted relationship with

alcohol. Unlike other countries, we have this kind of hot/cold, love/hate, black and white relationship with this stuff. We tend to love it and we

tend hate it, sometimes one after the other and sometimes in rapid succession.

In the -- you know, one of the things I found most fascinating as I dive into the history is the history of the early 19th century, was a time of

really rapid social technological economic change. Kind of, you might say, like the moment that we're living in now, just in terms of the pure speed

of change.

And Americans back then were drinking a just unfathomable amount of alcohol. About three times what we drink today, if you can believe that.

People were drinking breakfast, lunch and dinner. One historian I read said that the average American was rarely in a state that you would call sober.

GOLODRYGA: Wow. Well, it does tend to be lumped in as a vice, right? It's sort of -- you know, people talk about smoking and drinking in one

sentence. And it does lead to this really complicated relationship with humans and alcohol. If it is so bad for you, then why have we been drinking

for so many years? There are study after study appears that come out by the week about what is actually good for you, what's heart healthy, what is

not?

Can you break down for us once and for all, is alcohol maybe, you know, when it is not consumed every single day or breakfast, lunch and dinner, is

it good for you? What is the appropriate amount?

JONES: So, for some people who have issues like alcohol abuse, like it may never be good for you. But the rest of us, the answer turns out to be

really complicated. One of the reasons I set out to write this piece is that American drinking had been rising more for about two decades before

the pandemic. Even in a time when we were becoming more aware of some of the health risks of alcohol. The fact that it may predispose you to certain

types of cancer, for example.

When I started to dig into it though, I found these really curious findings suggesting that actually light to moderate drinkers in a bunch of different

studies and a bunch of different countries appear to be happier and more socially connected than people who don't drink at all.

And I thought that that was really curious given especially that we know that happiness and social connectiveness are themselves really connected to

our physical health. They have a really dramatic impact on longevity that has been -- loneliness has compared -- has been compared to smoking 15

cigarettes today in terms of its effect on longevity.

So, I thought, hmm, if we're not accounting for that, if we're not accounting for the social effects that alcohol may have, we may be missing

a big part of this pitcher. And as I started to do further reporting, I learned there is an emerging body of academic research led largely by Robin

Dunbar, who is an anthropologist at Oxford University in the U.K., trying to understand what the social benefits of alcohol maybe.

And they tell a fascinating story that suggests that alcohol may have actually really helped the founding of human civilization. That it may have

been part of the agricultural revolution. It may have been something that helps to disinhibit us to sort of socially lubricate us enough to sort of

settle down, warring groups of hunter and gatherers might have actually found alcohol to be something to come together around.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Maybe it wasn't just meant for bread, right? You end your piece with this, for those of us who have emerged from our caves feeling as

if we've regressed into weird and awkward ways, a standing drinks night with friends might not be the worst idea to come out of 2021.

Have you started living up to those words? Is that something you have personally experienced as well coming out of your cave?

[13:55:00]

JONES: I'm working on it. You know, I've been doing some regular get togethers with friends, with drinks mostly outside. And it is really

striking to me how much more fun it is to have a glass of wine or two in that context than it is at home. I found during the pandemic, as I

mentioned earlier, that I was more reflexively pouring that nightly glass of wine but I often wasn't enjoying it.

The drinks with friends are really joyful. They leave us feeling, you know, just as if we had a chance to relax and enjoy each other's company. And I

think that, yes, in this moment of awkwardness, they do sort of help us, you know, with the aftereffects of this period of isolation.

GOLODRYGA: And as you responsibly mentioned and noted, drinking is not for everyone. There are people who definitely have problems and suffer from

health complications from drinking. But for those that can have a drink, I guess this is welcome news.

Thank you so much, Kate Julian. We love your piece.

JONES: Thanks so much for having me.

GOLODRYGA: And finally, the people of Manchester have come out in solidarity with soccer player Marcus Rashford after a mural of the England

star was defaced in his own hometown. Fans affixed messages of support onto Rashford's mural, labeling him a hero and thanking him for his campaign to

feed hungry school children.

This was, of course, in the wake of the center forward missing a penalty at the Euro 2020 final. And part of torn of racial racist abuse directed at

England's black players. Rashford said, the show of solidarity had me on the verge of tears, and having apologized for the penalty miss stated that,

I will never apologize for who I am and where I come from.

I highly recommend that everyone go and read Rashford's full post online. It only further highlights what a true gentlemen he is.

And that is it for now. You can always catch us online and our podcast and across social media. Thank you so much for watching and good-bye from New

York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END