♪ >> Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour and Company."

Here's what's coming up.

Pakistan Supreme Court orders the release of the countries former prime minister after he was detained on corruption charges, the former Pakistani ambassador to the United States unpacks this crisis surrounding a major American our I.

Also ahead.

>> I remember hearing her calm.

And then around the corner.

Christiane: the remarkable life of Queen Elizabeth's maid of honor, lady and tells me about having a front row seat for two coronations.

And, after years of domestic abuse, how she's now living her best life at 90.

Then, how trade and economic ties are keys to resetting U.S.-China relations.

Walter Isaacson speaks to the ambassador, whose breaking ground as the first Asian-American to serve as U.S. Trade Representative.

♪ >> Amanpour and Company is made possible by Anderson Family Charitable Fund, Sue and Edgar Wachenheim, III, Candace King Weir, Jim Attwood and Leslie Williams.

the family foundation of Leila and Strauss.

Mark J. Blechner, Seton J. Melvin, Bernard and Denise Schwartz, Koo and Patricia Yuen.

committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

We try to live in the moment to not miss what's right in front of us.

At mutual of America we believe taking care of tomorrow can help you make the most of today.

Mutual of America financial group, retirement services and investments.

Additional support provided by these funders and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Christiane: welcome to the program.

I'm Christiane Amanpour in London and we begin with chaos in Pakistan where police say nearly 1000 people have been arrested in the province this week.

Across the country, mass protests have descended into violent classes -- clashes.

The spark that with the fire, the country's former prime minister and cricket star.

Dramatically took in into a vehicle and driven away by security forces and arrested and indicted on corruption tried -- charges, all of which he denies.

Today the Supreme Court ordered his release, saying the arrest was illegal.

The incident brings to ahead the year-long political standoff with the country's powerful military since he was ousted as leader last April.

All of this comes amid a major economic crisis, rising terrorism, and less than a year after the devastating floods that engulfed the country.

Strategically placed between Afghanistan, China and India, a key ally of the United States and a nuclear power, how does Pakistan emerge from all of this?

I put that question to the former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. who says, we spoke just before news of the release.

Ambassador, welcome back to our program.

>> pleasure being here.

Christiane: I guess my first question to you is, did he really need to be arrested in a situation where there's so many interlocking crises in Pakistan?

>> from my point of view, nobody in Pakistan who has been treated this way among the political class deserves to be arrested, but this is unfortunately the way of Pakistan.

Imran cheered on when they were arrested and now it's his turn, apparently.

The reason why he had to be arrested was because he wasn't playing -- playing by the unwritten rule of Pakistani politics.

When the military once you out you stepped down anyway your turn for the next election, he didn't want to do that, he was attacking military officers by name, he was also telling his young supporters of which there are many, to actually engage in violence, and that violence has manifested immediately after his arrest.

So all of these factors contribute to the decision.

There is a long tradition in Pakistan of charging former prime minister's with corruption because there often is some corruption.

In this particular case, there are some valid cases.

Any other politician -- politician would've accepted it, down to prison for a few days, gone to court and got out.

He decided he wanted a revolution and we find out if he can really be Pakistan's... Christiane: That is serious commentary.

You are basically saying that that in Imran Khan revolution or leadership is one that puts the nation further into an Islamic Republic.

>> that is absolutely the case, look at every video he released since he was removed from office.

He has removed verses from the Koran, he has gone to the extent of implying it is a battle not between two political groups, but a battle between right and wrong, a battle between good and evil and that those who do not support him will be punished by both in this world on the world after.

I do not agree, you know I have 30 year history of opposing Pakistan's politics and demanding supremacy and democracy.

I must qualify by saying that he has opposed the democracy by supporting the military in the past, he rose to power with the support of the military, and his real alliance with the military is that the military did not support him when the vote against no-confidence was brought against him in parliament.

So he is rallying his troops in the name of religion and of course it's not going to be this revolution, because there won't be a revolution, we will soon find out whether the Pakistani military can assert itself, more likely scenario is if the chaos really increases, is Pakistan going Egypt's way, where everything falls apart for a little while, then the pieces have to be picked up by the one institution that has kept Pakistan together all these years, even though it's meddling is what has made things worse in the past.

Christiane: it really is a circular logic that keeps coming back to the military.

So, essentially what you are saying is that no matter what, because the military, as you said, has helped propel Imran Khan to power, no matter what the military is going to be the ruler of Pakistan in the front or in the back, by the side door or by the trapdoor?

>> the only way to break out of that would be to be -- would be national recognition.

When he came back to Pakistan in 2007, she came with a message of national reconciliation.

She reconciled with her main rival, the two of them agreed we will always come to power only through elections.

We will respect each other, and we will not try to undermine each other midterm, and we will not work with the intelligence services to undermine each other.

The one person who remained out of that arrangement was Imran Khan, who said this is an agreement between two groups of crooks.

Guess what, now Imran Khan is being called a creek and his followers are not accepting that because her followers never thought she was cricket.

And they never believe the cases against him were legitimate, and now we are seeing this, that Imran Khan supporters were supporters before and they usually use the military supporting their man, and this time they are very annoyed and they have engaged in a kind of violence that we never saw in support of the other major political parties now.

Imran Khan is popular, but the question is, does that popularity reach the point where he and his supporters can overwhelm everybody else and not likely by any rule.

Christiane: you are ambassador to the United States and you've basically been in the middle of some of the most tense and stressful relations from 9/11 on and you've written quite a lot about the relationship.

Where in the U.S. as a strategic interests, and the U.S. does too, given where Pakistan is situated, where does this all lead for relations with the U.S.?

>> The United States has tried to back away from Pakistan, especially in the aftermath of the U.S. withdraw from Afghanistan.

The aftermath is that we did everything for Pakistan on the assumption that Pakistan will help us in Afghanistan, it did not, it ended up helping the Taliban.

Now we will let Pakistan find its way before we reengage.

So a, for example, which was in the billions of dollars, when I was Ambassador from 2008 to 2011, is now down to a trickle, it's not even a couple hundred million dollars.

And so, America has backed away from Pakistan, that doesn't mean America doesn't have interest in Pakistan, eventually the U.S. would like stability in Pakistan, ironically on this particular issue, all of Pakistan's friends in the United States in particular have a shared interest, China, the United States, all the Arab countries that have close ties with Pakistan, they would like stability to return to Pakistan.

And while everybody will object to Pakistan not following its own Constitution and working according to its own democratic principles, which are unique because Pakistan is a hybrid democracy, it's not a full democracy, it never has been, they certainly would think that -- is the worst option, and so there is some semi-authoritarian move to curb chaos and to stop anarchy.

I think most people will hold their noses and except that at least for the short-term.

It's not ideal, it's not what I would like to happen, and that is what I think is the most likely scenario.

Christiane: going back to Imran Khan, he obviously came to political power with a political party dedicated to fighting corruption.

He said he was the lone person in the political and public sphere in Pakistan trying to fight corruption.

And now, it's all coming back to bite him, and he is, as you say, a victim of the perennial political games and tactics that have played out in your country.

He also has blamed the United States for his first ejection from power, and either he or Pakistan in general has tilted very, very far down the road toward China.

Give us a sense of the strategic importance of that now very divergent shift.

>> Pakistan's real problem is neither China nor the United States, its India, the entire Pakistani elite believes that the real threat to Pakistan comes from India.

In that context, because the United States has drawn closer to India, most Pakistanis think they would be better off with China, which has its own province in India.

In the end, Pakistan's biggest export market is the United States.

United States is where Pakistan's high-quality, high end military equipment comes from in the United States has been Pakistan's traditional partner.

The Pakistani minister would like a coalition with the United States and so would most politicians.

Imran Khan is a bit of an outlier, though recently he backed away from his claims about an American conspiracy against him and has started saying that maybe the conspiracy was indigenous and maybe the Americans were just fooling to accepting it, which is they have fair position.

He has also started a major lobbying effort and Washington, D.C. through hiring several lobbyists on behalf of the party.

So he has been changing that position.

In the end, Pakistan needs both the United States and China needs to have their support instead of going into anyone's camp.

Imran Khan, because of his personality, he's a celebrity and now celebrity politicians, whether it's Donald Trump or somebody else, they have a problem of not being able to make a distinction between what they say publicly to get applause, and what should be policy.

Even on corruption.

Patriotism is a integral part.

But it takes place everywhere.

And that is what has got Imran Khan into trouble.

He engaged in patronage politics.

He created a foundation that Bennett -- benefited his wife and her best friend, and he did so by driving resources from the state through a real estate magnet.

That is what, in the past has been the reason for disqualification from politics.

Therefore, Imran Khan rhetoric and his actions are not going to be able to match.

Even on the United States, he may say he wants Pakistan to be completely independent of the United States but Pakistan has compulsions that brought Pakistan close to the U.S. and those compulsions remain.

Christiane: again, it does seem like an endless story, we are talking about in Pakistan, and one of the Constance is the economic crisis.

People there are suffering very, very deeply, still.

Just some statistics, food and transport prices are up 50% compared to last year.

The rupee fell to a record low after he was arrested.

The IMF bailout would stall.

In a crash of people waiting for food justice March left 13 people dead.

Is there any way out of this economic crisis while the politics are so polarized and so much in their own crisis?

>> Pakistan badly needs national reconciliation.

Pakistan needs the politicians to come together and instead of seeing each other as enemies, they need to see each other as rivals within a system.

The economic crisis is partly because of decisions made by Imran Khan.

The rupee had started falling even when he was in office.

It just escalated after he was removed from office.

The IMF package had already been agreed upon.

He decided to renege on it before he was ousted so the new government would get into trouble.

His supporters have a slogan and they have been using it more and more recently.

Either Imran Khan or nothing.

That attitude is the reason why the government, however flawed and weak it might be, is unable to complete things like a deal with the IMF, which should have been easy to make, given that there was already a track record.

So whoever has the upper hand in the next few months will have to deal with an economic crisis.

Even if Imran Khan can get out of everything, which I don't think you will, and come back into office, he will have to deal with these problems, cut the deal with the IMF, get some kind of a loan repayment, scheduling with China.

And then rebuild the economy and makes it impossible to make important economic decisions.

Christiane: thank you so much for joining us.

>> always a pleasure talking to you.

Christiane: five days after the coronation in the U.K., we reflect on the pomp and pageantry in the trials of tribulations of many in the aristocracies.

One of Queen Elizabeth's maters of honor when she was crowned in 1953, she was Princess Margaret's lady in waiting for over 30 years.

And last weekend she had a front row seat to royal history as the crown was placed on the head of King Charles III.

Lady Glenn has led a colorful and privileged life, but also one filled with tragedy and abuse.

In her 90's she has become a popular writer, sharing all that she has experienced and learned in her latest book, whatever next, which followed the New York Times best-selling lady in waiting, she came into the studio to share her extraordinary story.

Lady Glenn, welcome to the program.

>> Thank you for having me.

>> Out of the coronation of King Charles III compare with that of Queen Elizabeth II, 70 years between them?

>> It was rather difficult because there were certain things that were different.

I mean, I miss the POS.

Used to look so wonderful because when the Queen was crowned, they crowned themselves, now they put out their arms, which, they had long white gloves on and they look like swans taking off, but on the other hand, there were wonderful, all the people from the Commonwealth were national dress, and I luckily back a good seat when I got in so that I could see where I was standing, the pillar of where I was standing was opposite of me.

Christiane: What your most vivid memory of being the Queen's lady in waiting?

>> We were waiting, four of us went to the procession, the four of us less granddaughters of Earls were waiting and I remember hearing her come with poor -- with a lot of people and then round the corner came the golden coach.

And it came, two pages open the door and for people to see her in her coronation dress, she looks so wonderful.

She's so beautiful, wonderful skin, sparkling eyes and all of her jewelry, and there she was with her back to us, with trains rippling over her hands and she hadn't said anything to us up to that moment, and she looked around and said, ready, girls, and off we went.

Christiane: And this time you had a very good seat, you write that you actually sat next to the former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, but you know who you were sitting next to.

>> One or two people had names on their seat but the rest in it.

So it was just luck, really, and I wanted to get as good of a seat as I could, and I arrived before anything was open, and luckily there was a very nice policeman who produced a chair for me on the pavement, and I waited, and then a lady took me through security, so I was in the abbey, one of the first, and I saw it, he said he was wrong, but he was dressed as ambassador, I said, in America I sat next to him and I never met him.

And it was wonderful, we got on very well, he said that she was a very good guy -- he said I was a very good guide.

He asked, what are they doing now and I felt faint, and then when I got the arched bishop.

Christiane: The Queen's coronation you felt faint?

>> Yes.

The Archbishop produced a flask of brandy from somewhere and he offered the Queen -- he can't have expected the Queen to swig out of it.

Anyway, she said no.

And I think I had a drop, which completely studied me.

So I told this to John Kerry and he was absolutely amazed.

Christiane: and this time you took and some fortifications of your own.

>> I took a small bottle of apple juice and some sweets to suck.

I thought they might take the apple juice away and we went through security.

And luckily I was allowed to keep it.

Christiane: did you feel that this was -- of course it was slim down, we understand there were many less guests and for the Queen's coronation and took an hour less than the greens did, and the king was very conscious that it 70 years later, there's a much more diverse written, and that it needs to be modernized, it needs to be made more relevant today.

>> I think he did, where I notice, for instance, was the choir.

They were all boys.

And black rod, who saved the day when I felt faint, and it was a lady.

Christiane: In female bishops, and multifaith leaders.

The gospel choir.

>> They sort of were moving to the music, that would never have happened on the Queen's coronation, it was all much more formal, I think the Queen -- the King did a great job in modernizing it, everybody there had a reason, a real reason, there were a lot of friends, but he also had people from these charities, and watching, I had a lovely seat because I could also watch people coming in, and suddenly four men arrived in feather cloaks, they were Mari's Christiane:, I think.

Christiane: Yes, from New Zealand.

>> and a lady came in and was covered in diamonds.

I think she was a wife of somebody from the Middle East.

But she had a best -- she had a breastplate.

It was such fun seeing them all come in.

Christiane: What do you make of the constant kerfuffle over Prince Harry?

>> I'm so glad that he came.

I knew him as a little boy because the nanny who used to look after Michael Jordan would look after Prince William and Harry when they were small probably seen him, and he was such a charming little boy.

I'm so glad he came.

I'm really glad.

In my books, I write about forgiveness.

It's so important, and it's not until you can forgive that you can move forward.

And I just hope, so much that that will happen.

Christiane: You lead me right into your book, the two that have really essentially put your aristocratic and personal life out there was lady in waiting and now whatever next.

And it's quite unusual that somebody of your status would be so Frank about everything that went on, even behind the bedroom door, what made you firstly want to write the first book, lady in waiting?

>> I didn't really think of writing a book, I happen to be sitting next to a very nice young man who is in the publishing world, and I always said I would write stories, and he suddenly said, what about writing a book, and I said, of course I can't write a book, I'm 87, I've never written anything.

So he said, what about dictating it.

And I said, that's what I did, I sat in my sitting room, and it all just came rushing out.

Some he said, did you get writers block and I said, I got writers diarrhea, I simply couldn't stop.

Anyway, there we were and I wrote about one of the most interesting chapters was I wrote about the coronation.

And I am the only person who has written about their coronation, the Queen's coronation who is actually there, and that I think has interested people.

Christiane: You have had so many experiences, let's just take your marriage to Lord Glenn Connor.

You don't say:.

Just Lord Len Connor.

So very difficult, but what if call him?

Rex I call him Collin.

But he was charismatic, he was extraordinary in lots of ways, but not easy.

Christiane: More than not easy, you write about some pretty fraught situations.

>> The thing was -- lady in waiting, I didn't like to write about it, my first book, and then it was Queen Camilla who has done so much for abuse and with charities and encouraging people to speak out, and I had a talk with my children because I felt I couldn't write it without them, and they were very supportive and we had a very therapeutic talk about sometimes what Collin had done to them, so I did, and I had the most extraordinary response.

Christiane: I bet you have because it touched a nerve with so many millions of women around the world who have experienced domestic abuse.

>> The thing is, people don't talk about it because I wrote about it and luckily, who I am, they are amazed and thrilled and so many said, you really helped me.

Christiane: what was the worst thing about being married to Lord Glenn Connor?

>> When you say unpredictable, you never knew, you are treading on egg shells the whole time and then he could and can -- he cannot compose himself in the rage was terrifying.

Christiane: At one point you write, and it's very clear, you write that you are experiencing one of these rageful outbursts when you didn't get up to open the door quickly enough.

And in your book you write that you started to tear up, and your great friend, how -- who you called Mam all the time, rinse us Margaret, what she said to me, stop crying, she's -- there's no point.

Christiane: She want you to suppress your feelings and keep calm and carry on.

>> That's how we were brought up, I did go very early on, when I thought I couldn't deal with Collin, and I went back to my mother and my mother said, you married in and I did it for 54 years.

Christiane: One of the great stories, it's quite an odd story, but maybe it's a normal story, I don't knowing your circles, but on your honeymoon, what did you do, take you to a brothel?

>> I don't think that was a usual thing, all my friends were absolutely horrified when I told them, and so was I because I thought he was taking me to dinner at the Ritz.

He said he got a surprise, so I dressed up in my best silk dress and I said, where we going and he said, I'm not telling you, it's a surprise.

And I thought we were going to the Ritz and I was horrified when we got into the taxi because I knew vaguely where the Ritz was and off we drove to the outskirts of Paris and was taken into this brothel where, luckily there were two wingback chairs, I sat as far back in on the bed in front of it with these two people making out, absolutely disgusting, actually, I was horrified.

Christiane: What was the point?

>> I was a virgin.

In those days we were all virgins when we got married because there was no contraception.

And so you are basically brought up horrified.

Christiane: So this was a practical lesson?

>> Yes, that's what he thought, but -- now but at the time it was absolutely awful, he was in another wingback chair and I thought, I'm not going to look at what he's doing, and then they kept saying, what I like to join in, so being very polite, no thank you, such a relief when they finished and left the room, I can't tell you.

That was the beginning of it.

Christiane: Let's fast-forward to several tragedies, two of your children, two of your sons died.

Greg sadly, Henry evades, which of course we didn't know how it was caught, and my darling Charlie was a drug addict.

Although his life turned round when he got married, they both had sons.

I've got two wonderful grandsons.

That is lovely, so lucky.

But I knew that they were dying in the my third son, when he was in Belize he had this ghastly motorbike accident and he was in a coma for five months and I just don't know how I got through those months because I knew the others were dying and I was just determined not to, and all sorts of things like nursing him on the floor so that I could sit behind him so that he could lean against me, feel my heart, it was just like giving birth to somebody all over again, and we had tapes and we sing to him, we read to him, and because of what I did with him, I had quite a lot of people writing to me whose children are in comas and I tried to give them advice.

Christiane: Your books have reached out in a way that you may not have expected because it is what you experience with your children, and particularly the death of Henry from AIDS when nobody really talked about that, and now you have a very passionate and grateful and committed gay community, certainly in the United States.

>> I have, I think partly because it was so shaming, aids in those days, nobody talked about it.

You are sitting...and there are people in there.

While I look around after about 10 minutes and they had gone because Henry was covered in car pose you.

They knew, you could sell and they all left, and I was left alone.

And it was surreal.

I sat on the floor with his head on my lap and they had all gone.

Christiane: And remember all very well one of the most forward leaning actions of Princess Diana was when she went and sat by the bedside, held hands with the AIDS patient in your son was in the same hospital.

>> and before that, Princess Margaret has done a lot.

It was a place called the lighthouse in London and Princess Margaret used to go a lot but she was amusing.

She made them laugh.

She said to the nurse, anybody who's too ill to come out and that was Henry and he said, we have something in, and she looked all surprised.

She said, my nanny went to look after it.

But what was absolutely marvelous, and it's something I've always treasured, she wrote him the nicest letter and she said to me, you must be so proud of him because what he had done his he had come out and I said to him, darling, if you come out and tell people that you will be victimized, people will be frightened of you, and they were.

But he wanted to help people.

I thought it was so nice to say that.

Christiane: do you think, because all of that is detailed in that mega Netflix series called the crown, do you think that is an accurate per trail?

What do you think of the crown?

>> I think it's awful.

I don't look at it.

The sad thing is it started off rather well.

I think people in England they take it with a pinch of salt.

And I think people in America think it's completely true.

Christiane: I want to read one thing, one of the first lessons I was taught, this is what you write, was that women were not as important as men, daughters could not inherit titles or estates, life would've been different if I had been able to inherit.

>> I would've loved to have inherited it.

The most wonderful state.

A wonderful feud state.

And my father was so disappointed that I wasn't a boy , they all were, so he would treat me rather like a boy.

Christiane: how do you think your life would've been different?

>> I probably would not have married Collin.

I would've married somebody who would've helped me more in running a bigger state like that.

Christiane: you would've been more equal.

>> exactly, more equal.

I think it's there was a disappointment of me not being a boy, but it manned me up a bit.

Christiane: what you think about your own life and hopes and dreams?

>> I never had such a good time in my life.

I was amazed the whole time, having been in the shadows, visible all my life with: In Princess Margaret, I'm now coming out with a bang, and I'm just having a wonderful time.

Christiane: Lady Glenn:, thank you so much.

China's new foreign minister has called for stabilizing relations with United States.

It comes amid the possibility of a meeting to reset economic ties between the two countries later this month.

Ambassador Katherine Tai serves as the U.S. Trade Representative, a child of Chinese immigrants, she's breaking barriers in that role and she's joining Walter Issacson to discuss the Biden administration's approach to trade and how her heritage influences her work.

>> thank you, Christiane and ambassador, welcome to the show.

The big news this week is reports that you will be meeting in Detroit with the Chinese commerce minister.

It would be if that happens, the highest ranking meeting for the U.S. and about a year with Chinese counterparts.

I know that's not been confirmed, but what would be the significance of that meeting if it happens?

>> I am hosting the APAC ministers responsible for trade meeting at the end of this month, and as you may know, the United States is one of the 21 member economies of APAC, and we are the host for this year, 2023, and I'm really looking forward to hosting this meeting in Detroit to show off the history of Detroit as a center of American innovation.

I think probably the most significant aspect of a meeting should happen is to provide us with an opportunity to reconnect with one of my interlocutors in Beijing to check in since the ministration transition in Beijing as president Xi Jinping has taken his unprecedented third term there.

So I think in my expectation, it will be an important reconnection, a bit of a level set in terms of reestablishing communication channels and relationships.

>> Do you think that is time for a reset or a leveling of this relationship?

It's been very confrontational, and you said in one of the talks that we don't really want to decouple from China, we can't do that.

>> We have a lot of challenges with China.

As someone on the economic team let me just focus on the economic relationship, the U.S.-China relationship is one of profound consequence in the global economy.

We are the world's two largest economies.

How we relate to each other has great implications, serious implications, not just for us, the U.S. economy, our workers and our businesses, its workers and businesses, but for the entire world.

And that is the reason why it is so important for us to take an extremely responsible, deliberative approach that is focused on being strategic, being effective in addressing the significant challenges that we do have in this relationship.

So I think that it's not confrontation that we are looking for.

However, many of the conversations that we need to have are going to be difficult.

>> Which ones are going to be the most difficult?

>> I think fundamentally, in terms of the U.S. approach to trade, we are working on rebalancing in many different ways.

When I took on this job and President Biden asked me to join his cabinet, he asked me to bring a new approach to trade that the Biden administration would advance what he specifically asked for to be worker centered trade policy.

And that reflects a recognition that the trade policies that we have pursued across administrations over the past decades, the trade policies that have been prioritized worldwide have really hit some significant limits.

We are seeing for ourselves what happens when you prioritize trade revelers Asian, the maximization of efficiency at the expense of investing in your workers.

Quick so you are saying the past 20 years of trade liberalization have actually been bad for the American worker and we have to change that, you, Jake Sullivan, President Biden changing our trade policy?

>> We have to change our approach and we are looking for different trade outcomes, we are looking for outcomes that are more inclusive.

We are advancing approaches and processes that are more inclusive, and when we say we will put workers at the center, that is the recognition that U.S. trade policy has, for too long, not had workers at its center and had place workers.

This is not just for us, but a globalization trend that we are trying to advance.

In a world where you have maximized in incentivized cost efficiency at the expense of everything else, we see for ourselves widening inequality, not just in the United States but economies around the world.

So we need more inclusive outcomes.

At the same time we've fall just gone through and are still going through economic disruptions that have come from the pandemic and demonstrated how fragile our global supply chains are.

We've done a lot of diagnoses in terms of the vulnerabilities of our supply chains, but for those of us working in trade, it is very clear that incentives that we have put into the global trading system have failed to provide for resilience in the global economy.

And that is something we badly need.

>> You talked about COVID disrupting the supply chains.

Well, today is the day that they live the federal emergency on COVID, how will that change trade and what type of snarling of trade was caused by COVID?

What will you do about that?

>> in the early days of COVID, if it is into painful to think back of March of 2020 where we had a lot of the other economies around the world went into lockdown.

At that time the entire world needed the same things at the same time.

We did not have enough supply for the demand.

So, make more supply, but what we discovered was so much of what we needed has been concentrated in one economy, and that is the Chinese economy.

In the Chinese economy was the first one to lockdown because of COVID.

So, they were not going to the factories to manufacture and very little was coming out or being produced there.

I was working for the U.S. Congress at the time and members of Congress and their staff went from being the representatives in Washington to being their supply chain representatives, to try to find whatever supply there might be around the world, and to procure it and obtain it for their constituents back at home.

I think for us, those painful lessons have to inform how we affect trade policy going forward, to ensure that the next crisis that we encounter, whether it's an extreme climate event, whether it's another epidemic or pandemic, or a natural disaster, or increasingly because of geopolitical tensions, that we have built into the global economic system, shop absorption -- shock absorption and alternative pathways, plans B and C to allow us to pivot and to adapt to the crisis situation.

>> when you are testifying in front of the House committee a few weeks ago, you got into a conversation with Congresswoman Steele, a Republican of California whose of Korean American heritage.

In some ways it was a Republican versus a Democrat, but two Asian American women debating how trade policy could be.

I would ought -- I was also struck that there was some consensus being formed on trade policy between Democrats and Republicans, unlike on other issues.

>> trade policy, something very interesting, I've seen this happen in the competition policy where the antimonopoly, antitrust people are working.

We see both of these areas to centers that are forming.

In our politics there's usually a center and then the fringes.

In trade, for instance, something that you follow, the traditional center has been through trade Republicans and pro-business new Democrats.

What we see is that the progressives on the left on the populists on the right are meeting in a new center, one that is a pro worker and pro-competition that is trying to take on the oversized corporate power looking to rebalance the equities within our system, and that gives me a huge amount of room to move on a bipartisan basis.

So on this I have a lot of hope that there is a way for us to advance trade policy that is well supported here at home, that allows us to lead with confidence around the world, but also allows us to show to the American people that we are infesting in them and we are not selling out their future through our trade policy.

>> The Biden administration has not pursued a comprehensive free-trade agreement that would help us on things like battery supply points and we are very dependent not just on batteries, but the enhanced lithium that has been refined in China.

How come we don't have a broader free-trade agreement on things like that, and is it going to hurt our electric vehicle industry?

>> I think the reason why we are not doing free-trade agreements the way we've traditionally done them, those types of negotiations is because when you lead an agency like the U.S. trade Representative's office and you are working with all of the experts in all of the specific areas with the engineers around all the cogs and wheels inside of a trade agreement, you recognize that a traditional free-trade agreement is probably liberalizing like we have negotiated in the past, is not actually a very good supply chain creating framework.

>> why is that?

>> yes, because more often than not they are designed to be leaky.

Free-trade agreements between two countries, three or more are meant to facilitate integration between those countries, and there are areas where you see very successful examples.

However, the preferences that are created through those agreements are not airtight.

They are designed to be weighted in favor of overall -- so every single one of our free-trade agreements does create benefits for what we would call free riders.

Other countries not a part of that agreement.

In the concern that we have right now is part of that aggressively liberalizing weighted in favor of liberalization type or framework has led us to the point where when you are chasing the lowest costs that production has shown that it ends up pooling in early -- and only certain places around the world and sometimes one place.

>> During this time, when we are walking away from what you call broad-based free-trade agreements, China is doing the opposite, China has created major alliances and free-trade agreements and throughout the Pacific region, and actually throughout the world, and you talk about the in Pacific economic framework that we are still talking about, we aren't even close.

There's not even much of a substance there.

We are not near signing an agreement.

Are we going to lose out to China if we let them do major free-trade agreements and we don't?

>> Know, and we can't, and we won't, and I think your characterization of the framework, while I hear it quite often, reflects a major misunderstanding of what it is we are doing.

Our vision for the in Pacific economic framework is that it is a negotiating form.

We are negotiating important types of rules and important approaches.

At the same time we see this as a framework that is going to endure over time.

This is not a one and done.

If you look at a lot -- a lot of the trade agreements that have been done, certainly ones we've done and have been done around the world, you invest all this political capital to get this one agreement done and then you move on.

And you don't look back.

Trade agreements take too long to negotiate.

They are not participatory enough, and right now, what we need our agile systems, agile approaches to cooperating with our partners and our allies to adapt to all of the changes that are happening in the global economy.

And I would argue that our failure to innovate the way that we traded, and the way that we negotiate is more dangerous to our ability to survive and to thrive then the web of what they call the new abode trade agreements that have been existing in the Asia-Pacific are a very long time.

>> Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just signed legislation saying that the Chinese could not buy land in Florida unless they were U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Let me read you something he said.

He said, we don't want the Chinese Communist Party and the sunshine state.

We want to maintain this as a free state of Florida.

There has been similar legislation in Texas, and even something introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

What do you say to that?

>> I was aware of the legislation pending in introduced in Texas, but not in Florida, which sounds like it has gotten much further along.

What I would say to this is, like so many of our challenges with China, our challenges with the government and its policies, the challenge is not with the Chinese people, it is not a challenge with Chinese NIST or people of Chinese heritage.

So here in the United States, because I'm a member of the Asian American native Hawaiian Island Pacific Islander community, simply because our communities are an integral part of the American economy, the American quality of America, it is even more incumbent on us to ensure that when we take on the challenges that we see from our relating to the Chinese government, that we exercise a very high decree of discipline in defining what the challenges that we are facing.

Only by exercising that discipline do we have the opportunity to fashion policy solutions that will be tailored to addressing that challenge.

If we are lazy or sloppy in identifying the problem, the harm that we stand to do to America and our fellow Americans is significant and unacceptable.

>> Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us.

>> Thank you very much for having me.

Chris Young: The Russian army is turning to relics of the past to equip its beleaguered forces in Ukraine.

Tanks not used since the Cold War are being pressed back into service, a sign of just how desperate Russia is becoming to keep up its fight on the battlefield in Ukraine.

Our correspondent visited the Imperial war Museum for this report.

>> what a missile will do is fly over the tank and then down, then 90 degrees straight into the top of the Jurek.

>> This scenario has played out hundreds of times over the past 14 months.

Ukraine using western weapons to devastating effect.

Russia, according to one estimate, has lost up to half its operational tanks in this war.

Now Western officials say Russia is dusting off much older models to replace them.

>> this 100 tank destroyer in 1944.

It's a second world war good.

>> including the T 55 first built in the 1940's, this one now housed at the Imperial war Museum outside Cambridge.

Satellite imagery for a storage facility inside Russia's far east showing dozens of tanks have been moved in the last year.

This image showing the T 55 at that same facility.

A video that first surfaced in March also showing a trainload on the move reportedly somewhere in Russia.

The Russian Minister of Defense hasn't confirmed their deployment, but in recent weeks well-connected Russian bloggers have begun showing T 55's and Russian occupied territory in Ukraine.

>> so many of these were manufactured together.

In the basic mechanical parts are all interchangeable.

>> The T 55 was an essential piece of the Cold War arsenal.

Something crashed Democratic uprisings in Eastern Europe, Hungary in 1956, the Prague Spring 12 years later.

By the time Iraq use them in the early 1990's and the Gulf War.

>> we took out 14 T 55 tanks.

>> they were already outclassed by British challengers.

Earlier versions are now supplying to Ukraine.

>> I think faced with Western weapons, the Russians must expect very heavy casualties if they expect to move forward using that type of system.

>> experts say behind the official propaganda, Russia cannot build new weapons quick enough.

They primarily target Russia's access to higher tech parts.

The weapons have made it harder for them to manufacture more modern equipment.

Older, simpler tanks like this.

Thousands of them just sitting in storage provide an alternative.

>> if it's a one-on-one tank engagement over a reasonable distance, this will lose every time.

But with the close environments, this is adequate.

>> it simpler to maintain and train on the newer systems, an advantage for Russia's mobilize troops.

>> said the tank in the pits so you can only see the targets.

>> Russia is now digging in with everything it has.

As Ukraine gets ready for wet may be its biggest counteroffensive yet.

Christiane: Claire Sebastian ending our program tonight.

If you want to find out what's coming up on the show, sign up for our newsletter at PBS.org/Amanpour.

Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.