Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour.” Here’s what’s coming up.
More than 108 organizations warn, quote, “famine” is knocking on the door in Gaza. Correspondent Jeremy Diamond reports on the dire situation there.
Then as the International Court of Justice gives its first ever ruling on climate change, we hear from a Vanuatu official whose Pacific Island Nation
faces an existential threat from rising oceans.
And how U.S. funding cuts set back the fight against HIV/AIDS. I speak to South African activist Zackie Achmat.
Also, ahead —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAE JOON PARK, U.S. ARMY VETERAN: It’s overwhelming, the first three, four days, I couldn’t stop crying for hours every morning just everything’s
sinking in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: — a decorated U.S. army veteran forced to self-deport to Korea. Michel Martin speaks with Sae Joon Park and immigration lawyer Danicole
Ramos.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff travels to Europe and the Middle East this week reportedly to try again for a Gaza ceasefire and for a proper
humanitarian pipeline into the enclave. More than two weeks since the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, met with President Trump in
Washington, more than 108 organizations are now warning of mass starvation spreading across Gaza.
Oxfam director Scott Paul tells CNN, quote, “Famine is banging on the door right now.” A coalition of these aid organizations warns that they are,
quote, “witnessing their own colleagues and partners waste away before their eyes.” And some journalist organizations say the same about their
reporters on the ground and that without immediate intervention they will die of starvation and dehydration.
Meanwhile, Palestinians are also dying as they vie for whatever aid does make it into Gaza. More than a thousand have been killed in recent months
while seeking food, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The U.K., Canada, and 26 other countries have issued a joint statement this week saying the war in Gaza, quote, “must and now.” At the same time,
Britain has announced more plans to cut foreign aid.
Now, Correspondent Jeremy Diamond joins me now with more on the desperate situation in Gaza. Jeremy, what are you seeing, you know, right now? It
seems to be building to a peak that’s unavoidable.
JEREMY DIAMOND, JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Christiane. I mean, from speaking with people in Gaza and humanitarian aid organizations
that operate on the ground, I can tell you that the situation right now is just as bad — about as bad as it ever has been.
In just the last 24 hours, we’ve seen 10 people who have died of malnutrition, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. The day before,
it was 15 people in the previous 24-hour period. That’s 25 people dying of starvation in just a two-day period. We have never seen numbers like that
bunched so close together as we are right now.
And I want to show you the images of one of those individuals who has died of starvation in Gaza. His name is Mohamed Ahmad Al- Hasanat (ph). He was
41 years old. And you can see the emaciated body that just gave up on him at the end following months of dealing with severe malnutrition. His
brother said that he started dealing with these symptoms of malnutrition following Israel’s blockade that began in early March. He needed
nutritional supplements. He needed protein. None of that was available to him, and he lost his battle against all of that just yesterday.
We have also seen, of course, that beyond the starvation that is happening in Gaza, with now the director of Oxfam saying that famine is knocking at
the door, in addition to that, those who are trying to survive to get to these Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid sites or to U.N. convoys that are
coming in very scarcely into the Gaza Strip, people are being shot and killed by Israeli gunfire.
We heard from the World Food Programme director, Cindy McCain, just the other day talking about Israeli tanks and snipers opening fire on Gaza’s
who are trying to survive.
Now, the Israeli government, for its part, has said that it does not restrict the amount of aid that is getting into the Gaza Strip. And they
point to some 950 trucks of humanitarian aid that are stockpiled inside of Gaza, waiting for the U.N. to come pick them up.
The U.N. doesn’t deny that that’s the case, but they say that it has nothing to do with their lack of willpower or desire to get those trucks,
it’s because they say Israel is not providing enough safe routes for those trucks to be picked up and distributed. They say that they are not using
these deconfliction channels in a proper manner and prioritizing instead their military operations over averting what is already a very, very severe
humanitarian crisis affecting some 2 million people in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: Yes. It is almost unbearable to keep watching this and to hear now humanitarian organizations, but also, you know, some government
leaders, you know, people saying it is time absolutely for the United States to get involved, to stop aiding and abetting Israel, to force Israel
to do actually, you know, there are rules in war, as you know, and denying people food is against international law.
So, when you talk to Israeli officials, what do they say about this? Because it’s not OK just to keep batting terms back and forward when people
are dying of starvation and being killed as you report?
DIAMOND: Yes, exactly. I mean, first of all, they consistently blame Hamas for all of this, even though the reality is that it’s not just humanitarian
aid organizations who are blaming Israel. I mean, that letter that you talked about from some 25 western nations, which include, you know, staunch
longtime allies of Israel, whether it is France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, all of them are blaming this current humanitarian crisis
on Israeli government decisions, on Israeli policies.
As far as Israeli officials, you know, they point to recent measures that they have taken to try and improve the situation. They’ve opened this Zikim
Crossing in the northern part of the Gaza Strip and allowed aid to flow in via the Egyptian and Jordanian routes. Just the fact that they’re pointing
to that, Christiane, notes the fact that they prevented those things from happening for weeks and weeks in the past until we have now reached these
absolute crisis levels inside the Gaza Strip.
AMANPOUR: And just to remind — that picture you showed us is truly horrendous. And just to remind that the Palestinian Ministry, as we’ve
said, say that in the last eight weeks alone, a thousand Palestinians who’ve been trying to get food have actually been shot or afflicted by
canon — I mean, rather, a tank fire and the rest. So, these are being reported. Thank you. I know you’re working on a more in-depth report on
this, and we look forward to seeing it, because it’s vitally important. Jeremy, thank you.
Today marks a critical turning point for another major issue, and that is global climate law. In a landmark ruling, its first ever opinion on the
topic, the International Court of Justice has asserted that climate change may, quote, “significantly impair human rights,” and it urges countries to
halt emissions faster. Here’s court president Yuji Iwasawa.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YUJI IWASAWA, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: The court notes that the consequences of climate change as severe and far-reaching. They
affect both natural ecosystems and human populations. These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat caused by climate change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, the opinion is non-binding, but it will likely be cited in litigation around the world. It could pave the way for countries impacted
by climate change to seek reparations. The Island Nation of Vanuatu is the driving force behind this ICJ hearing. Climate Change Minister Ralph
Regenvanu joins me now from The Hague where the court made its decision. Welcome to the program.
Can I ask you how much satisfaction you take from this given that it is non-binding?
RALPH REGENVANU, VANUATU MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: Well, we were very pleased with the handing down of the decision today, the advisory opinion.
It really makes it clear that action on climate change by states, whether according to the treaties, the climate change treaties, the Climate Change
Convention, the Paris Agreement, or International Customary law is a legal obligation.
And so, that removes a lot of the excuses that we’re hearing from high emitting states, particularly in the COPs about whether they need to take
action or whether it’s a voluntary commitment. The court made it very clear that it’s, in fact, under international customary law as well as under all
the human rights conventions and the U.N. charter itself.
This is a binding legal obligation on states and it gives avenue for countries like Vanuatu and other vulnerable countries to have more leverage
in their discussions. And even to take more, more drastic action to see climate action being taken by the high emitting states.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just ask you, because we described, you know, a Pacific Island Nation. Obviously, you’re low lying. What is the immediate
threat to Vanuatu and other island nations like yours? So, we understand.
REGENVANU: So, in the Pacific there are low lying nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati (ph), which are Atoll nations, where the maximum height above sea
level is about two meters. So, these countries have faced existential threat. With sea level rise, they will disappear. And so, the International
Court of Justice advisory opinion made a very important point, it said, if at any point in the future, the baselines from which the boundaries of
states are drawn disappear, it doesn’t matter because these states are already established under national law.
So, that was a huge win in this ICJ advisory opinion. It gives great weight to these countries who are seeking to preserve their statehood in the face
of the whole country disappearing. But also, in countries like Vanuatu, which are more high. We are a high — we have volcanic mountains and so on.
We still face sea level rise. We face increasing intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones.
Now, we have reached beyond category 5. We’ve gone to categories that don’t exist in science. We also have extreme weather events that are causing
large areas of our country to be uninhabitable. And so, for us, we’re actually experiencing loss and damage. It’s beyond adaptation. We’ve done
all we can to adapt, but we don’t have the resources to do so. So, this advisory opinion will help us to seek the international corporation we need
to get the resources we need to find ways to provide a bit of future for our people.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you just to be very, very realistic? Because you can see that certainly with the new U.S. administration, even the E.U., all
these nations and blocs that have talked a lot about, you know, growing back green and really taking care of the climate and doing what they can
seem to be on the retreat right now. There are other financial issues, the U.S., for itself, has pulled out of all sorts of climate and multilateral
accords and rolled back the clock on institutions around the climate and environment in its own country.
So, where do you see the hope coming from, even by using this law? Because it seems to be a major crisis point right now.
REGENVANU: Well, the reality is that climate change affects everybody. And increasingly, we will see this happen all across the world. And a good
example is in the last decade, it’s the first time ever, the last 10 years, have been the hottest years. Each one on record ever. And the last one has
been the hottest ever. And we are seeing everything happening in — all over the world.
We’re seeing what happened here in The Hague is a result of a global youth movement for climate justice. And this particular decision today gives a
lot of hope to the youth because they’re the ones who pushed for this advisory opinion and the fact that it’s been so strong in their favor will
galvanize them as well as wider civil society to put much more pressure on governments to take real action in the face of a reality of increasing
devastation caused by climate change for every country. So, the reality will force countries to come to accept what this advisory opinion has just
said.
AMANPOUR: Can I just dig deeper into the youth movement that you described? Because, essentially, this case has apparently been about six
years in the making. It was first brought to you by, as you say, a group of 27 students from the University of the South Pacific. This was back in
2019.
How does that work? What did they say? How did they petition? What had they done to make — you know, to reach this judgment today?
REGENVANU: So, they came with this idea that the single — they were law students. The single best legal remedy to the climate crisis was to get an
advisory agreement through ICJ. So, it was this pie in the sky idea. They came to see Vanuatu. We agreed to take it up and push it up to the
international level. And then this whole global movement, the Global Climate Justice Youth Network developed, advocating in all their different
countries with their governments to support it.
And what happened last year in the general assembly of the United Nations was that unanimously the entire — every country in the world agreed to
refer this question to the ICJ. And that was historic. That was the first time that the general Assembly has unanimously referred a question to the
ICJ. It’s never happened before in history. And then, today, we also saw the advisory opinion being handed out also unanimously, and that’s very
rare for the ICJ also.
So, it shows this momentum and this common idea that we need to find some way to get us beyond this point where we are, not addressing the climate
crisis as we should.
AMANPOUR: So, when this first came, when you brought it to the ICJ, you made an address at the opening, and this was December last — you know,
this past December. And you emphasized that Vanuatu is, quote, as you said, “On the frontlines of a crisis that we did not create.”
But you also said about the most recent COP, COP29 in Azerbaijan. You said, you know, again, you witnessed firsthand the failure of this entire
process, quote, “It’s unconscionable,” you said, “that the COP failed to reach any agreement on cutting emissions. For many people, including in
Vanuatu, the prolonged and systemic failure of the COP process has cost them their wellbeing, cultures, even lives.”
Is it — I mean, you’ve mentioned the COP shortcomings. Is that what pushed you to go to the court? And we are going to have another COP this year and
another one probably. What’s the point of all of this if they keep failing?
REGENVANU: Well, what’s happened today is that we’ve eliminated a lot of the arguments that are being put against us at the COPs. A lot of the
arguments that, for example, the nationally determined contributions are voluntary, are purely voluntary. Countries can decide what they just do or
what they don’t do. Today, we’ve just eliminated all those excuses. So, this is a complimentary to the COP process and it will help us, I think, in
the next negotiations.
We are now preparing a resolution for the General Assembly to implement this decision so that when we get to Belem, COP30 in Brazil, we can sit
down and say, OK, you can’t talk about this anymore. You can’t say it’s voluntary. The ICJ, the world’s highest court, has said it’s a legal
obligation. And that if you don’t do it, you are acting unlawfully according to international law. And so, it gives us greater leverage to
push the ambition we have to see greater climate action and greater ambition and greater action on many of the pledges that are being made.
AMANPOUR: Now, you know, and it’s happening in some of your region as well, that there are a lot of climate refugees, climate migrants, climate
refugees. And we have been treated to some quite dramatic speeches by — for instance, you remember in COP26 to Tuvalu’s foreign minister,
essentially spoke from — with the sea up to his knees and there was a podium there. It was quite a dramatic, you know, portrayal of what’s
happening. And a few years before that, the prime minister of the Maldives held an underwater cabinet session to talk about the threat to their island
nation as well.
So, Tuvalu apparently has been given migration visas, a certain number per year by Australia. Is this something that you can see happening more to the
island nations? I mean, is Vanuatu going to potentially go that way as well, try to leave these places in desperation?
REGENVANU: I think there’s a lot of low-lying areas of the world, like Tuvalu, like Maldives, like large areas of Bangladesh, like large areas of
continental U.S. Of course, people are going to have to move. So, the advisory opinion today says there is an obligation by states to cooperate
internationally to address these problems. And in cases like Tuvalu, for example, there’s a new agreement with Australia where they can move to
settle in Australia.
But this can be seen as part of these reparations to address the harm that, for example, Australia has caused in terms of contributing to greenhouse
gas emissions, this is one of the measures you can take to repair or address or provide restitution for the harm you’ve causes. Assisting
migration, assisting adaptation, responding to loss and damage, financial compensation, this kind of thing. And these are all things the advisory
opinion of the ICJ today highlighted.
AMANPOUR: So, climate also is an area where there’s a, you know, competition between the world’s biggest powers, i.e., the United States and
China. The U.S. has, as you know, made some — well, has ended, USAID. Some of the USAID programs were also assisting in trying to support the climate
change crisis.
Save the Children told the AP that the cut in funding for, let’s say, a rainwater harvesting initiative in your country’s most remote and drown —
drought prone provinces is really — you know, is really bad for those people in that area. And at the same time, China appears to be potentially
stepping in to see if it can mitigate and take over maybe from where the U.S. is pulling back. Is this competition good? Will it spur on some kind
of climate change restitution or is it adding to the chaos?
REGENVANU: For countries in the Pacific, you know, the biggest threat to our security is climate change. It’s not another country. It’s not
conventional military threats. It’s climate change. That’s been made clear by our Pacific leaders.
So, anyone who helps us to address climate issues, that takes the responsibility for emissions seriously, that tries to transition their
economy, that helps us adapt, we will reach out to them as partners, and that’s basically it. We don’t see this geopolitical competition between
China and the U.S. as being relevant to our national needs.
What we need is we need security for our people from the greatest threat we have, which is climate change. And if every — if any country does not take
climate change seriously and does not take adaptation and our survival seriously, then we have to question their relevance to us as a partner.
AMANPOUR: And even all the way over here in the west, we’ve seen, you know, just record heat, record droughts, record winds, fires, all the rest
of it every year. So, Minister, thank you so much for joining and telling us about the significance of this ICJ ruling today. Thank you very much
indeed.
Stay with CNN because we’ll be right back after the break.
AMANPOUR: Next to South Africa where the effects of ending USAID is clear and undeniable. For more than 15 years, the global fight against HIV/AIDS
has been phenomenally successful. The U.N. estimates that more than 26 million lives have been saved ever since George W. Bush introduced that
lifesaving program called PEPFAR. Those initiatives have played a critical role supporting private clinics and distributing antiretroviral drugs.
Now, in South Africa, which has the highest number of people in the world living with HIV, many of these essential clinics have been forced to close.
This critical time, one of the nation’s best-known activists is stepping back into the fray. He is Zackie Achmat. He spent decades fighting for
better access to treatment for every South African, having previously campaigned against apartheid. He’s putting the pressure on his own
government to step up as the U.S. steps back now. And he’s joining us from South Africa.
So, welcome to the program, Zackie Achmat. And can we just start by saying, did you ever expect after essentially thinking your job had been done and
going into pleasant retirement that you’d be back on the frontlines of this fight?
ZACKIE ACHMAT, SOUTH AFRICAN ACTIVIST: Christiane, to start off, it’s probably after the genocide in Gaza, this is probably the most dangerous
step that Donald Trump has taken, and that is to place 20 — more than 20 million African people on death row. For us, that means something very
simply that if you look at my clinic, the clinic I used to attend, which was affiliated to the public sector, but was funded by PEPFAR, that clinic
is shut. That clinic used to provide medicines to gay men, to trans people, to intravenous drug users and so on.
Not only that, but they provided PrEP, which is pre-exposure prophylaxis. Today, those clinics — at least 15 of those clinics across the country,
has been shut down. Similarly, clinics that provided post-exposure prophylaxis for rape survivors have been shut down. And therefore, we’re in
a situation where the government has had to pick up. South Africa is very lucky. Our government has been able to fund most of our ARVs.
But if you take a place like Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho, and so on, we have the crashing of healthcare systems, not simply people living with HIV,
but maternal and childcare health, generally TB programs all shutting down.
And in this situation, we are now told that Congress has sort of eked out a little bit from Donald Trump to say that not all of PEPFAR is going to shut
down. If we look at it, less than 10 percent of the money allocated to PEPFAR will be now spent. And we don’t know when it’s going to be spent. We
don’t know what it’s going to be spent on. It’s certainly not going to come to South Africa, because according to him, we have a white genocide going
on. Well, that’s for another topic at some other time.
But specifically here, what we — our continent is facing, it is facing a genocide of people living with HIV, of poor people, people who cannot
access healthcare. And why is that so? The United States spent, through USAID, $42 billion on global aid. But if we look at what our continent will
be paying in debt repayments, this year alone will be $89 billion, most of which have come — most of which will be interest repayments.
So, you find a situation that suddenly our interest repayments in our country is more than our healthcare budget.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Let me just stop you for a second.
ACHMAT: So, the question is —
AMANPOUR: I get it.
ACHMAT: — we need to have —
AMANPOUR: I get what you’re saying and you’ve come out to try to change this. You just mentioned Secretary of State Rubio and a bit of the HIV
PEPFAR program. He says it’s 85 percent operational. He’s also said, no one in the world has died because of USAID cuts. But another expert, Emily
Bass, you probably know her. She wrote a book about America fighting aids in Africa. She says, experts on PEPFAR on your continent, say it’s working
at only about 50 percent capacity. And especially, as you say, prevention programs for vulnerable groups have stopped entirely.
I want to ask you, some countries, like potentially yours, were in striking distance of eliminating HIV/AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 when
PEPFAR was up and running at full speed. Do you — has that been — is that at risk now, this thing that you thought would be eliminated as a public
health threat around the continent?
ACHMAT: Absolutely. The question is that South Africa was well on the way to getting our epidemic completely under control and possibly within a
five-to-10-year period ending the epidemic itself, because of the new developments around Lenacapavir, which the medicine Gilead produces, which
would allow prevention to simply be administered to two injections once a year. And that means — twice a year.
And that would’ve meant that millions of people would’ve been able to prevent HIV. And people like myself who’s viral load is undetectable, we
wouldn’t transmit. So, as long as more people were coming onto the program and more people were accessing prevention, we were going to get this
epidemic under control.
Right now, all that is in danger. And people will be dying in the most horrific circumstances, choking to death, not knowing who their children
are, dying in circumstances that would be unimaginable to anyone.
AMANPOUR: Zackie, I want to play a little bit, because you talk about children and parents. And in 2006 — around 2006 I did a documentary in
Kenya. And, you know, it was about exploring why all these children had no parents and their grandparents were looking after them. And that’s because
the parents, you know, a lot of them were succumbing and dying of AIDS. I want to play just a little clip, because it illustrates what you’ve just
said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Muktar (ph) and his parents were abandoned by their family when Hussein (ph) got AIDS. Like so many African men, he got it on
the road. He was a truck driver and he brought the disease home to his wife. Yet she’s the only one who has stood by him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): My own family threw me out. And once that happened, no neighbor or friend could help me.
AMANPOUR: Have you made preparations for your son’s future?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): If we died now, he would be in great trouble because I don’t have anyone who will take him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR (on camera): So, Hussein (ph) did die after that. But so, he — they’ve just said, there’ll be nobody to help if we die and nobody to help
us. So, who do you think can pick up the slack, so to speak? Is there any organization or any system that can?
ACHMAT: Well, for all of us, we believe that China has a duty to step in, that India should make sure that its direct companies have made enormous
profits from selling medicines, generic medicines to the African continent, and they have other healthcare investments, India should step up to it. But
again, our own governments must fight corruption and deal with those questions as well.
Having said that, the Global Fund itself has cut 200 — more than $200 million from South Africa’s global fund agreement, and that puts even our
HIV program at greater risk. It is doing the same in other countries. And therefore, the fact that Europe, Britain has decided to spend more money on
war than on development assistance, so as Germany and so on.
We see a world racing towards war rather than just saving lives. And I would say it’s our duty to build a global resistance movement to ensure
that people have the right to life, the right to healthcare, the right to water and sanitation, and just the right to be depressed.
AMANPOUR: The right to be depressed. You know, you talk about building a global resistance movement. You’re one of the most famous South African
resistors. You fought against apartheid. When he came out, Nelson Mandela wore the same HIV, you know, positive T-shirt. He supported you a lot. And
then, his successor, Thabo Mbeki, threw the whole kitten caboodle out with all his conspiracy theories about HIV and didn’t want western medicine and
had a health secretary who said, why don’t we just eat garlic? And you had to fight that as well.
Tell me a little bit about the fight against apartheid and then the fight against your own president, Mbeki, when he was a, you know, HIV denier.
ACHMAT: Yes. You know, in the 1970s and ’80s, we had an enormous energy in the country. An energy that saw young people, older people, workers, middle
class people, all joined in a movement to defeat apartheid. We had the world on our side through sanctions, through boycotts, through divestment,
and the United States came late to that party, but it did eventually.
Now, what we have subsequently is Mandela coming to power. And that moment, 30 years ago, when we had a new constitution, next year it’ll be 30 years
since our final constitution came into operation, in ’96, but that was the most important period in South Africa’s history because the ANC that came
to power took steps to redress inequality in a manner that wasn’t seen.
So, from most people not having electricity, 90 percent of people have electricity, most people not having access to water, people — working-
class people getting access to water. So, it took major steps, even in the healthcare sector, establishing primary healthcare clinics and so on
despite the fact that we had a debt to payback.
Come Mbeki. And when former President Mbeki came to power he said, HIV does not cause AIDS. And that it was all a conspiracy to dominate the African
continent because white supremacists hypersexualized African people’s identities and sexual identities. And so, from that point of view — and
then he added on that antiretroviral treatment is poison.
And so, from a situation where I campaigned for him to be president from — and actually being really moved by his speech when he won the election
saying, let’s get to work, we went into a situation where our government, our president declared a civil war on his own people, a war fought without
guns, but a war that withheld life-saving medicines from people.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ACHMAT: The lowest estimate is 300,000 people who died under Mbeki. The higher estimates put it in the 2 millions.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
ACHMAT: I would say what people forget are the millions of people who became infected because he wasn’t treating us. And we defeated him. And I
hope the world will stand together so that we can defeat Robert Kennedy, so that we can defeat Donald Trump. And within our own government, make sure
that our government gives clear plans as to how it’s going to deal with this epidemic now.
AMANPOUR: So, finally then, you are an activist. You’re obviously massively committed. You’ve come out of retirement to fight this fight.
Again, I wonder what you think about the stories, whether it’s in South Africa or Uganda or Lesotho or others, where individuals, nurses, and, you
know, clinicians who haven’t been paid since USAID was cut, they’re still going to work. They’re still trying to help the people who desperately need
it. It’s pretty great sacrifice and testament.
ACHMAT: Look, Christiane, there’s nothing I can say that will make it better for people who are doing their best. Nothing that we say can do it
better. The feeling that people like myself have is at times one of complete hopelessness, but at times knowing that the necessity of
resistance will give us strength.
And for me, the question is, how many young people we can bring in? Because I remember the days when Ben Wikler, who became the chair of the Democratic
Party in Wisconsin, started the Student Global AIDS Coalition. But suddenly, now, within the United States itself, there are so many battles
to fight that looking for international solidarity in America, it is difficult because we really need to be giving international solidarity
there.
So, if you ask me who the greatest people are now, it is those nurses, it is those counselors, it is those doctors and clinicians who continue to
work. It is not those of us who say something needs to be done.
AMANPOUR: Wow. It’s all of you. Zackie Achmat, thank you so much indeed. And we’ll be right back after this short break.
AMANPOUR: Now, in the United States as some immigrant families fear the Trump administration’s ICE crackdown, they are taking the painful decision
to leave the United States, even if it means separating from their families. One such case is that of Sae Joon Park, a U.S. Army veteran
recently forced a self-deport back to South Korea over decades old drug charges that were linked to PTSD that he suffered.
The Purple Heart recipient and his attorney, Danicole Ramos, join Michel Martin to share his story of leaving behind the only country he’s ever
called home.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Sae Joon Park, Danicole Ramos, thank you both so much for speaking with us today.
DANICOLE RAMOS, U.S. IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Thank you so much.
SAE JOON PARK, U.S. ARMY VETERAN: Thank you.
MARTIN: Mr. Park, I’m going to start with you. You came to the United States by yourself when you were so young. So, as briefly as you can, would
you just tell us what brought you to the United States at such a young age and alone?
PARK: My mom came to the United States when I was six, and I was living with my father at the time. So, he read me a letter from my mom and asked
me if I wanted to go live with my mom. So, at that time, as a young child, I made that choice to go live with my mom. So, he set up everything. They
put a little tag on me, and then I got on a plane by myself and got escorted from Korea to Hawaii, Hawaii to L.A., L.A. to Dallas, and Dallas
to Miami.
MARTIN: Oh, my goodness.
PARK: That’s how reunited with my mom at seven years old. Yes.
MARTIN: At one point, you enlisted in the army. You went into combat in Panama. During the U.S. military action in Panama. You were only 19 years
old. I understand that you were shot. You were actually shot in the spine.
PARK: Yes. Well, I turned 20 in base training. So, when I joined at 19 and then during the war, I was 20 years old, early 20. It was a second day.
Second day of patrolling around. I got shot twice in the back. One was in the spine and the other one left lower back, and it went in my body,
tumbling around, dodging all my vital organs. The lung delivered to heart.
If I take an X-ray, I light up like a Christmas tree. I still have little shrapnels left inside my body. And I was very fortunate and lucky.
MARTIN: Oh, my goodness. Well, I’m very glad that you’re here with us to tell us the story. But you received the Purple Heart, which is
acknowledging that you were wounded in action, and then you were honorably discharged. You were honorably discharged. It’s my understanding though
that you struggled after you left the service. Why do you think that is? Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
PARK: At the time, there was no such thing as PTSD, but I didn’t know what it was. I had nightmares almost every night. I couldn’t sleep. I had
nightmares. I would be with cold sweats out of nowhere. I couldn’t watch war movies. I couldn’t hear loud sounds.
Like at the time in L.A. there was a lot of gunfire going on every night and you could hear the gunshots. So, every time I would hear a gunshot, I
would get nervous and start acting out. I couldn’t tell anybody what I was going through because, once again, there was no such thing as PTSD. And
like being on male, I was supposed to be a tough guy. So, I didn’t want to go crying to anyone of what I was feeling. So, I really had to deal with
everything on my own.
MARTIN: Well, just — forgive me with respect, there was such a thing as PTSD that apparently there just was no language for it then. Do you think
that you started self-medicating as a consequence of that?
PARK: Well, I definitely feel that way because marijuana helped. Marijuana helped me go to sleep without dreaming, because I had nightmares all the
time. And I found a way, if I smoked weed, that I wouldn’t get nightmares and I would actually get to sleep at night. So, that’s what kind of started
it off.
Eventually, it led to harder drugs. So, eventually, I started doing crack cocaine and which pretty much took control of my life at such a young age.
And that’s where to final, when I did get arrested, it was possession of crack cocaine. Yes.
MARTIN: And also, it’s my understanding, bail, not bail jumping or not meeting a required court appearance. Is that accurate?
PARK: Yes. Well, the judge gave me a few chances. So, he told — she told me one time, like, Mr. Park, next time you come into my courtroom with the
dirty urine, you will be sent to prison. So, me being scared and nervous — that happened in New York. So, I got in my car and from New York, I drove
to L.A. and then from L.A. got on a plane and went to Hawaii.
MARTIN: Oh, my. OK.
PARK: Then a year and a half later, the U.S. Marshals came looking for me, and then I turned myself in once I found out they were looking for me.
MARTIN: You did serve time in prison. You then did have many, many years of sobriety. You raised a family. It’s my understanding that you’ve — how
else can I put it? You have fulfilled your obligations to the country? Is that — would that be fair to say?
PARK: Yes. I lived with that addiction for many years. So, when I went to prison that — when people say when you hit rock bottom, it’s easy to quit.
Literally, when I went to — sent to prison, that was my rock bottom. I started praying every night, losing my kids, losing my family, not knowing
how long I’m going to be gone for.
So, that really helped me kick the drug habit, cold Turkey, it was not hard after that. And then when I did get released, I wanted to catch up my time
with my children and live a good life, which I have been doing, checking with ICE or immigration officers every year. At first, it was once a month
and then — once every three months, and then once every six months. And eventually, since I was doing good, they put it to once every year. And
that’s how I’ve been living for the past 14 years, over 14 years.
MARTIN: So, here’s where I want to turn to your attorney, Danicole Ramos. It’s my understanding that Mr. Park did have a removal order. Would that be
as a consequence of this drug conviction? Would that have been that?
RAMOS: Yes. So, for Mr. Park’s situation, he had a removal order based on two convictions that happened in New York that he mentioned. So, one was
the possession of the controlled substance, and then the other was jumping bail when he missed that drug court — that drug testing date mandated by
his judge. So, those two convictions alone were the — were what Immigration and Customs Enforcement used to insert a removal order on him.
Now, the thing that was the most serious out of the two convictions were his bail jumping. And in immigration law, bail jumping is considered an
aggravated felony. And for aggravated felonies in immigration law, they’re very serious crimes. They’re considered convictions that have no potential
relief from deportation or, and it can possibly permanently bar you from naturalizing as a U.S. citizen. We can think of them as like murder. We can
think of them as rape. We can think of them as robbery or trafficking drugs or human trafficking.
It seems surreal that jumping bail is considered an aggravated felony, almost the equivalent of murder, rape, robbery, dealing drugs. And so,
because of that bail jumping conviction that he had in New York, that was the reason that he was barred from any relief or cancellation from removal.
And that’s why that removal order was reinstated in 2010.
MARTIN: Mr. Park had a removal order, but he’s lived in this country for all this time. So, he had a removal order for 14 years and then nothing
happened. So, then what happened?
RAMOS: Yes. So, when he first got his removal order, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE has discretion to enforce which removal orders
they want to do. And so, what then they decided to work on was, hey. Mr. Park, you know, you do have a removal order, you did do these convictions,
but we’re going to put you on something called deferred action. And deferred action is what ICE uses as their discretion to say, hey, you do
have a deportation order, we can remove you, but, you know, considering Mr. Park’s, you know, background as a Purple Heart veteran they decided that he
wouldn’t be considered a priority for deportation, they would just let him live his life. But with certain restrictions, as he mentioned, right?
So, with it, checking in with ICE on a regular basis, making sure that he stays clean and sober. And then, he does have work authorization. So, he is
still allowed to work. He had to pay about thousands of dollars a year to renew that work permit, but he was able to live his life so long as he, you
know, had no criminal record and staying clean and sober.
MARTIN: So, then what happened? I mean, so last month, what happened last month?
RAMOS: Yes. So, for Mr. Park, you know, he was warned at his last check-in back in May of 2024, that if President Trump returns to office, there’s a
like — there’s a strong chance that he would get his deferred action taken away and that the removal order back in 2010 would be enforced.
We go back in June of last month to check in with the ICE officer. And the ICE officer said, and I remember vividly what he told me and staging was
like, because of this new administration, because of this new regime that we’re going to have to take away your deferred action. And the ICE officer
did say to him that, you know, I could detain you right now. But what we worked out with ICE officers like, hey, that’s — it doesn’t look good that
you’re going to detain him right now because his whole family is here waiting for him at his ICE check-in.
So, what we agreed to do is that Mr. Park would self-deport, put on an ankle monitor until then and have an itinerary to leave the United States
by the end of the month.
MARTIN: There are those who would argue that a person who breaks the law, especially a felony achieving citizenship through naturalization is a
privilege not a right, and that you forfeit that right by breaking the law. For someone who felt that way, what would you say?
PARK: No, I made mistakes. I was — exactly. I had a drug addiction. It wasn’t like a violent crime. I wasn’t hurting other people. I was hurting
myself. Now, I realized it was mostly due to my PTSD and other problems I had. But I never like denied the fact that, yes, I did break the law. I
wasn’t in a right clear mental state.
Even with my kids and everything, it was tough. It was tough living that life as an addicted person trying to make it through every day with the
struggle of being a drug addict. So, I totally understand when people say that about me, because that’s who I was at the time, struggling with drugs.
MARTIN: So, we did reach out to ICE about why your deferred action was revoked after more than a decade of compliance, as Mr. Ramos just laid out,
and this is what the agency said in a statement. They said, Sae Joon Park’s extensive criminal history includes convictions for possessing,
manufacturing, or selling a dangerous weapon, carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, assault, and criminal possession of a controlled substance.
In 2010, an immigration judge issued him an order of removal. Park’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals that same month was dismissed by the
board in April, 2011. With no legal basis to remain at the U.S. and a final order of removal, Park was allowed to self-deport to Korea. President Trump
and Secretary Noem have been clear, criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S. If you come to our country and break our laws, we will find
you, arrest you and deport you. That’s a promise.”
So, that’s what they have to say about that. So, can I hear from each of you about how you respond to that?
PARK: Yes, about that. I don’t know where they came up with the manufacturing, because I’ve never done that. I’ve never manufactured no
dangerous weapon on that. Yes, I have been arrested with the possession of a gun. The reason we moved to Hawaii from L.A. was we’re victims of — our
family is, the L.A. riots. Our store burnt down during the L.A. riots, got looted. And at that time, early ’90s, just from going to work in South
Central L.A. I would always carry a gun. I didn’t have a permit for it or anything like that, but it was for safety. And one day I got pulled over
and I had a concealed weapon on me. That’s where that gun charge came from.
And then the firing was, I was celebrating me joining the army on top of with a couple friends, shooting up in the air, the firing room arm,
possession of gun, those two are real. But I never manufactured no guns or solicited drugs. That’s — I don’t know where they got that from because
that wasn’t what I did. That was not part of that.
MARTIN: Mr. Ramos, what do you have to say about that? You heard the ICE statement. What do you — what would you say to that?
RAMOS: Yes. So, first of all, I’ll say Mr. Park was never what they quoted as a criminal illegal alien. He came here legally as a green card holder.
So, I just want to get that record straight. And then, the second part I want to respond to with that comment with DHS is, what does deporting —
how does deporting, someone like Mr. Park, a Purple Heart veteran, who served this country, took two bullets for this country, and despite his
past mistakes, was able to turn his life around, redeem himself, raise two kids, have a job, and then while at the same time take care of his elderly
mother who’s facing early onset stages of dementia? How does that — how does deporting him make this country safer?
When I think about Mr. Park’s situation, right, there’s a lot of veterans like him who have gone through what he’s gone through, suffered PTSD from a
deployment. They also went through some drug addiction, and like Mr. Park, they overcome it, you know, and we they get support to overcome it.
The difference between them and Mr. Park is that Mr. Park has this immigration status of his that affects his ability to stay in the United
States and punishes him for past mistakes, even though he showed that he’s redeemed himself. And I think in every aspect of Mr. Park besides paper, he
is an American. Every sense of him, every part of his story is American. I think there’s so many parts of it that I think people across the country
can resonate with.
MARTIN: So, Mr. Park, what was it like to go back to Korea after not having lived there for so many years?
PARK: It’s overwhelming. The first three, four days I couldn’t stop crying for hours every morning, just everything sinking in. And I think my PTSD
was acting up a little more. Feeling ashamed, like to being like kicked out of the country, coming back to a country I haven’t been. So, it has been
really tough. It has been really tough. It’s — tomorrow will be exactly one month since I’ve been here. It’s been a long month. So, I am doing my
best. I’m still hopeful maybe one day I can make it back to my family, my real family in Hawaii.
MARTIN: So, Mr. Ramos, before we let you go, does Mr. Park have any recourse?
RAMOS: There’s been new law in 2023 for — from the Second Circuit that makes his possession of controlled — a possession of a controlled
substance no longer a removable offense. However, he still has this bail jumping conviction, which is the aggravated felony that barred him from any
kind of relief or cancellation of removal.
So, what we sent in a request with to the district attorney’s office in Queens is that asking if they would be willing to negotiate with us to at
least take that bill jumping from a felony and drop it down from a misdemeanor. If it’s dropped down to a misdemeanor — at least a
misdemeanor, it allows us some opportunity to reopen his removal order in immigration court, request the court to then vacate it. And then if those –
– all those convictions are vacated and the removal order is vacated, then there’s possibly a pathway for him to come back to the United States.
MARTIN: Sae Joon Park, Danicole Ramos, thank you both so much for speaking with us today.
PARK: Thank you.
RAMOS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: A complicated saga indeed. And finally, tonight, England’s football fans are over the moon after the women’s team here proudly called
The Lionesses fought hard to defend their title, and are now heading to the Euro’s Final this Sunday. Over 10 million viewers, men and women, tuned in
to watch the current reigning champions pull off a last-minute victory, proving once and for all that women’s football is here to stay. They even
got a message of support from the king and queen and another female powerhouse playing the long game, tennis star, Venus Williams, who became
the oldest woman to win a tour level singles match in 20 years. The 45- year-old keeps notching up those milestones.
That’s it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
END