Pod Save the World - Boris elopes, Bibi on the ropes (with Afua Hirsch)

Episode Date: June 2, 2021

Ben and guest co-host journalist Afua Hirsch do a deep dive into the biggest stories in British politics including Dominic Cummings' damning testimony, Boris Johnson's secret wedding, why Viktor Orbán was at Number 10 Downing Street, and where the Labour party goes from its most recent defeat. They also talk about the latest deal that might oust Bibi Netanyahu from office, the coup in Mali, the humanitarian crisis in Tigray, German acknowledgment of a genocide in what is now Namibia, the new three-child policy in China, updates from Hong Kong, and Naomi Osaka's decision to withdraw from the French Open. Then Ben interviews the mayor of Budapest Gergely Karácsony about his run for Hungarian prime minister and how he plans to defeat Viktor Orbán.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, please visit crooked.com/podsaveamerica. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome back to POD Save the World. I'm Ben Rhodes. Tommy is on vacation. So today we have a very special guest joining us with apologies to all our other guests. Our favorite recent guest, Afa Hirsch. She's a journalist, columnist for The Guardian and a professor of journalism at the University of Southern California here in LA. She is also the author of British on Race, Identity and Belonging. Thank you so much, Afa, for joining us. Thanks for having me. It's such a pleasure to be here. Yeah. We're going to have some. fun and people get to listen to someone other than me offer opinions, and that's surely an improvement. So on the show today, we're going to cover some truly dramatic terms in British politics, even by the standards of Boris Johnson's Britain, the strange endgame for BB Netanyahu's tenure in Israel, possibly, some overlooked Africa stories in Mali, Tigray, and an apology for genocide in Namibia, a turn to a three-child policy in China and an update from Hong Kong. And we'll talk

about the Naomi Osaka controversy that has dominated the headlines. Then I'm going to talk to the mayor of Budapest about his run for Prime Minister of Hungary and how he plans to take on Victor Orban. But first, let me just note, it was the 500th episode of Pod Save America. So they celebrated that on the episode that dropped yesterday. The episode is full of fun games, questions from listeners, old stories no one's heard before, not even me. To check it out, subscribe to Pod Save America, wherever you listen to podcasts. And then, of course, I'm just going to note today is the publication day of my book after the fall, being American in the world we made.

And I do want to just say one more thing about this. You guys have obviously heard me talk about this a bit. But, you know, I think my personal journey these last few years to understand what seems to be in the news every day, including today's pod, you know, why does the momentum in history seem to be moving us in the wrong direction, away from democracy? and to these darker spaces of nationalism and authoritarianism. That's what propelled me to go out and write this book and to travel the world and meet some amazing people who are fighting back and have a lot to teach us. So I tell this story through Hong Kong protesters, people like

Alexei Navalny in Russia, the Hungarian opposition, like one of whom we're going to hear from today. But you all know, I think, if you listen to this podcast, kind of the gist of this book, I, on a more personal, I want to say, you know, I made a choice a few years ago when I was spit out of government and felt the world going to pieces around me, in part because of the state of the world, to resist the pull of, you know, parking myself in D.C. for the revolving door of politics and government or jumping to some soulless private sector role. I wanted to be able to have conversations like this, like I'm going to have with Afwa today. And above all, I wanted to write books that tried to make sense of the world. and tell stories that aren't necessarily being told. And so part of the reason that you hear people like me ask you to buy a book so much to the point that it may be annoying at times is because it's essential to give me this privilege to keep doing what we're doing here, to tell these stories, to write books that can explore and interrogate ourselves in the world around us in a way that social media doesn't let us.

And above all, for me to interact with an audience of people like you, the people who listen to this podcast, who I really, as I've said before, is the audience I wrote this book for. So if you've resisted the urge to date, please pick up a copy at your local bookstore or through one of our ubiquitous online ordering sites. I note, Afa, the book is out in Britain today too from Bloomsbury. So, yes. Can I just, I have read the book. I was lucky enough to get an advance proof.

And I think that you just give so generously of your personal experience, because I think what we've all lived through the plume. terminal of the last few years. It's actually a real challenge to our personal sense of identity and everything we've believed about ourselves, our countries, our political systems, our values, and those are really intimate and challenging questions to have to ask and foundations to feel disrupted. And I think that when somebody is able to be really open and honest and introspective, it just is such a reassuring way to navigate that change. And I really felt like, you nailed that in your book and I appreciated your soul searching because I think it's something,

I mean, speaking personally for myself, I have such a different life and background to you, but I'm so related to it. And I think that that will be so many people's experience. And because you just write so authentically about what you have seen and how you've worked to make sense of it, I really think other people will be able to access that. And that's what we need. I think we just need people to be honest, introspective, thoughtful and to share what they know. So I personally, I'm really grateful to you for writing it. Well, thanks so much for that. I mean, it's funny.

People ask me, like, what makes you hopeful? That's always a question. And to me, when you can just recognize, like, how you're feeling in other people's stories and recognize it. Everybody's kind of wrestling with some degree of trauma, a sense of trying to figure out their identities in a pretty disorienting world. Like, there's hope in that and just people finding that, hey, there's something I have in common with these people in Hungary or Hong Kong or the UK. So yeah, I've found that in your writing as well.

And really thank you for that. We're going to dive in now to the nationals flavor in your country in the UK. So we're so glad to have you because there's been kind of a buildup of British news that we want to unpack here. And I want to start with one of the biggest stories of the week, which was Dominic Cummings' parliamentary testimony. For those who don't know, Dominic Cummings used to be a top advisor to Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Before the two had a bit of a falling out at the end of last year, and he left the government. He was kind of the political spengali behind the throne. Now, he has gone on record in an attempt to expose all the ways that the Johnson government completely mishandled the coronavirus pandemic. And there was some echoes, shall we say,

for an American year to the coming testimony. He spoke before Parliament for more than seven hours and painted a pretty detailed picture of a government that was incompetent, dishonest, basically completely ill-equipped to handle the pandemic. Cummings described the division of responsibility for handling COVID by saying, quote, you have that mem with both Spider-Man's pointing at each other. It's like that, but with everybody. So that was a very vivid image. He also offered an apology, something that Boris Johnson hasn't,

saying the truth is that senior ministers, senior officials, senior advisors like me fell disastrously short of the standards that the public has a right to expect of its government in a crisis like this. When the public needed us most, the government failed, I would like to say to all the families of those who died unnecessarily how sorry I am for the mistakes that were made and for my own mistakes at that. So it doesn't get much more categorical than that, Afwa. I guess my question to you is, you know, what did you take away from this testimony? Were you surprised by anything? And, Will this matter? I mean, will there be any consequences in British politics where Boris has seemed to be kind of teflon to things that happen?

I think that, to be very honest, there was undoubtedly a morbid fascination with watching Kongs give evidence because it was just the ultimate political backstabbing. And it's really hard to overstate how powerful this man was. This man, an unelected official, a close advisor, was regarded by those in government, those in cabinet, as well as the civil service. as unsustainably powerful, wielding so much influence over the personalities of our leaders, but also public policy. And he was really a hate figure for those who were critical, both of the substantive direction of British policy, but also the way in which politics is being conducted in this era. So to see him turn from the heart of government on those around him, especially Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister and Matt Hancock, their health secretary, was very fascinating to watch. I think there's been a healthy,

degree of skepticism to this kind of Cummings recasting himself as this noble goblower, because it's impossible not to ask how much this was motivated by spite, by personal grievance, by a need for vengeance because of the way in which their personal relationship broke down. And I have to say, even though it was helpful in a way to hear some of his revelations about exactly what happens, and you made the, you reminded us of the Spider-Man, well, there was There was actually quite a lot of movie talk in this seven hours of evidence. You also recalled the film Independence Day when another senior advisor allegedly came in and said, we are absolutely fucked in the way that happened when aliens invaded the US in that

movie. And you really get a sense of a specifically toxic combination of, on the one hand, total complacency about the extremity of this virus and how serious the response needed to be, but also utter chaos when they did finally realize that they needed to act. But what's frustrating about it is that in kind of falling on his sword in this faux kind of morality gesture, it does feel a little bit like he let Boris Johnson off the hook. He really laid into the machinery of government, painted a picture that the whole mechanism was incapable of dealing with something like this, that there was multiple systems failure,

which undoubtedly there was, and that was already the conclusion of most, observe as long before Cummings decided to come clean. But he, in a way, by doing that, didn't really shine the kind of laser light on Boris Johnson that he could have, even though it's quite clear from lots of the anecdotes he offered, that Johnson really does have a very serious case to answer. I mean, he revealed that at one point, Boris Johnson said, this was just another swine flu and offered to have it injected into him live on TV to reassure the public, which really, I think, reveals something of the criminal negligence and failure of the prime minister, who really is the elected official who is meant to display leadership at a time

like this. So it was fascinating. There was a lot to unpick, but there were layers to really how useful it was and also how credible it was, given that this is a person who much of what he was apologising for was the unhealthy level of power he himself had, which he seemed perfectly be comfortable to wield at the time he had it. So his credibility is limited at best. Yeah. Yeah. I know it's a bit like when Trump's like personal lawyer Michael Cohen gave very damning testimony against him. And it was like, well, you know, it would have been more impactful if you did this a little earlier. There were two marriages that Boris Johnson was involved in one literal and one more metaphorical in the last couple of weeks. I'll start with the actual marriage,

which is we learned that the prime minister got secretly married to his fiance, Carrie Simmons, in a small ceremony on Saturday. She's been something of a controversial figure in part because she recently oversaw a renovation of the prime minister's Downing Street flat that was partially paid for by a Tory political donor. I don't know, Alpha, what did you make of this kind of secret wedding? And why did these Downing Street renovations kind of seem to touch a nerve? with some in Britain about Johnson's kind of larger approach to governing. I think the renovations just point to the utterly sordid nature of this government,

that Boris Johnson has himself been involved in so many scandals, and I'm sure this is reminiscent of what you went through during the Trump era, that it's actually hard to shock the public anymore, you know, from multiple marital affairs, refusing to disclose even how many children he's fathered in his personal life. And I'm actually somebody who doesn't really believe that there should be so much emphasis on the personal lives about political leaders. I would like a world in which they don't have to constant account for their relationships and families. In this case, where it speaks so directly to his integrity, his honesty and his transparency, I think that is quite remarkable that he's been able to get away with these kind of omissions.

And then there is this constant suspicion that he has a very relaxed attitude to flouting the rules about political donations, about cozing up to big business and big money. And the fact that he was cleared of intentional wrongdoing in the report into this renovation of his flat. But the report also found that he should have been more careful. And I think that really summarizes his attitude that he doesn't really seem to feel the rules apply to him. His relationship with Carrie Simmons is relevant

to the previous discussion about Dominic Cummings giving evidence because that inquiry that's been going on among parliamentarians into the response to COVID, repeatedly referenced her as his girlfriend, even though they were actually already engaged. And there's a kind of dismissive attitude towards her. There's a profound dislike towards her by many, again, who are critical of the way in which Johnson rules that she has had too much power. She's allegedly been involved in choosing advisors and getting jobs for her friends at the top of government, this kind of ongoing atmosphere of nepotism and corruption that really pervades the, at least the perception of this government. And some people have been wondering

whether it's a coincidence that after this disastrous evidence by Dominic Cummings and this dismissive attitude towards her and the allegation that she has a case to answer about the government response to COVID, that they suddenly got married. And just to speak about the secrecy of this wedding, even Boris Johnson's closest AIDS did not know it was happening until after it happened. It was incredibly secretive, unusually so. And so, of course, you know, there are many who are cynical and asking whether it was also designed to distract attention on what was really a very bad news week for the government. Yeah. It's the case.

It partly worked because the Sunday papers this week were full of who made her dress. Why did she not wear a veil? And even things that maybe are critical of Rochanson, how was he able to get married in a Catholic church, having been divorced twice and having become engaged to her, I believe, when he was still actually not divorced from his. previous wife. So this was all distraction and obfuscation. And if it was designed to do that, it seems to have worked to some extent. Well, look, you can't really blame people for being a little bit cynical, given the turns that Boris Johnson has taken over the years. I do think that the other political marriage of sorts is more troubling and that Boris Johnson rolled out the red carpet to meet with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who we talked about.

about a lot on this podcast. He's a central character in my book. Welcome him to 10 Downing Street where he was only the second EU leader that Johnson has hosted since Brexit. So that's a pretty big choice. And, you know, there echoes of what you were just talking about. I mean, this is a guy who's corrupt and his corruption reaches the level, and I talk about this in my book, where, you know, his childhood friend who was just a pipe fitter is now a billionaire. And that's the degree to which, you know, he's blurred the lines between a private and public interest. And Johnson faced a lot of criticism for hosting the meeting given Orban being kind of the vanguard of this nationalist and anti-democratic trend, an atrocious human rights record,

you know, kind of racist comments. And after the meeting, Johnson's office said he raised human rights issues with Orban, but Orban seemed much more comfortable in the comments that he made after the meeting. The independence of the judges in Hungary is one of the best in the European Union, if I am able to understand. But that's not the view of many in the European Union. They have concerns. They have raised them in the European institutions. Yeah, but it's a political issue, you know. So don't be worried about it. It's just a simple political game.

But there are many people who are worried about it. They fear the states of democracy. The leftist activists. They are leftist activists. Of course, they criticize us. But that's normal. Come to Hungary, see by your eyes. Why do you think Boris Johnson chose to invite Victor Orban, you know, as the second leader he's had in the UK after Brexit?

What message do you think that sends to other members of the EU that have traditionally been closer to the UK and that may have been raising concerns about the autocratic and nationalist nature of Victor Orban and his government? I think the visit of Victor Orban is all about context. And the context really is that Britain has just undergone an existential change. in its position in the world. And you really saw that with the other foreign events that have been happening. I mean, I know last week you talked about Belarus

and the hijacking of the plane. And when that happened, the EU came together to release this joint statement to discuss and plan how they would respond to Belarus. And Dominic Raab, the British Foreign Secretary, stood in an almost deserted House of Commons, making this long statement about how Britain condemned it and really seemed, and the visuals

and the substance of it, a lonely figure separated from the EU, almost inhabiting this new lonely space on the world stage. And I say that because I think that this visit, Victor Orban, very much takes place in this context. Britain has created a blank slate for itself, which, by the way, it said, was all about reclaiming sovereignty and conducting itself in a way that reflected British values. That was the narrative around Brexit. So for the second European leader who comes on an official visit to Britain in that context, in this blank slate, in this reassertion of what Britain is and is about in the world, to invite an autocrat who has been clamping down repeatedly on democracy, on human rights values,

who is so known for his association with anti-Semitic views, it's just a profoundly disturbing statement for Britain to make about what it will do in the future and what it cares about. And, you know, for Boris Johnson to say that they, raised human rights abuses. What does that mean? What, what are the teeth? What are the, where is the accountability? It's such a hollow thing to claim to have done and, and something we actually see in Britain's response to so many human rights abuses. I know we're probably going to talk about Israel, Palestine. The same goes for China. You know, Britain says these things, but continues to prioritize what it regards as its strategic and economic interests. And

Boris Johnson said he wanted to meet with Orban because he's a powerful figure in Europe. But I think it sends a really dark message and then add to that the context that Boris Johnson is someone who is known for trashing many values around respect for minority groups, around human rights, around political accountability. It's difficult not to link the two and see this in a big picture as a government that has a really disturbing and deeply lacking commitment to the values it claims to espouse. So I think many of us were horrified to see Victor Orban being invited to her on a official visit at all, let alone in such a high-profile priority position, given that Britain

is now deliberately making statements about what it does and what it values. Yeah, I mean, I, you know, not only is Orban kind of at the vanguard of this illiberal and kind of nationalist trend where you tap into kind of an us versus them brand of politics, And it can be pretty brutal on the people who are cast as them, and it's usually immigrants or liberal elites or whomever. You know, some of the same villains that Boris Johnson or Donald Trump have focused on. But he's also, you know, aligned himself with Russia and China very overtly, you know, kicking out an American university, inviting in a Chinese university, cozing up to Putin. And as people are wondering, where does Britain fall on the world stage, you know, embracing somebody like that? that when you've kind of been trashing the EU is a worrying trend. At the same time,

you can look at all this and wonder what the future is in British politics. I wanted to ask you about the future of the Labor Party, because for those of us who'd like to see the UK move in a more progressive direction at home and in terms of defending democratic values abroad, the Labor Party usually is the alternative hope. But thus far, you know, we've seen, you know, the failure to get traction. Even after Jeremy Corbyn was asked at his leader, we saw under Kier Starmor, the new labor leader, Boris Johnson's conservative party, make real gains in elections last month, including picking up seats in places like Harlecuhl that are traditional labor strongholds. And this has obviously put a lot of pressure

on Kier Starrmer, who said he's going to develop a new platform. I wanted to just ask you, you know, what do you think happened in the election last month? How big a deal were they? And what do you think labor needs to do to turn this around? Yeah, it's a really big question. You know, in response to your earlier question about will Boris Johnson be held to account for the failings that Dominic Cummings has revealed? I think a big part of the answer. And the reason that he still seems to be achieving electoral success in spite of the completely catastrophic response to COVID is because of the absence of, of a compelling opposition.

It's so important in a democracy that you have a strong and compelling opposition. Otherwise, all of the premises of this political system fall away. And we have a really deep and structural problem with our Labor Party. And I say that because we can talk about Kirstama and his particular failures about which I feel quite strongly.

But the bigger picture is that Labor has, well, going back to the 1980s, changed the rule so that it could, who becomes the Labor leader? is a vote of people outside Parliament. So Labor Party members who are not MPs. And that meant that you created a situation where a leader who was totally lacking the confidence

of those who serve for him in Parliament could be elected by activists outside the party. And that's really the reason that Jeremy Corbyn, the previous Labor leader, who undoubtedly took the party quite far to the left, was able to lead this quite disastrous period where there was all this kind of grassroots support him, but he had no traction in Parliament. He wasn't able to lead a party that had any discipline or vision. So Kirstarmer's inherited that. Add to that Scotland, which continues its nationalist

drive, wants to break away. That's been exacerbated by Brexit. Scotland wants to remain in Europe and is reconsidering whether it should become a separate nation to do that. The fact that Labor hasn't supported independence of Scotland has led to it hemorrhaging votes north of the border. So it's a really weakened Labour Party. And Kirstarmer has stepped into this fray. And what he really needed or what we needed in that Labour leader was a big vision, somebody who could really rally the support of this very divided party, because this is a party that traditionally speaks for the working class in de-industrialized towns in northern Britain, in many ways, if you have a lot in common with the kind of Rust Belt in America

and that Trump heartland, he needed to be able to reach those voters, but also the kind of metropolitan liberal classes in cities like London, Manchester, who have also traditionally been Labour voters. So that's difficult. These are just such disparate groups who in many ways you can make a Venn diagram of what they both want. There's very little overlap. So it takes a really exceptional leader to do that. And that's just not what Kirstama has proved able to do.

I think my analysis of Kier, who I actually know quite well, because I used to be a barrister in his chambers. I worked with him on a number of cases. He's a phenomenal human rights lawyer, somebody with very deeply held personal beliefs and values who I admire in many ways. But I think that he's come into the Labour Party as someone who's not so much seeking to inspire

as to minimise the number of people he offends. And that is a really poor foundation for a party that can stand against Boris Johnson's Conservative Party because whatever you say about them, they have somebody who many people see as charismatic. They have a clear vision. Their vision is a populist right-wing nightmare, in my opinion, but it is a vision. And Labor, on the other hand, are really lacking in a political identity, a policy, vision,

a charisma in any of their senior leaders. And it's proving, again, the net result is that Boris Johnson seems to be literally getting away with murder. Yeah. No, I think it's a good reminder that you don't win by just playing defense. You have to go on offense against. What you're trying not to do is just not a good foundation. Yeah. I mean, the nationalists have gone on offense for over a decade here and helped each other out along the way.

And part of what needs to happen is similar conviction and coordination and solidarity among the rest of us, which does lead into the rather dramatic developments in Israel the last few days. So we've talked a lot on this podcast about obviously the recent. Gaza war, which left 230 Palestinians and 12 Israelis dead, including over 60 Palestinian children. It seemed like Yarra Lepid, the opposition leader, was on the brink of forming a government that could ask Netanyahu for the first time in 12 years. When that conflict took place, I think some cynical commentators thought that Netanyahu was somewhat trying to use that conflict to consolidate his control and divide the opposition,

which is composed of both parties to the right, of even Netanyahu, but also some of the Arab joint lists in Israel. Now, it seems from announcements the last couple of days that the opposition has agreed on a deal with the coalition that will look probably different than the one Lapeed wanted to put together at the outset, but they would oust Netanyahu. The basics of that agreement are that Lapid and a guy named Nftali Bennett announced that they're going to work together to form a coalition government. There's going to be a rotating prime ministership that will oust Netanyahu from power.

Bennett will be the first prime minister for a couple of years, and then that will rotate to Lepeed. I should say, and it's important to note, this government could collapse, too, before it gets to that point. But at least that's the idea. Lepeed, for people who don't follow this closely, is a former broadcaster. He's a secular, kind of centrist. Bennett, on the other hand, is kind of a hard-line, right-wing Jewish nationalist, a former Netanyahu ally who turned against him, who's said some pretty horrible things about Palestinians and certainly about preventing a Palestinian state from emerging. Now, they have until Wednesday, so this week to finalize an agreement, Nanyahu's furiously trying to undermine it. But, you know, awful what we'd be left

with is for the first time, in a long time, no Bibi Nanyahu as prime minister. Then this kind of really sprawling opposition coalition that runs a gamut from Naftali Bennett as prime minister to Arab parties that are providing the votes to get him in power. B. B. Nanyahu potentially being losing his immunity for prosecution since he's not prime minister and being convicted of corruption charges, if that moves forward. Just stepping back here, I wanted to give you the chance, you know, to respond not just to this, but to the Gaza War II and how, you know, Britain like America has been an ally of Israel. What was the reaction in the UK to the most recent Gaza war?

And then how do you see these latest political developments as it leave you feeling any differently about where things are headed between Israel and the Palestinians? I mean, on this coalition, there aren't great examples of coalitions that have no coherent political outlook other than a desire to oust a common enemy as being sustainable governing forces in any country, let alone one with, the politics as tumultuous as Israel. So it would be so interesting to see if this coalition actually works and how people with such disparate views can really come together and rule. Here from Britain, I think the perspective is, and actually, you know, there is a kind of macro-European perspective where, as you know, Ben, over the years, European official foreign policy has drifted more and more towards Israel. And the kind of criticism that we used to see, for example, towards Ariel Sharon 20 years ago,

really hasn't been manifest against Netanyahu. I think that the official position has been very slow to criticize him. There is always this kind of bland, well, there are bad things on both sides. Yeah. Kind of talk. Britain, like the US, continues to export a significant number of arms to Israel.

That's really been a flashpoint in Britain. I would say there has been quite a grassroots movement calling for the government to stop arming Israel until it can assure people that there are no human rights violations being carried out against the Palestinians, which all the evidence suggests they're currently are to a very serious extent. And I think there's this real disconnect, actually, between official foreign policy across Europe and what many people, from all political backgrounds, actually, is really quite a broad movement of people who feel very critical about Netanyahu and about what's been happening, especially in Gaza.

officially Britain still supports the two-state solution like most European leaders. It's hard to really know what that means anymore and how realistic and objective that feels right now. So it feels as if actually Britain has become a minor player in this situation for a while, having obviously played such an informative role in creating this problem and sowing the seeds of this conflict from its own colonial policy and the creation of the modern state of Israel. And a lot of the noise coming from Britain's government has really been to kind of reiterate and support what the Biden administration has been saying. So it's a really mixed picture here.

But I think that there is, like in many places, the kind of desire to see a change from the current Netanyahu government, but a skepticism as to whether this could really work. And I think, you know, it would be great if we could be more hopeful that this represents change in the short term and, towards a peace solution in the long term, but without actually some kind of clarity about what peace looks like, how it would be structured and how it would actually meaningfully create change to Palestinians. That's really hard to see. Yeah. No, I mean, even a Lepid who's more of a, like I said, a centrist, he's not exactly putting himself out there on the Palestinian issue. There's pretty broad consensus in Israeli politics to not take on the hard pieces of that, even as we see that the situation get worse for Palestinians by the day.

And when you're in a coalition with Naftali Bennett, I mean, saying nothing is not a neutral option, you know, very much statement about where you stand. Yeah, I mean, I have to think that Lapid got more votes than Bennett. I mean, it may just be that he, after four elections, you know, in a couple years, just get Bibi out of there. Perhaps B.B. then gets convicted in his corruption trial. Perhaps the government falls apart. And then Lepid thinks that there's an opening.

to do this again. I don't know. I'd like to be cynical. That may be part of what he's thinking, but this may, you know, break the log gem of Nanyahu having this kind of grip on Israeli politics. It doesn't solve the bigger, bigger issues. I wanted to move on to a few Africa stories. And I do want to say at the beginning, you know, you've covered Africa Afwa and have rightly pointed out that coverage tends to drift towards the bad stories. And unfortunately, we have some difficult ones to cover here. But one of them in particular, I think that's why it's so troubling is that Ethiopia had been a bright spot in terms of its economic development and playing constructive

role on some issues regionally. The prime minister winning the Nobel Peace Prize for a deal with Eritrea. And then there was this dissent into violence in the Tigray region after the Ethiopian government essentially launched an offensive again. some of their political opponents, former allies. Now, there's clearly indications that the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments are perhaps perpetrating war crimes in Tigray, reports of mass sexual violence, blocking of humanitarian aid that needs to get in.

Estimates that 2 million people have been displaced in the region in just seven months. Food insecurity. The risk of famine, even though Ethiopia had made so much progress from the famines that that we all remember from the 80s. And there's not a lot of press that's getting in there. We've seen the U.S. government kind of sounding the alarm and really pressing, and particularly on this need for humanitarian access, along with an effort to settle the conflict more broadly.

What do you think, Afwa, like the, what should the world be doing to take more action to address, you know, the immediate humanitarian challenge? you know, if we use our tools like restricting some of the assistance we give to Ethiopia, we may end up harming people. So it's tough when you have a humanitarian interest and a political interest. But how do you think the U.S. and other governments should be trying to play a constructive role here in alleviating suffering and trying to get this back into a more peaceful and sustainable situation? Yeah, such an important question. I was actually filming in the Tigray region of Ethiopia at the end of 2019.

and it's important to just say how fragile that region is. You know, it's a region that has historically been affected by famine. It lives in a permanent state of semi, at least semi-food insecurity. And it has, on the border with Eritrea, this history of being on the front line of this very protracted conflict. And I think that it's really sobering, given the atmosphere of optimism at the time I was in Ethiopia when Abiy Ahmed, the Prime Minister really did have this. this wave of goodwill around him. As you mentioned, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He was really regarded as a game changer in Ethiopia as a kind of bright light on the continent

as somebody who was taking a nation forward, who was promoting democratic values, who was appointing women in senior positions, who was acting with a level of transparency. And I found, especially among young people in Addis, for example, this real enthusiasm that this did represent a change for them and their political experience. So it was just very depressing to see so soon after that. This situation really descend from one way now. And like you said, it is such a forgotten situation. I'm not hearing anything on the news and the prominent areas of the media here.

There are lots of human rights activists who are trying to draw attention, especially to the plight of women. Intigre, as you mentioned, the endemic sexual violence that we're hearing reported. And the humanitarian agencies, as usual, making pleas that often seem to fall on deaf ears for more assistance. I would really like to see African leaders intervening in a much more powerful way in this conflict, holding Ahmed to account. I don't hear that. I'm seeing a kind of, and this is a really important moment as well, because we have had this real up and down over the last decade, 15 years, in terms of the willingness of African leaders to, as they often describe it, interfere with the sovereignty of another nation.

I would call it holding your neighbours and your friends to account, which is what all good friends do. And it's not a comfortable, well-established pattern yet that we see other leaders playing this role in really trying to create that accountability and problem-solving in Ethiopia. So I'm frustrated with the reaction in Europe and America, but I'm more frustrated with the reaction on the African continent. And I would like to see a much more powerful intervention taking place because at the moment, it doesn't feel like there's any end in sight of the situation. and it's deteriorating. And now there are indications that this will lead to a famine if an intervention is not staged. So it couldn't be more serious. Yeah, no, I think you're right.

And I think in this case, part of what can happen is the U.S. and other aid donors can really focus on this humanitarian access issue of just trying to save lives. And you would hope that the African Union and other neighboring states can play a particularly assertive role in addressing some of the political circumstances, but it's something to watch. I mean, African Union and assertive role is unfortunately a bit of an oxymoron. And, you know, this is where, I mean, you mentioned that the way that I've been critical of the kind of media narrative about the African continent, this is where it becomes relevant because when you have a media narrative that really only kind of places African countries in this context of humanitarian

disaster and in Ethiopia's case, especially famine, it's almost like a crying wolf scenario where people then have this kind of fatalism in their attitudes towards it. And when you do have a genuinely serious humanitarian situation and a famine approaching a country like Ethiopia, I think a lot of people feel like, oh, well, that's what always happens there anyway. That's inevitable. That's what Ethiopia is.

Whereas if people appreciated that this was a country that had really been making strides towards economic growth, democracy, opening society, I think it would be easier to communicate how serious the divergence away from those standards is that we're seeing right now. And so, you know, these two things are really linked. It's difficult to communicate the seriousness of a situation like this if it seems inevitable to most people.

Well, you know, one place where I know you spent a lot of time, West Africa, you know, ECOWAS, the economic community of West African states, actually did play a constructive role at times on these issues. I remember in the Obama years, there was a very uncertain situation after an election in Cote d'Ivoire. and when Bogbo, the outgoing president basically tried to hold on to power, and Echowos stepped up and kind of didn't accept the result and there was a transition. They're now faced with a second coup in Mali. We've briefly talked about this on the podcast, but not with someone with your depth of expertise and experience. You know, two coups in nine months, both led by this colonel Assimi Guaita. after the army detained both the transitional president and prime minister. He was named interim president by the constitutional court.

In response to the coup, ECOWAS held an emergency meeting and suspended Molly's membership in the group, and this is kind of the preeminent group of West African states, they didn't call for him to step down or impose sanctions, but they'd called for a new civilian prime minister to be nominated immediately. So trying to at least steer this, I think, in a better direction. Look, Afa, it's hard for those of us looking at this from the outside to kind of understand how you could get to a place where you have two coups in nine months. The question, I guess, for you is, you know, why is this happening?

Why is this coup different than what happened nine months ago? What can ECOWAS in other countries be doing? What would you like to see happen for the people of Mali here? I think the key thing for people to understand about Mali is that this is, is a problem that was created by the international community. This all stems to the fall of Gaddafi, the invasion of Libya by NATO, by America and the UK especially, and the chaos that unleashed, which really saw

this flood of insurgents and arms crossing through the Sahara from North Africa into West Africa, into countries like Mali. And that was the beginning of armed uprisings in Mali, which ultimately, led to the end of more than 20 years of peaceful democratic rule. Because for most of my life, Mali was one of the beacons of democracy and peace in West Africa. It was a stable country. It had peaceful transitions of power. It had fair and free elections.

It was relatively poor, but it was experiencing long-term upward growth, you know, if too slow. But that was really masking some deep structural problems. Mali is a country which, much of which is in the Sahara desert. And it has these huge, ungoverned spaces where it's sparsely populated and there really is no government, there are no government services. There are no schools, roads, hospitals. It's very sparse. There are lots of nomadic communities, especially the Tuareg. And those spaces became havens for terrorist groups, for drug traffickers moving through West Africa, into North Africa and into Europe. And that ultimately led to the toppling of that many years of democratic government. So since then, and that coup, which toppled

the government in 2012, it's just been that classic revolving door of coups, instability, military agitation. And it's devastating to see because it's undone decades of growth and progress in Mali. And it's also a threat to the whole region. And that's why, as you said, we've seen ECOWAS attempting to impose sanctions, attempting to mediate. We've got the former Nigerian president, Good Luck, Jonathan, currently trying to broker a deal in Mali. But it's extremely chaotic. And you know, you said it's hard for people who don't know much about Mali to follow.

It's hard for people who do know a lot about Mali to follow because, you know, two coups in nine months is not normal, even for a country experiencing instability. And I think that in Europe particularly, it's shocking to me how little attention is paid to this. You know, Northern Mali is within striking distance of Southern Europe. You have Al-Qaeda in the Islam. Mugreb, many other groups linked to ISIS and Al Qaeda operating in Mali, who are able to train,

recruit, arm, who are able to largely unchecked, continue to build power and bases there. So it's very serious. It's serious for the rest of the world. It's serious for Mali, and it's certainly serious for the stability and peace of West Africa. Mali is a landlocked nation for all the nations that share a border with Mali. The instability that's ongoing there really poses the threat. to them too. So I think that there needs to be a more serious attempt at reform. And, you know, I don't see how it is viable for the military to have an expectation that they should be represented

in politics. And that's what's led to this current coup that the military didn't achieve the cabinet positions they wanted. And that's what led them to overthrow the latest prime minister and president. But I think what needs to happen in Mali is a real radical reframing of how Mali is going to be run and that there cannot be military leadership in a successful civilian government. That hasn't worked in Mali before. It hasn't worked anywhere else in West Africa. It's not going to work in Mali. And I think we need a more concerted and organized intervention led by ECHOAS and West African states, but also showing interest from the international community, which at the moment is really sorely lacking. Yeah. Well, I'm glad, I mean, you make a good point

that people like me need to internalize about Libya, which is you can start a military intervention with certain intentions in that case, you know, to deal with Gaddafi's potential atrocities. But, you know, there's always unintended consequences that they always tend to be worse than you think. And the front of the question about Mali was just the sense that nobody really thought that through, that nobody really calculated. And it, I mean, it's easy to say with hindsight, but it does seem foreseeable that if you unleash all of these groups in that massive ungoverned space, they will take advantage of weak systems like the one in Mali. And it's exactly what happened. Yeah, no, and absolutely. And people like me need to learn from that.

I did want to ask you for the French, you know, because they also had a military intervention down there where obviously they were once with a colonial power. Is there any role for them to play, or does that just complicate things? France has been playing a role and it still has quite a heavy troop presence in Mali. It hasn't been very effective. So I don't know how, and it's difficult for France because there is so, the francophone West African countries, as I know you've also experienced, have a really complicated relationship with France. They're actually quite dependent on French military assistance, on French infrastructure, investment.

France still owns a lot of the utilities in its former African colonies. It always has a heavy military presence, even when there is no conflict. And that's really the source of a lot of resentment and grievance in those countries. So it's not an obvious, it's not easily placed to broker pre-examination. and solve problems. And that's why I think it is important that ECOWAS, the regional body, does lead this. But ECOWAS, I think people like me have a lot of goodwill towards ECOWAS. We'd like to see COAS really become more influential, more integrated.

For example, there's been talk of a pan-EchoS currency that would unify the currencies across West Africa that would increase the kind of capacity to trade within the region among each other, and not just constantly export things to former colonial powers. That's just happening far too slowly and without the kind of effectiveness that we'd like to see. So I would love to be in a position to say, we don't need France in this conflict because Echo As has got this, but that's not where we are. There was a brief American intervention in the conflict in Mali back in 2012, but that was pretty short-lived. So it feels like even though it actually has knock on strategic implications for Europe, this has really fallen off the radar of the kind of mainstream political interest. in the rest of the world. And I think that my fear is that it would take a serious security

breach for it to be taken seriously. And then that would be too late. Yeah. Well, moving to a different colonial circumstance, it's a pretty interesting story last week. Germany officially acknowledged perpetrating a genocide in what is now in Namibia was once a German colony called German Southwest Africa. From 1904 to 1908, German military forces killed. approximately 80,000 members of two ethnic groups after members of both groups had rebelled against the colonial forces. German forces also imprisoned thousands in concentration camps, committed mass sexual abuse, forced labor. Some people think that it led to some of the kind of race theory that informed the Holocaust. So this was a terrible episode in history that didn't get

a lot of attention. The German and Namibian governments have been negotiating since 2015 over how Germany should address the genocide. As part of the German acknowledgement last week, they agreed to provide over a billion dollars in development aid to Namibia over 30 years. However, descendants of many of the victims of the genocide rejected the German government's offer. They want direct reparations, not just development aid accompanied by this acknowledgement, and kind of called this a bit of a cover-up for continued German funding of just Namibian government projects. It doesn't, you know, equal reparations, doesn't truly make amends. What do you make of all this? Why is Germany taking this path of development

aid versus reparations? What do you think the Namibian government can do to kind of bridge this gap between the affected communities and Germany itself? I think that it's to say something positive. I'm happy to see Germany beginning to scratch the surface of its colonial track record. because, you know, somebody like me who deals a lot with the historical narratives and the ways in which countries do or do not face up to wrongdoings in their past, Germany's always held up as the high watermark in confronting the most horrific part of its history, you know, as a, and we all know that was by force, you know, Germany lost the Second World War. It had to. It wasn't given the choice. The Allies demanded, for example, the eradication of Nazi monuments, the introduction of an education system that would kind of denazify. future generations of Germans. But as a result, to Germany's credit, it really went above and beyond in this kind of soul searching as to how it was able to not just be complicit in, but perpetrate actively the horrors of the Holocaust. What was always, though, such a glaring absence from this project was any attempts to really look at its colonial period before

the Second World War, especially. And many survivors of the Namibian genocide have long been calling for just the most basic acknowledgement, let alone reparations. So I think this represents an important step for Germany and actually looking towards Africa. Many Germans don't even realize that Germany had colonies in Africa. Many people don't know that the first shot of the First World War was fired in, well, what's now Ghana, but was then German Togo land. You know, Germany and its African colonies are a huge part of its story in the 20th century. And the genocide in Namibia was the first genocide of the 20th century. And actually, it's complicated because Germany was inspired by Britain's concentration camps in the Boa War, which happened about a decade before that. And Britain

pioneered this kind of technique of concentration camps, which were then kind of built upon by Germany and Namibia and then were further built upon during the Holocaust. So these histories are all interlinked. And Germany does seem to be on this project of acknowledgement. It also recently decided to repatriate some of its Benin bronzes that were stolen during Britain's colonial war in what was then the ancient kingdom of Benin, now Nigeria. And I think that leaves other European nations who haven't done this work of acknowledging their colonial crimes more exposed. But as you said, Ben, this one billion, I think is it, one billion dollars over 30 years has rightly drawn a lot of criticism. And I think it's an example of how, and this is really relevant to so many other countries,

Tulsa in the US and the conversation that's ongoing about reparations for what happened there, for reparations for slavery in the Caribbean, all these movements that are seeking reparations. What this shows us is that you can't do this from the top down. You know, the deal that was done between the Namibian government and the German government has not carried the affected communities with it. They don't feel consulted. They, don't feel this is a deal that is actually designed to create some form of redress for them and their needs. And it's partly just not feeling like they have been consulted. You know, they may have ended up agreeing to something that looks like this, but they weren't part of the

process. They weren't sufficiently part of the process. And that's why I think we're seeing a lot of a lot of cynicism, a lot of rejection towards this. And also there's the fact that, you know, one billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it's development money over third. years. And it's not, when you break it down over the period of time and the number of people affected, I mean, for the Harira ethnic group, 80% of that ethnic group are believed to have been killed by Germany during this period. It's incredibly all genocide is serious, but it's left a very extreme legacy for the community is affected. So many people feel like it's not enough. And at the very least, they feel like they haven't been consulted. So it's good that Germany is

making gestures towards, one, acknowledging and two, paying reparations for its colonial past, but it doesn't really go deep enough and it hasn't been done the right way. Well, step in the right direction, but further to go. I just wanted to, as we get near the end here, there are a couple China things, and I mainly wouldn't ask you about Hong Kong, but at first I think it's worth noting the Chinese government made this announcement that they are going to allow married couples to have up to three children now. That's up from a two-child limit from 2016. Obviously, famously, there was a one-child policy implemented in 1980 to curb population growth. This speaks to some concerns in China of declining

growth rates and an aging population. And this is something to watch as the population gets older. It's also not necessarily the case that everybody's going to start having through children, as you have households where both people are working. But it does speak to this evolution of China to a different place and frankly some concerns within China of the problems that may emerge from having a population weighted to the older demographic. And then I also wanted to note in Hong Kong, you know, something we followed closely, it's not been a good week there. Last week, the Hong Kong court sentenced media tycoon Jimmy Lai to an additional 14 months in prison over his participation in protest. Jimmy Lai was kind of the last bastion of some independent media that was critical

the government. They sent several other activists for participation in protests in 2019. They denied permission for activists to hold a vigil commemorating the Tiananmen Square anniversary, which usually happens. Despite this, Alexander Wong, a 65-year-old activist known as Grandma Wong, went out to protest alone on Sunday. She was subsequently arrested. And Hong Kong's legislature passed an electoral reform law that empowers an election committee to vet potential candidates for non-patriotic behavior, effectively allowing them to screen out anyone deemed too critical of the mainland Chinese government. So the trend lines are not good here. And we talk a lot about China, but we don't get perspectives. You know, Americans tend to view this in our kind of Cold War-type

perspective. But I was curious what the perspective on all this is from Britain, and particularly on this Hong Kong issue, one thing I've always wondered about, you know, this was a colony, British sovereignty until 1997. Watching this, is there a sense there that there's some unique responsibility or connection that people in the UK feel for what's happening in Hong Kong? Obviously, Britain negotiated the one country, two systems agreement that was supposed to prevent this by having 50 years in which Hong Kong had a separate system from China. How do you all see this situation in Hong Kong from that perspective?

There's definitely an intense sense of connection to Hong Kong here. And, you know, I think that if Britain's on this long-term trajectory in which it's lost its empire, which was such an important part of its identity as this huge power in the world, you know, so proud of ruling one quarter of the world's population, I think that Hong Kong was really the last end of empire, you know, the Britain still has overseas territories and like geographic anomalies, but the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 was kind of a really symbolic moment for this era of the end of empire. And obviously, as you said, it was negotiated from 1984

on this basis of those in Hong Kong having greater freedoms. And that hasn't happened. And it's interesting to me how Britain has been trying to kind of conduct this cognitive dissonance where it still feels connected to Hong Kong, but it's not taking any responsibility for the complete failure of that project. So Britain's response mainly seems to be

to encourage wealthy, Hong Kongans to come to Britain. So the government has created this new visa category that fast-track people from Hong Kong moving to the UK. Official estimates say that between 300,000 and a million people from Hong Kong will move to the UK. Britain, despite its incredibly nationalistic anti-immigration rhetoric, is very happy to make an exception for these people, because they're estimated to bring about $75 billion with them, which again just points to the complete hypocrisy of British policy on immigration. But, you know, that is not just, because these are on the whole wealthy immigrants.

It's also because Britain has this relationship with Hong Kong. And I think it speaks to the complexity of empire. You know, people let me often talk about the British Empire as a negative history in the sense that it was responsible for a huge amount of wrongdoing. But it wasn't really an empire. It was many empires. And Hong Kong is quite an outlier because many of the people of Hong Kong wanted to remain part of the British Empire

because it guaranteed them these freedoms that they've now lost. And I suppose for Hong Kong it wasn't really about, being decolonized. It was about switching from British imperialism to Chinese imperialism. Yes. The form of being the more attractive version. And that, that, you know, that fear seems to be justified by everything that's happening. So again, Britain, you know, failing to take any kind of high moral ground on the world stage by by speaking unequivocally to condemn or do anything meaningful against what's happening, but, but willing to bring people with money from Hong Kong to the UK. And, you know, I'm, it's difficult to be proud, really, of that particular foreign policy stance.

Yeah, I mean, you mentioned, you know, we talked about my book earlier. I was struck by some of these young Hong Kongers who described, you know, being passed from British sovereignty to Chinese. And in this window of time they've had trying to forge a Hong Kong identity. And the protest movement became the identity. And someone said to me literally, like they felt like they were creating a Hong Kong identity in the streets before it was kind of. snuffed out, obviously, by some of the recent actions of Chinese government said the tragedy of these

people having just this brief window of time to kind of be themselves. And some of these Hong Kongers that I talked in the book, I've kept in touch with. They're now in the UK, you know, because they could go there and they didn't feel a future there. Yeah. And it's hard to see how that will, in the long term, improve the situation in Hong Kong. And just like one anomaly to say about Britain's stance is actually a lot of conservative backbenchers. So from Boris Johnson's own party, who've been the the loudest opponents of Britain's stance on Hong Kong. And it's so complicated because I think that's inspired in part by their nostalgia for a time in which Britain owned Hong Kong and could arrange Hong Kong affairs as it liked. So it's coming from a slightly dubious place, but the

truth is that they have been the most consistent voice calling for firmer action and at least rhetoric against China in Hong Kong. So it's interesting to see that actually coming from the right in this instance and this constant calling out of human rights violations. democratic crackdowns in in Hong Kong. So it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out. But it is a sad day, a sad week for Hong Kong with the detention of Jimmy Lai. And it's, it's kind of hard to be optimistic about how that's going to pan out. Yeah. I mean, a lot of these Hong Kongers basically told me that they're going abroad and kind of waiting for things to change. And if that takes 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, so be it. But the last thing I

wanted to ask you about, just because this is dominating headlines. And it truly is an international story. You have Naomi Asaka, who I love watching her play. You know, plays for Japan obviously got a background that is part American as well. The most prominent black tennis player after Serena Williams won four majors. And, you know, said before the French Open that she didn't want to do press, citing her need to protect her mental health. She was fined, you know, she was going to be punished for this, kind of ordered to do these press conferences after each event. And then put out a statement saying that she's just not going to participate in the French Open now,

that the best thing for the tournament and above all for herself and her mental well-being was to take some time away from the court. So the world is going to be deprived seeing arguably the best tennis player in the world from being on the biggest stage at the French Open. I'm curious what your reaction to this was as a journalist, right, albeit not a tennis journalist, but also someone who's kind of written about some of these issues of people in public spaces trying to figure out who they are, particularly people who come from black backgrounds,

you know, where there are certain expectations placed on them with no sensitivity to the unique challenges they're facing. I mean, how did you respond to this drama that played out? I mean, I think, as you point out, it's a huge own goal for tennis because the net result is that tennis fans lose the opportunity to see, as you said, maybe the best player in the world play right now. I'm actually speaking to you from Wimbledon, which is where I grew up, which is obviously a tennis heartland.

And because I grew up a black girl in Wimbledon, I've been very sensitive to the complete failures of tennis to create a safe space for black players to come through. You know, I remember when Venus and Serena Williams appeared on the scene, which was life changing for me, because tennis was always just an exclusively white sport, especially in Wimbledon. You know, it's lawn tennis, it's strawberries and cream. It's like all of these ideas about nostalgic old Englishness combined with PIMS Cup, you know. Pim's Cup, you know, politely queuing and the queen in the royal box. It's very kind of upper-class, genteel, nostalgic English sport in which the world came, but there were no black players. So it was able to kind of perpetuate that idea.

And Venus and Serena came on as the most remarkable athletes possibly ever and were met with this incredible hostility, you know, that they were. kind of massacring this dignified, genteel game with their power and it was so threatening and scary. And it was just incredible dog whistle racism, like all the euphemisms for this fear of the black body and black women. And so I've, you know, and because that kind of echoed what it was like just being a regular black girl in Wimbledon. And I really cannot touch any of them in tennis. But just living in this space, you feel those narratives and those perspectives harming you as a young black girl. So I'm just so empathetic to what she's going through. And I think it also speaks to the

wider question of mental health and sport and the completely unrealistic expectations we place on sports people. For example, you know, if she was a team player, she was part of a football or basketball team, she would never be expected to place herself under that press scrutiny in the way that a tennis player does. And when you actually think about it, it's such a huge ask for a young woman who is undergoing a nerve-wracking tournament on which her career depends to sit in front of the press and answer these questions.

It would be terrifying for anyone. And I think the idea that in order to be a world-class tennis player, you need to be comfortable with that. You need to be equipped to deal with that. I think that needs radically questioning. And I say this as a journalist, I think for journalists,

this has actually been a moment of actually some introspection. You know, we see ourselves as the good guys. In this case, we are the ones placing people like Naomi under this, I think, really unfair scrutiny. And this is an era where I think we can question all these things. In Britain, we've got Prince Harry opening up about his mental health, which was unprecedented for a senior royal in that position to be open and candid about that subject. So I think this has got to be a time where we start to fundamentally re-question

the way, the behaviours we expect and demand from sports people. And it's got to change. You can't be penalize for not feeling like facing that incredibly intimidating and sometimes hostile space when you're under the greatest strain professionally that you can be under. It just doesn't make sense. Yeah, no, you're right. And as an American, I mean, it just makes me look back and realize, I mean, we've had this privilege of seeing Serena Williams, who's the greatest tennis player ever, was not treated that way. A lot of these same dynamics, you know, were playing in her career here in the United States. And so it is a time to support what Naomi Osaka is doing. And I think also to question these things. Well, look, we covered a ton of ground. I'm so grateful to you.

Is there anything you're doing that we should keep an eye out for other than just, you know, your voice, wherever it pops up, the Guardian and other places? I'm writing some scripted projects at the moment. I can't tell you exactly what they are now. But you could see my hand in a drama near you sometimes. Oh, good. I hope I'll come back and keep you posted on that as things. develop. Yeah, come to L.A. There's a lot of scripted projects here in L.A. I know. Thank you. All right. Thanks so much, Afa. Thanks so much, Ben. And when we come back, my interview with Gerge Kerachon, the mayor of Budapest. I'm now very pleased to be joined by the mayor of Budapest, Gerge Kerachon, who will talk to us about his run for the Prime

Minister of Hungary and how he plans to take on Victor Orban. Gergi, very, very, very grateful that you joined us here today. So to begin, I have a book actually that's just out in which I write about the Hungarian opposition and the government of Victor Orban. I profile some oppositionists including Catalan Che from Momentum, who explained to me this strategy of the opposition parties coming together to put forward one candidate to run against Prime Minister Orban in next year's election and join candidates in each of the electoral districts to run against Orban's Fides party. My question is, why is the opposition uniting like this now? And could you describe for our listeners what parties make up the opposition and how you

manage to overcome whatever ideological differences you have to pursue this strategy? When Victor Orban was elected in 2010, he gained a majority and he referred to his political rule by creating. a central power structure of central power policy. And that he referred to by the fact that with a relative majority, he was able to get this super majority by the fact that the opposition was very divided between being extreme right, right and left wing. And he also said that the opposition would not be able to cooperate. And this is how the Fides was able with this relatively low level of, let's say, support still from a society, be able to gain the power that they have.

Back then when the election legislation was modified, actually back in 2011, I was an MP. And as member of parliament, with some of my fellow parliamentary members, we chained ourselves to the doorstep, to the entrance of the National Assembly building, by a way of expressing how much we are against this type of anti-democratic way of election legislation. And this electoral or political system will always favor Fides' power, until the opposition is divided. It is very similar to the British electoral situation. The question naturally arises that if the opposition can only overcome the Fides by joining forces,

why didn't it happen earlier? And the question is very much justified. And actually you have to understand that the political party, in Hungary come from very different background. They have very different routes and follow different ideologies. And this is the reason why several years had to pass so that we could come and form a shared common platform. Back in 2011, when this legislation was adopted,

I was the first public figure to put forward the forecast that actually the Fides can only be overcome if the opposition joins forces. Back then, it received rejection. It was not a popular notion, but over 10 years have passed, and then everyone acknowledged that this is the way forward. But for you to be able to understand why that process took so long, actually this coalition comes with a very background, namely it has among its members a former prime minister, Ferenz, Jurchang, against whom there were street protests on the street and atrocities and street violence broke out,

as well as the Yobbik party, the extreme right-wing party, which can be traced back. Its formation can be traced back to the very events in 2006 when there were riots on the streets of Budapest. And I have spoken. And I have spoken to Jobbik politicians, one of whom told me that back in 2006, he was taking the cobblestones from the street and throwing it at the police, and now he's sitting in the parliament representing Jobbik there on power. You also have to understand the most important aspect that the Jobbik today is not the back then. It used to be a very extreme right party with anti-Roma sentiment as well as

anti-Semitic voices, and they have separated from this type of policy, and they have become a democratic political party in the sense that their members or their members who used to be claiming these racist and anti-Roma sentiments are no longer party. members. And one last idea, just to conclude this answer, basically it's one thing that the political parties have come closer to one another, but this unity of the opposition is also down to the voters themselves. In 2018, when the Fides won general election with a relative minority, but because of the legislation, the electoral vote and the election law, they gained a two-third majority again. There were street protests. So these street protests basically prompted

the opposition to become united and to take a common stance. And this is how I was able at the next years in 2019, municipal elections to become and win the position of being the mayor of Budapest. So we've talked on this show about Orban's efforts to change voting laws, redraw parliamentary districts, the fact that the media has been largely turned into a mouthpiece for Fides, the intimidation of civil society and political opponents. Given those, advantages, how were you able to win that election in 2019 for Mayor of Budapest against Fides? What worked for you in that campaign? And how has Fidesz tried to make it harder for you to govern as Mayor of Budapest? Because my understanding is they've taken some steps to try to limit your power

in part because you're a popular figure who could be a strong opponent to Orban himself. Well, an idea that I think I should share is that in 2019, the opposition could win, not just because the opposition came together, but also by the fact that there was a joint candidate in my person, namely that I became a candidate as a result of a pre-election process and screening. So the opposition sat one candidate as such. And that became a difference in the sense that it was no longer about political parties. It was the common and shared cause of the voters themselves. I believe it is really important that it has become a social political fight,

whereby it was not against the opposition parties and the party on power, but the people who were oppressed by the regime against the power that is currently on, that is the party that is currently on power. The municipal elections back in 2019 resulted in the winning not only of the city of Budapest, but several cities in the countryside. And I believe it meant a new challenge

for Orban and his system. And actually, they did not even know how to react at first, but then with the pandemic, the COVID pandemic, as it hit, actually that resulted in a stance against the municipalities, that the municipalities, so to say, should be punished. As far as we know, there were two possible strategies that the government could have conducted. One is that even without,

the capital city of Budapest and larger countryside cities, still the FEDA's could have maintained their power and they did not have to or would not have to wage a war against the opposition. That was one strategy. And the other one was that the municipalities, the so-called local governments by their daily communication and daily activities, really meant such a political alternative that it would be important to make their operation impossible. And that way they would be making it unable to compare the activities of the municipalities, the local elections, and that of the central government. It was the pandemic itself that really revealed economic issues and financial problems.

And it was based on or following the pandemic. when the government decided, the FIDA's government decided, to pursue the second route, namely that their failure in handling the coronavirus crisis, they somehow had to stand up. And even with objective measures, you could definitely say that the coronavirus pandemic handling was a crisis because per population, the death rate of COVID victims is the highest. in Hungary globally. So basically it was a type of a crisis management solution of Fides to decide to withdraw money from the local municipalities and from Budapest. They had withdrawn tremendous

amount of money. So now that you're beginning this national campaign, you've talked about uniting the opposition and interesting talking about creating a social and political movement. What is your strategy for winning? What is the message that you will use to run against Fides? How do you counter Orban's kind of nationalist message about his vision of Hungary and build a coalition that can finally dislodge him from power after 12 years? Well, the type of political power that is exercised by Orban is very similar to those, let's say, we have seen by Trump or even in Turkey, namely that they seek polarization. What I mean by that is that they have a number one leader in the forefront who might be even divisive, who might have lots of opposition. still, nevertheless, they use this one person to promote their opinion and then to divide and to polarize society.

The opposition has two strategies at hand that we can opt from. One would be a so-called non-FIDES strategy. This non-FIDA strategy means that we don't have to put forward a shared, a common future. The only thing we have to emphasize is that we have to emphasize is that we have. have one common enemy whom we have to topple. We have to topple the Fidesz government. And that's a negative type of an identity. This strategy has many proponents within Hungarian politics. I'm not one of those. I believe we have to pursue a different type of policy.

I believe in a different type of strategy, namely the one also applied by the current incumbent American President Biden, as well as the strategy that was used at the municipal elections in Istanbul. And actually the election of the mayor back in Turkey then really determined my political stance and my presence during the election campaign. When it comes to the Turkish mayor of Istanbul,

He was successful because they sought actually a future. They did not identify themselves against the enemy, but they would be answering, and myself follow this policy. I would be answering everyday problems, and I want to unite the people. I'm not about confrontation, even the confrontation of policy. Basically, what I think Hungary needs as the main message is that we are to unite, even above the...

political affiliations. Division is to be overcome and we are to seek consensus. And my candidacy is very much based on a social movement, the so-called 99% movement. What I mean by that is that our communication is not based on being against FEDAS or not being for let's say one specific political party, it is all for representing the 99% against the very limited elite. So we represent everyone. We represent Fides voters, those who are not decided at this point yet. Everyone comes under the 99%. That's the main message. So one more question. And internationally, Orban has not been shy about becoming closer to Vladimir Putin and Russia,

seeking close relations with China, which is building an enormous university in Budapest. At the same time, some of us have been disappointed that the European Union hasn't been more outspoken in using some of its own leverage on Viktor Orban as he's. moved away from democratic ideals. The United States under Trump, obviously, was embracing, Orban. What would you like to see Hungary's allies in the U.S. and Europe do to support democracy in Hungary? And how would you try to change Hungary's foreign policies if you were elected Prime Minister? When it comes to the democratic processes of Hungary, I believe that believe it is best to be trusted to the Hungarians, the waters themselves. Actually, when it comes

to support, this is an issue that is rather delicate, because the Hungarian people are actually a very proud people who do not like to have interference into their business. So what I would see is that even any presumption or the image of any intervention, would be very much not appreciated by Hungarians. When it comes to the EU, yes, indeed, the EU was not able to react against Orban's regime. And actually, it was the EU funds, the EU resources that really solidified the rule and the power of Orban in Hungary. So nevertheless, I would still say that it would. not be a viable option to withdraw funds or withdraw Hungarian resources from the EU,

because that would only further strengthen Orban's internal political power, in my opinion. And with regard to my foreign policy, I want to make it very clear that Hungary needs to return to the European and the Euro-Atlantic allies. Of course, pragmatically speaking, we have to strengthen and we have to cooperate with China and Russia, but not at the expense of our friends and allies, namely the European Union and NATO as such. So that is a clear political statement. That's where we belong to the transatlantic allies. And whenever it comes to any other cooperation, this is the primary focus of mine.

Well, look, we really appreciate this chance to hear from you. You have, you're speaking to a big audience across, you know, Europe and the United States that, that wishes you well. And I personally was incredibly impressed by the Hungarian activist and opposition figures that I met in the course of writing my book. And I'm very pleased to see someone like you being so thoughtful. and unifying in how you are approaching your candidacy. So good luck. I know you will need all the support and solidarity you can get, but we'll definitely be watching with interest over the next year. Thank you very much for the invitation. And as a closing remark, allow me to say that it is a great honor that you are following the history of our small nation

and the political events here. And whenever it comes to democracy, you always see that democracy becomes stronger over the crises. From one crisis to another, it is becoming stronger and stronger. And actually, my wish is that there would be an even stronger democracy coming out of that previous, let's say, history when it comes to the United States. And that's what I wish for my nation, for Hungary as well. We wish to and we hope Hungary sets a powerful example for democracy in the world through your candidacy. Well, this is what I'm planning for my next 10 months to be about.

Thank you very much for your interest. And thank you once again for being featured on POT Save the World. Great. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thanks to Gerge to our extraordinary interpreter, Gabriella Nagy, who allowed you to experience that conversation. And of course, many, many thanks to superstar Alpha Hirsch for joining us as a co-st day. Thanks so much, everybody, for joining. Please pick up the book if you can and talk to you next week.

Pod Save the World is a crooked media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seiglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Yale Freed, and Phoebe Bradford, who film and share our episodes as videos each week.