♪ >> welcome to "amanpour" on pbs. tonight, president trump cancel his nuclear summit with north korea, blaming the regime's anger and open hostility for that decision. so can diplomacy be revived or are we back on the road to confrontation? from washington, i'm joined by joseph yun, who is trump's special representative for north korean policy, and curt campbell, who served as u.s. senior diplomat dealing with asia for president obama. plus, my conversation with the oscar winning actress glenda jackson about his stellar return to broadway and why at age 82 she's not ready to hang up her acting shoes yet. ♪

♪ good evening, everyone. welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in london. the much-anticipated trump/kim jong-un summit is no longer happening. the u.s. president cancelled the meeting, delivering the news in a letter to the north korean leader. he then spoke about it at the white house. >> i believe that this is a tremendous setback for north korea and, indeed, a setback for the world. i've spoken to general mattis and the joint chiefs of staff and our military, which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world, and has been greatly enhanced recently as you all know. it is ready if necessary. likewise, i have spoken to south korea and japan, and they are

not only ready should foolish or reckless acts be taken by north korea, but they are willing to shoulder much of the cost of any financial burden, any of the costs associated by the united states in operations if such an unfortunate situation is forced upon us. >> so here now to discuss are curt campbell. he served under obama as u.s. assistant secretary of state for pacific affairs, and he's the man behind america's so-called pivot to asia. joseph yun, who recently stepped down as u.s. special representative for north korean policy. gentlemen, both welcome to the program. can i just turn to you first, joseph. we were talking just a couple of days ago when the south korean president was in town. do you assign any blame? who do you think is responsible

for this, if anyone? >> first of all, thank you, christiane. this is very, very disappointing, and you and i talked about it and we talked about what could go wrong. you mentioned putting cart before the horse, and that's what happened. the summit, the two leaders agreed to meet, and, you know, you talk about blame. i think it is their staff that were very much holding them back. in this case, you saw john bolton as well as vice president pence. i imagine there is a similar dynamic going on in north korea where north korean officials, especially the military, might be holding back kim jong-un. so they're telling their boss, hey, boss, don't go to singapore, you might end up looking like a chump. probably a lot more politely than i just did just now, but i

think it is the fear that, you know, no summit is better than a bad summit. that's certainly holding back president trump mightily, and i think that's similar in pyongyang right now. >> quickly before i pivot to curt campbell, is it about issues? is it about not being close in the end or not having hammered out where the red lines are, where the give and take is, the concept of denuclearization or is it the bolton/libyan, pence/libya model they hurled around over the last few weeks? >> it is completely about issues, and we are so far apart on the basic issue of denuclearization. you know, this is what happens. if you go immediately to the summit without all of the presteps. i mean the presteps can range from something as insignificant as the shape of the table, but

very significant to agenda, to outcome. what do we say in an agreement? so none of that has been done. so, you know, you have on the one hand president trump looking for a historic victory and something that's going to get him the big win he is looking for, and then you have kim jong-un who is looking for international respect, legitimacy. so that was driving them, and so their staff, those under them, were not with them. but the basic issue is differences are over denuclearization. >> so, curt campbell, i mean, you know, it was a very different attitude under the obama administration. you know, it's been criticized for not pressing more for talks, et cetera, the whole strategic patience thing. what do you think is the next step here now? what does china do?

president trump said he had talked to japan and south korea, but apparently maybe not to china. what happens now in the region? >> so two things. first, just on the previous thing very quickly, christiane, i think what you're seeing here is the contrast, the dichotomy between a president that wants the spectacle, a remarkable diplomatic achievement but is uncomfortable with the details of diplomacy. anyone who has worked in asia understands, like anywhere else, that diplomacy requires persist answer, patience and a plan. i think as ambassador yun indicated, we demonstrated we didn't have any of those in this first round. but, fill, i still i'm optimist. i think it is the opening gambit. i think more staff work. i think the president will realize it is hard to go back to the barricades and put pressure on north korea in the way that we saw earlier in the year.

i think what it really does is it puts china in the driver's seat. i think china understands that their role over the course of the next couple of months will be to cajole and engage the trump administration, explain why only president trump can achieve this development, to understand it will take time with the north koreans, and then they will subtly press north korea behind the scenes. so the key that we have to remember, ultimately this is about north korea, yes, but it is also about the geo strategy, sort of the ultimate distribution of power in -- >> well, to that end, to that end, curt, you heard president trump basically turn and blame china the last few days when it looked like the whole thing was going off kilter and off track and essentially said that, hey, you know, ever since kim jong-un made his trip to china, kim jong-un's tone has changed and he's kind of blaming china. do you think there's anything to

that? >> probably in the short term, but i do believe his desire to have a good relationship with president xi and also the chinese ability to engage and maneuver should not be underestimated. my own view would be that the chinese are going to weigh in quickly about their strong desire to resurrect the diplomacy. you know, i think even though the president tries to conceal it, it is clear to me that he desperately wants this diplomacy. i think anyone who watches it carefully sees the same thing. >> i think you're absolutely right. i think the president's body language today was incredibly indicative of that. he looked very somber and disappointed, and even his letter to kim jong-un was indicative of that. before i get to some of the veiled threats, or not-so-veiled threats about military action, i want to ask you again, ambassador yun, we talked about what china has at stake, but what about south korea? again you told me that the president, moon jae-in, bet the farm on this diplomacy, and now

he's back in seoul facing -- facing what? what is going to happen to him? >> i think that there is tremendous cost for president moon. he has regional elections, quite important ones, coming up in june 13th. so we will see whether he has to pay any electoral cost. but beyond the electoral cost, there is the issue of his own credibility, that he has really, as we talked about, bet enormous amount on the successful outcome of this summit. so i completely agree with curt, dr. campbell, china will now lead a new initiative, but south korea has to be in that mix. and i would have to believe that he is going to try, president moon, his own method of trying to cajole north korea into

saving something. so i think we're going to see another round of active diplomacy from our south korean as well as chinese, and let us not forget japanese colleagues. >> okay. so, you know, i was struck by the immediate reference in both the letter and the statement to the military. in the statement -- in the letter, president trump says, we still have more nuclear weapons than you and a much bigger arsenal, god forbid we have to use them. in the verbal statement at the white house he immediately said, i've been talking to secretary mattis. our military is ready and prepared. the allies in the region are prepared to, you know, help us in whichever way possible. are we going to see president trump and his hard liners -- you talk about staff -- his hard liners ramp up the military option again? >> personally i don't think so. i think they're going to realize it is very difficult. i think this is the language

equivalent of elevator shoes. you want to feel a little taller when you walk into the room. i think it is aimed more at making sure everyone understands that the president is tough and hard and unrelenting. i think now that that point has been made, i think privately i agree with ambassador yun. i think we will subtly and carefully go back to diplomacy, and i think the president, his feelings are hurt, he feels disappointed, but welcome to diplomacy 101. >> yes. sorry, go ahead. >> and i think what's different this time around, i'm impressed by secretary pompeo. he's a tough guy. he's ruthless, and he's going to put a team together that's going to be able to make the argument that diplomacy is the best way forward. >> well, you know, presumably he will be able to corral the errant voices, unless they're not errant, unless the grenades

they hurled are deliberate. i don't know about that. joseph yun, let me ask my final question to you as we run out of time. kim jong-un showed the press the blowing up at least of the tunnels at the nuclear site. we don't know exactly what happened, but something happened. thwas smoke, there were explosions, and the said they had destroyed tt nuclear site. he stopped nuclear tests, or put a hold on them. he stopped testing missiles and has given back the hostages which he had kept for this moment. is he going to feel under pressure? >> i believe so. i believe it will be the first signal, whether we take the path of more trouble or path of diplomacy. if kim jong-un goes back now and tests a nuclear device or tests icbm, that is very bad news. we are back to where we were

with talk of military options panned bloody nose. i believe given die plo-- diplomacy, there is an ability to build on the steps north korea has taken. if we can build on that, we can build toward the summit. i believe president trump wants the summit, so does kim jong-un. this is an opportunity we should not let go. >> all right. >> it did not work out for june 12th, but i think it could work out. >> indeed. well, let's see, both of you, thank you so much. joseph yun, curt campbell, thanks for joining me on this very important day on the world stage. but if all of the world is a stage as shakespeare said, then glenda jackson is one of the greatest actors ever to storm across it. bold and talented she earned twoscars for the drama "women in love" and another for the comedy "a touch of class." >> in the past two days you have

completely given me tea, brought me lunch aud brought me to this hideaway for the intention of getting me into bed for what you americans charmingly call a quickie. am i right so far? >> why do women think the worst, why does sex have to be first thing -- yes. >> jackson is no johnnie one note. in 1992 she pivoted to politics and was elected to parliament, only to pivot back to acting. no easy fete for a woman the ripe age of 80. she played king lear to rave reviews. at 82 she is taking broad which which -- broadway by storm in ""three tall women." that earned her a tony nomination. she stars alongside alison till. she is fierce, funny and frank. glenda jackson discussed this with me when she joined me from new york earlier in the week.

>> glenda jackson, welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> so i don't want to be indelicate, but you are a woman of a certain age. you are over 80, if i'm not mistaken, and you are having a resurgence of your acting career. many, many women, yourself included, have complained, rightly, that there just aren't enough roles for women, especially older women. how do you feel though doing this? >> well, i still concur with what -- what you just said. usually there's only -- if there is, one woman's part, and certainly as far as contemporary drama is concerned it seems to be, and that has stayed the same in my experience ever since i first walked on to the stage and got paid for it. what is remarkable about this particular production is not only it is a great play, but there are three really good women, three women's parts in this. one of the things that attracted me most to doing it was the

opportunity to work with actresses of the caliber of the two actresses i'm privileged to work with. >> and what about the role itself? you play the much older woman, i think a decade older than you are in real life and pretty cantankerous, maybe a little bit like you. did you feel a particular bond with her? >> no, i felt a particular bond with what the author was trying to do i think, which is to be almost -- well, not almost, painfully honest about what was clearly for him a tragic relationship between himself and his adoptive mother, and he is absolutely upfront about that. but he takes off by saying he didn't do a revenge piece, though i disagree with him there. but the last part of it, he says, but during her lifetime he never met anyone who liked her. he is talking about his adoptive mother. he never met anyone who has seen the play who disliked her.

what have i done? it is all in that, isn't it? >> it really is. it sort of makes me laugh a little bit, but it is extraordinary if it is true, what he says about his adoptive mother, that she bought him from an adoption agency for about $133 or something like that. >> well, $110 and she wanted the money back. >> oh, lord. >> left home. >> and then -- >> yes. >> and then, apparently, he feels that she always wanted to give him back. is that right? >> well, there was clearly this endlessly dividing, divisive, truly think in many instances cruel attempts to make a relationship which failed, i think clearly on both sides, and i think clearly at some point she gave up on it. >> what does it mean for you to be back? i mean you put your career willingly on hiatus for more than 20 years when you became a politician in england. you were an mp --

>> there are people who regard being a politican a career. >> yes, i meant your acting career. but you put your acting career on high atoatus to take up anot career. did you ever think when you decided not to run again, you put politics aside, that you, glenda jackson, would not just be asked to come back to one play, which was "queen lear," right, but now "three tall women." these are huge, monumental plays and role also. >> it didn't occur to me, no. i remember saying to my girls in the office when i said i wouldn't stand for the 2015 election, i'm going to enter an irresponsible episode in my life only to discover that, in fact, when you don't have work your responsibility increases. who gets you out of bed in the morning if not you? but the bbc asked me to do a

series on radio, which i was very happy to do. they were great scripts and i did that. out of that i was then asked by the old vick incidentally to do a play. i didn't want to do the play they wanted me to do and "lear" came after that and i did it. now i'm doing "three tall women" and i'm very, very lucky indeed. >> so isn't it incredible you did "lear" as a woman? >> well, you know, one of the really interesting things about doing that incredible play, no one ever mentioned it, nobody in the production, nobody who watched it, in a curious way nobody commented on it, made anything of that. it may be because there had been forerunners certainly in london of the gender bender regime, marvelous productions, all-women productions, for example, of shakespeare's histories. what i found interesting over

and above the greatness of the play is when i was a member of parliament i would visit old people's homes, day centers, things of that nature, and one of the things that struck me most was how as we get older, as the -- as we get higher and higher up the age scale, the gender barriers start to fray. they become fractured. they're sort of foggy. the absolutes aren't there anymore, and that i found very useful when i was playing "lear." it was really interesting. >> actually, that's an encouraging thought for us coming up in those -- in those footsteps of age. so that's great. tell me about being a politician. did you employ your acting abilities, credentials, your performing abilities in parliament? how much did that help you, or was it unconscious? >> it was never at the forefront of my mind, but what was most

frequently at the forefront of my mind is that years ago there was a scientific exploration of what we as human beings fear most, and apparently what we fear most is death and number two on the list is public speaking. so i have that one covered, except when i rose to make my maiden speech in parliament i had never been so frightened in my life. >> you also took part in a tribute to margaret thatcher. of course, yours was the -- i mean could i call it an anti-tribute? >> i hope i told the truth. i certainly told the truth as i had experienced it, as i had seen my constituents experience ected she had long been as first elevated to the other place, as we call the house of lords. everything i have been taught to regard as advice she told me was a virtue -- advice was

independence. selfishness was not a vice, it was ensuring you cared for yourself. >> can i play it? you paraphrased some of what you said. but i'm going to play it. >> fine. >> we were told that everything i have been taught to regard as a vice -- and i still regard them as vices -- under thatcherism was, in fact, a virtue. greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees. >> so, glenda jackson, that was pretty bold and brave. obviously you were true to yourself and true to your politics. how were you received in the chamber, and did they know what you were going to say? did you have to -- not permission, but did you have to sort of warn people what you were going to say? >> good heavens, no. i was there. i wasn't guaranteed to be called. no one is guaranteed to be called in that sense.

so i remember when i kicked off with what i was saying, there was a certain amount of barracking from the conservative benches but it died down. >> i wonder since we're in this moment of so much focus on me too, women running for office, women trying to really, finally change sort of the scales of inequity, would you call yourself a feminist? >> i think i would in the sense of, you know, it being more than demonstrating you're a feminist by burning your bra. i never burned a bra in my life. but if i could just kind of cut to the bottom line about all of this as far as i'm concerned, i just say that in the united kingdom, two women die every week at the hands of their partner, usually a male, and we are delewdiuding ourselves if w think this movement that has arisen is going to transform the lives for all women around the

world overnight, because it isn't. we have to accept that the steps forward, we are moving forward, but they're small steps at the moment. they're not giant strides, but we have to keep pushing for it. >> and i want to go back to one of your earlier films. i'm going to play a little clip of "women in love." >> oh, right. >> do love, do you? >> no. >> you don't think you can love me, do you? >> i don't know what you mean by the word. >> yes, you do. you know very well that you have never loved me. do you think? >> no. >> oh, that's so dramatic and so sad. does it take you back at all? >> i don't watch it. i don't like watching myself. i'm completely subjective about seeing myself on film.

i only look at myself really and i think, oh, my god, why did you choose to do that. it is all too late because there ain't nothing you can do to change it. >> but you do have -- you are quite known for being a bis irascible and you did not upset any of your oscars. you got two oscars, one for that film, and you didn't go to hollywood to pick them up. >> well, i was working. i couldn't go. i was extremely fortunate, i was employed, and that is still a very fortunate position to be in if you are an actress. so, no, i didn't. >> are you glad you got them? are you glad you get all applauded and are you happy now with all of the reviews and playing these amazing roles? >> i'm very happy that we're playing to full houses. i'm very happy to be working with these two remarkable actresses. i'm very happy with the way the audience listens and laughs and how we clearly are delivering

what is really a remarkable play. but what i always jib at when you talk about the oscars, people say to me, you've won them. i never competed for anything. the winners are the people who vote for you, and that's, you know, nice for them and always very nice to have a present, but it doesn't make you any better. >> on that note, glenda jackson. thank you so much for joining us. >> pleasure talking to you. >> glenda jackson, who has been nominated for a tony award for her role in "three tall women." that is it for "amanpour" on pbs. thanks for watching. see you again tomorrow night. ♪ ♪ you're watching pbs.

♪ katty: you are watching "beyond 100 days." donald trump called kim jong un rocket man. now he is calling it all off. christian: the american president cancels next months summit with the north korean leader. katty: donald trump fires off this letter to pyongyang saying that america's nuclear arsenal is so powerful he is praying to god he does not have to use it. earlier, north korea claimed it has destroyed part of its nuclear test site. donald trump says pyongyang needs to go much further. christian: also on the program, the missile that downed malaysian airline belonged to a russian unit.