pbs." tonight, western democracy is under unprecedented threats after yet another week that seen both president trump and european populists chip away at our bedrock values. i sit down with the former british prime minister, tony blair who tells me if we want to protect the gains of globization or the liberal democratic world order, then we must deal with its consequences. good evening everyone and welcome to the program, i'm christiane amanpour in london. this week has seen strong men

consolidate gains and democracy struggle to hang on to basic values and principles. the turkish president, erdogan, who was re-elected with sweeping new powers, sparking fears of a crack down on civil society. russian leader, vladimir putin, will get some important face time with president trump in helsinki next month. sparking concern with nato allies. especially in light of the cnn report that president trump called nato just as bad as nafta. this fresh off trump beating up on europe's long time leader the german chancellor angela merkel on twitter for her immigration policy. a worrying study by former president george w. bush and former vice president, joe biden. if found that more than half of all americans believe democracy is vulnerable in the usa. an idea that would have been

unthinkable a decade ago when the likes of president bush and tony blair were wrapping up their terms in offices. well, blair is still speaking up, defending old alliances and a globalized world and calling on politicians to do their jobs and fight the false promise of populists by finding workable solutions. from the united states to the frontiers of europe, trying out for a solution is migration. something blair says must be addressed if our liberal democracies are to have a fighting chance against today's new breed of populist. we sat down together at his office here in london. >> prime minister blair, welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> you have just given a speech which might sound a little sort of, you know, disconnected from reality in defense of globalization. really? >> absolutely. when you take a step back and look at the broad sweep of history, globalization and the process of the world opening up to each other has brought enormous benefits to the world. it's lifted hundreds of millions people out of poverty.

it's given us prosperity. it's allowed us to live and work quite differently. of course, it has its challenges. but globalization, if you look back over it, of course, it's better. >> how do you convince people of that narrative? because it does seem to be alternative narratives are winning the day. how do you tell people, two or three years into the populist wave, that actually that's not the answer to your political, economic, and social problems? >> you have to deal with people's underlying grievances. if you're in european politics today and you're not dealing with the issue of immigration, then you're going to get the populists on the rise. the difference i think with myself and other people on the more progressive pro-globalization side of the argument is i don't think the concerns and anxieties are illegitimate at all. on the contrary, i think they've got to be dealt with by vigorous government action. but that is the right way of

dealing with them, not pushing back against the whole idea of globization. >> is anybody doing it right to your mind right now? is chancellor merkel doing it right, is president macron doing it right? >> i think the main stream european politicians are. i think what macron is doing in france particularly is steering a path on immigration, on reform, on other things, which is allowing us -- or allowing france as it were to say, we keep basic principles of solidarity but we have to reform our policy on migration and the basic adherence to the values of our country, we have to be tough on. for example people coming in from majority muslim countries into our country, we've got to say, here are the rules. there's a shared space for diversity and there's a common space. there's treating people equally. there's no, ma' amount of cultu

diversity that means you can discriminate against gay people discriminate against women or think the rules don't apply to you. if you want to protect the gains of globalization, you have to deal with the consequences, deal with the people who think they're casualties of it. and particularly on this immigration issue since i think this populism is at least as much driven by cultural differences, which are real and not unjustified. >> how do you think and what do you think of the way president trump has dealt with the u.s./mexico border, for instance? and saying things that don't comport with the facts and with evidence? saying things like they bring more crime in when statistics and bipartisan studies show that actually, migrant and immigrant neighborhoods have historically less crime than americans, so to speak? >> again my point is simple. if you don't deal with the problem, reasonable people don't deal with it, other people come along and they exploit it. look at the italians right now, if you say to them look we're not dealing with your

problems, you've just to take these people in, there's nothing we can do about it, and that's consistent with european values, you're going to have a rebellion on your hands and you are going to have people, and you do have people, who are going to exploit that issue and whip out prejudice. but people want rules. i'm not familiar with the mexico/usa situation but if i was in the democrat party at the moment i would be saying i can condemn what the president is doing in this respect and that respect. >> the separation of children and families -- >> yeah obviously all of that. but i need to work out how to deal with this anxiety in a reasonable way. part of it may be to produce a gateway for people to come in be legitimized and so on. but part of it is going to be we need a proper border control, and we need a proper system of identifying who has a right to be in europe and who has not. for example in the british

complex, i said we should have an electronic system of identity. we should know who is here and who is not. >> what does that mean exactly? >> you used to have an identity card. through today's technology, you have an electronic identity that shows who you are. but that allows you to access government services and to show i've got a right to be here. and, you know, for a country like britain at any one time, hundreds of thousands of people who have outstayed their welcome or are here illegally. people want us to deal with that. and what i always say to people, if you don't have rules, you have prejudices. the choice if you're trying to deal with these populist surges is to realize most people aren't unreasonable. you provide them with the proper solution, they'll buy the solution. if you don't provide them with the solution, they'll buy the anger. >> you said the populist solution is not the answer. that will not answer the

public's, whatever, anxieties about migration, about economics, about feeling left behind. but it's really gaining traction, and it's not just populism on the right, it's the left as well. >> when people are pessimistic and this is where you have to think through the new policy agenda for changing times. when people are pessimistic they look for people to blame. and the right tends to to blame the left and the left tends to blame the liberals, and neither is the solution. what we are trying to do is develop an agenda that might be more centrist, if you like. but which is focussed on things like this technological revolution is going to change so much. this time of policy formulation, you know, making sure that, for example, you're building the infrastructure that you require for the mid 21st century. all of these things, reforming your tax system, your benefit system, dealing with that 10% of the population that's kind of cut adrift.

all of these things require radical but sensible policy solutions. >> do you feel that all of this has conspired to put democracy at risk in the western alliance and also in other countries that are nominally democratic? >> it depends how i feel when i wake up each morning. some mornings i feel, yes, it does. other morns i feel, that's just too farfetched. i tell you what i feel, i feel the fracturing of our society culturally into two groups of people who don't talk to each other, listen to each other or like each other is a problem. and i think you have this in the u.s. right now. we've got this in britain. and that's dangerous. democracy has a spirit as well as a form. the spirit is a bit of give and take, a recognition that what unites us is more than what divides us. and a willingness of politicians to build bridges with those who

disaagree. if you get into a situation where your opponents become your enemies, that's a much more difficult politics to have. >> that definitely is happening, wouldn't you say? >> yes, it is. yes. >> what about the situation where -- >> by the way, the media makes it worse in a sense. i don't mean this media, but the media because -- the media commercial model is changing. it's the simplest thing for the media today is to take a group of people, wind them up into a state of permanent grievance and keep them in that state against the other people. you see it right and you see it left, and i think social media amplifies that, it often distorts the nature of debate. and that -- then that rafractur becomes -- you know, you see this when you read this crazy social media stuff and politics today. >> if you were prime minister still or president of the united states, or wherever, what would you do to address that? because that is really debilitating and many americans and europeans bemoan that fact.

the poisoning, the partisanship of politics. but at the same time, every two seconds it seems there's a new study that shows -- bipartisan study the latest one in america the poisoning, the partisanship of politics but at the same time, every two seconds it seems there's a new study that the times are leading towards that direction. >> they are. and i think the way of dealing with it, if i was in office today, as i say you got to try to build those bridges, do it very openly. understand what -- if you're on the left, understand what makes people irritated with the left. if you're on the right, realize what makes people on the progressive side of politics anxious. you know, it requires a different, you know, mindset. and so, you know, that's why, if i was back in politics today, i

would be dealing with these things in the right wing populism, and also explaining to the people on the left where, of course, you want to make sure you're promoting responsible business and social opportunity for people. but you need a thriving enterprise for the economy to grow. this is where i think you could, if you wanted to, build bridges. the trouble -- i think one thing certainly here this is a big problem. i'm not sure if it's a problem with the u.s. to get selected as a candidate nowadays you're appealing to an activist base. that doesn't really want to hear that message. they want to hear red or blue me. >> i want to put to you a few points that have been made in articles just as they're looking towards what's happening in the foreign policy. particularly in the aftermath of

the g7 summit. i think it was a big shock for the foreign policy establishment to see something that we haven't seen, a president of the united states normally the leader of the western world, beating up on his own allies, beating up on the very -- not just personally against prime minister trudeau, chancellor merkel, but on the whole system to the point that president trump withdrew the united states signature in the final communique and wouldn't condone the sentence, international rules based order. what do you make of that first and foremost? >> for those of us used to dealing with g7 summits, it's obviously fairly shocking. but i think we've got -- we've got to stay engaged with the administration from the european perspective. there are europeans right now that think this president, this administration, doesn't care about the transatlantic alliance.

administration and the president are prepared, as it were, to approach america first as not inconsistent with america in alliance with others. and, you know, even when the president came to the international world economic forum and said america first doesn't mean america alone, that registered with the europeans. >> but it looks like he's changing. now more people are saying it's america alone. >> if you have real trade issues -- the points that america is raising with china is sensible, by the way. you could probably get european support for raising those. it's a lot to do with how it's done. and i think the actual question for a lot of europeans, and i'm not in a position to answer this, is does the president really consider a necessary part of his political appeal in

america that he actually does not seek their support? in a sense this kind of unilateral action is part of the aura of the presidency? now, i personally would doubt that, because i think he can see perfectly well and sensibly the value of the alliance. but i think, for example, one of the things that's important for europeans to say to america right now, is when you're dealing with the emerging power of china, which is -- you know, it's still an understated geopolitical fact. but everywhere i go in the world i see china more and more powerful. and by the way, that is perfectly natural, and in a sense right. china deserves to be in that position of power. but it's going to pose big challenges to the west and to america. if you have europe divided and isolated and individual countries dealing with china without some collective sense of western solidarity they're going to get picked off. they're going to be poor allies

to america. >> if you have an american sort of withdrawing, it's going to allow china the space to take over. >> absolutely. this is basic power politics. so, you know, if -- if the europeans -- this is where the british position is so important. i think it's important make sure people understand the importance of the alliance. so that seems to fracture and you take america's foremost ally out of that individual alliance, you have individual countries dealing with china, i know this very well what will happen, they will find it much easier to deal with individual countries, slightly play -- >> play one off against the other? >> yes. this is just power politics, this is not a criticism of china. america does that in its own way. there's no criticism, but we have to understand that our basic value system of governance, western democracy and what it stands for, independent media, rule of law, free speech, electing your government, that is a system under challenge today.

and for the first time since the 1950s, there's a group of countries saying your system doesn't work and ours works better. in those days it was the soviet union saying we may not be democratic but we can deliver for our people more efficiently more protuckively than you can. in the end they lost that battle. they didn't lose it because democracy was a better idea. they lost it because democracy delivered more for its people. today you have the strong man concept of all government, you need one leader, they take the decision, drive the thing through, and it has attractions for people. >> let me ask you to respond to this. this is from the brookings institute. make no mistake there's an concerted attack on the constitutional liberal order and it's being spearheaded by the president of the united states. what do you think about that? >> i mean, i think it's -- i

think that's an exaggeration. what i'm saying is, we need to understand what this value system is about. and, you know, i remember going back in time when there are very, very sharp, hard disagreements inside american politics. and, you know, again sometimes you think well, is this qualitatively different, and there are people i know who will say yes, definitely it is. i think from the point of view of the international sphere, i think it is still possible and achievable that america and europe can see eye-to-eye and that whatever the peculiarities of the way your political system seems to work at the moment -- by the way we have our own peculiarities -- i think we can still make sense of that. >> you have been prime minister under several presidents. with clinton you had more of a political alignment but you were good friends and allies with president bush, republican president. but he, remember, whether it was

the iraq war or many of his policies created a huge problem for america in the world. and president obama was considered to come in and put balm on those wounds and heel the division between america and the rest of the world. i guess i'm asking you to tell me whether you think bush era was much more sort of divisive between america and the rest of the world, or the trump era? put it into your perspective. >> i mean, the context is different. you know, if you've got 9/11 and that attack on america, it shifted the whole pivot of american interest in foreign policy. the one thing i would say because i obviously did work very closely with president bush is that, alone he created division obviously because the decisions were very difficult, he was always trying to put it back together again.

so -- you know, and i remember for example when we did the 2005 g7, he came there and specifically agreed to stuff on climate change that i don't think he was 100% signed up for, but he agreed nonetheless. and launched what became a huge program for africa a-- >> to help with the a.i.d.s. crisis? >> yes. . he did believe in that. by the way, i think this could be done by this president and this administration. there are things they could do that could reignite a sense in europe, and for all our disagreements we're still fundamentally on the same side. and i think the administration just needs to look for ways of

doing that and then put that within an intellectual and geopolitical framework that europe can understand. >> what do you think of the former cia director saying, the fact a president helps along, the collapse of the world order, is a shock to berlin. trump sees that merkel is down and he's trying to finish her off. there's also -- well, what's your view of that? because the u.s. ambassador said it's his job to promote conservative leaders across germany and across europe. >> the only thing i would say about this is it just, when you're dealing with international politics at a very high level -- you know, i would always try to be mindful of the politics of the person i was dealing with, because that person's politics, your

politics, sometimes the politics of both people are in collision with each other in some ways. i'm not a big fan of all the stuff, but i think the most important thing is to come back in a bigger, clear way on issues. and i think the upcoming nato summit is a way of saying -- by the way, even if the president is directly saying, europe has got to do more, saying the reason we have got to do more is this alliance matters, we're totally committed to it and we'll carry on being committed to it. >> one other question on this issue. robert kagen in the united states said people forget the postal second world war order is an aberration. it relied on america to keep it together. under trump we're turning to competition that's a very different and more dangerous world than the one we grew up

in. do you think this idea of prosperity, peace, the liberal world order is an aberration? >> i've grown up with it so it doesn't feel like an aberration to me. i guess if you go back centurys, you say it is. i think my response is to say we do live in a global world. that's the reason why that part of the world that shares western values and the western democratic systems has the whole together. and as china becomes more and more powerful, you're going to have a world in which you have three giants, china, india and america, you have some medium ones like britain, france and germany. the medium size ones are going to have to ban together. and for those people, whether they're the giant or a medium

size, those who believe in western values and a system of western democracy, they're going to have to realize this is going to come under context. so i hope his view of the future turns out to be wrong, but the risks are very obvious and it could turn out to be right, unless we understand why it is we fought this system of western of values and why they matter both to our way of life and our prosperity. >> finally, many people are beginning to say we don't know what the truth is and beginning to say to even main stream organizations, well, everybody is bias. obviously fuelled by president trump and the whole fake news debate. but in the context of the iraq war people often say how can we trust governments? we believe they lied about the weapons of mass destruction. anyway, this is having a follow on effect. how toxic is not knowing the truth and thinking everything is

relative to democracy? >> it's absolutely corrosive to democracy. i remind people on iraq, we had six different inquiries that found the same thing. the government didn't lie. >> but people believe that. >> it is the interaction of politics with the modern media environment that is also important, because if you do get a fragmentation of politics that then is echoed in the media so that the media -- if it's a left media, it's not prepared to give trump anything, they'll pull him down, and the right media wants to support him right or wrong. >> over time -- >> it becomes hard to have a debate. and then criminal boossocial me that and you have conspiracy theories -- this is a debate for another time.

but you have to think what do we need to do to change the environment within which we work so that that democratic debate can be held on a basis where people can disagree but at least there's some validity and integrity on the basis which they make the decisions. >> tony blair, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> part of the solution must be, of course, when real debate can be heard. when real policy not just bitter politics can be discussed and formulated. that's it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour on pbs." and join us again next time. popvitac.sgngl -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com

andy: national presentation of "bbc world news" is made possible by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> welcome to bbc news, these are our top stories. just hours after reaching a deal, european leaders disagree about who should take in and process migrants, coming into europe. police in maryland say the gunman who shot dead five people at the newspaper office would have killed more if he'd had the chance. ca f