hello, everyone, and welcome to amanpour. here's what's coming up. was serena williams the victim of sexism? was naomi osaka's first grand slam ruined? how it is playing out in the united states and japan. billy jean king joins me for an interview since the controversial match. then the secretary of state john kerry has seen one diplomatic accomplishment after another bulldozed by donald trump. i ask him how it feels to see his legacy dismantled before his eyes. also ahead, our walter eisen son talks to jenny remeki.

she is one of a handful of women running a fortunate 500 company. ♪ ♪ >> uni world is a proud sponsor of amanpour of company. when she founded hotels, she had bigger dreams and those dreams were on the water. a river specifically, multiple rivers. one day that would be home to uniriver hotels and they're floating. today that dream sets sail in europe, india, egypt and more. for more information visit uniworld.com. additional support has been provided by -- >> and by contributions to your

pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> welcome to the program, everyone. i'm christiane amanpour in new york where much of the city, indeed much of the world is still talking about serena williams and the controversial chaotic women's championship match at the u.s. open this weekend. just a few miles, in fact, from where i sit. williams' emotional confrontation with umpire carlos ramos overshadowed her own continued comeback since becoming a mother and the first grand slam victory by the rising star naomi osaka. >> you need to make an announcement that i didn't get coaching. i didn't cheat. i didn't get coaching. how can you say that? you need to, you owe me an apology. you owe me an apology. i have never cheated in my life. i have a daughter and i've done what is' right for her. >> williams was first verbally warned then docked a point by

ramos and then a whole game. then she was fined $17,000 for her code violation. now, williams accuses ramos of sexism saying she's fight fogger women's rights. yet now the debate rages on. is she a victim of sexual double standards, or does she have only herself to blame for losing her cool in this high stakes match? through three decades, the tennis legend billy jean king has revolutionized women's tennis. she has brought respect and pay equity to the game, so no one is more qualified to speak about this, about sexism and sportsmanship itself. she wrote an op-ed in the washington post saying that serena is treated differently than male athletes and billy jean king joins me live in the studio. welcome. >> thank you. whoa, what turmoil. >> what turmoil and you weighed in from the beginning. i was there at the match. >> we were both there at the match. i couldn't tell what was going on. i went home and watched it on

tennis channel and i got to hear the dialogue between the umpire and serena. and i felt like at the very beginning he blew it. you have to understand who you're talking to. first of all, as an umpire you're supposed to keep the flow of the match going. and he did just the opposite. he needed to tell serena -- he can apologize. he has to be the boss. but all he had to say to serena is i am not attacking your character. >> that is the essence of what was going on there. she was so upset about na. those kids have been brought up venus and serena, to play by the rules and not get upset. serena does have a history at the u.s. open of losing it on ash stadium. >> you said the final will be remembered for, quote, an archaic tennis rule that eventually led to an abuse of power. so what was the archaic nature of this rule? what was your beef with what

happened there? >> my beef is i believe in coaching anyway, just have it out there. you can coach from the box. chris everett feels the same way. they do it all the time. all the bosses yelling and signalling. make it honest, have integrity and let it go. i don't like children watching it and thinking someone is cheating. i don't like it. that's the first thing i would have done. i believe in coaching. we do it in team tennis. >> actually every other sport from the sidelines, right? >> another thing that is so bad in tennis is that the umpire does not communicate to the fans what is going on. in the nfl they stop, they turn on the mic, the referee says so and so made a penalty. these are the things we need to do in tennis. we need to get in the 21st century. >> let me ask you about that. we were there, i heard the almighty roar from the crowd. clearly it was having a dramatic

effect on this young girl, naomi osaka, barely 20 years old. serena is her idol. she's facing off in her first grand slam title. she keeps her cool, her poise is unbelievable. this is what she said afterwards about the booing. >> i felt a little bit sad because i wasn't really sure if they were booing at me or if it was something else they wanted. i also could sympathize because i've been a fan of serena my whole life and i knew that -- how badly the crowd wanted her to win. >> so, you know, i knew how badly the crowd wanted serena to win. >> naomi osaka is very mature at 20 years old. she has a champion's mentality. when i walk on the koerlt, i'm a player. the light switch goes on. she gets it. she is going to be a superstar. she already is, but now it's just the beginning where serena is on the other side.

but osaka held her cool. it was very important for her to win. i don't think we should under estimate how gracious she was and how she kept her focus. i thought it was extraordinary from osaka. i can't wait to see more of her. >> you've been there many, many times. some outbursts -- >> i've had that temper. i had to work on it. >> so you've been there and you know the particular issue. i'll goat that in a second. do you think osaka's crowning moment to date was ruined and spoiled by this outburst? >> i think it depends on how osaka interprets it. i hope not. there should be no asterisk. she was playing better than serena from the get go. this was hers, hers 100% no matter what was happening with the chaos and the human element that was there and the emotions. of the roller coaster of emotions was amazing. and serena, listen, she's trying to tie a record. just had a baby a year ago,

trying to get her fitness back. pressure on her, she wants to win. she's 36, time is running out. she has all these things happening to her. and osaka is coming up, excited, 100% healthy. it's just different. >> let's get to the heart of the matter, then. was it sexist? let's get to that, because i heard serena and everybody did saying, this isn't fair. if it was a guy you wouldn't be doing this. so many guys crash their rack et cetera, swear at the umpire -- >> they get a warning or a point. i didn't like the way the umpire didn't tell -- she should have gotten a caution. she said, look, first of all, players have no control over the coaches. that's why i don't like the rules. he should have said, warning, listen, you guys are coaching over there. i'm going to give you a warning if that happens. and then what happens, i'm going to give you a point and game if it keeps going. usually it's better if an umpire tells you the rules quickly because you're really emotional, you're not thinking straight. so that helps you, centers you,

gets you back. he did not do that. he did not control the match. that's your job. what's important is serena was out of line. no question. no one is saying she was a good spofrt. if they are they're crazy. she was totally out of line. she knows it. the point is he aggravated the situation. instead of, i'm not attacking your character, was the most important thing he could have said. she was always trying to refocus. i don't know if everybody noticed. the first time she got warned, she sat down, she said -- she was trying to refocus. i don't think she realized she got a warning on that first one. when she broke her racket she knew she was going to get a warnling. oh, no, now it's a point. she said -- because i heard her say, it's a warning right? no, you're to the point now. that's the second infraction. >> so ramos himself obviously is also being an object of much interest since all of this. ramos has a reputation as a stickler for the rules, as a hard liner, black or white.

people know he's done this to men before. >> absolutely. no, we know he's a black and white guy. he even called venus on code in the french open. venus had the same discussion with him. she was saying, i don't do that, i don't coach, i don't cheat, i don't care. that's the biggest -- the character was the biggest issue. this is a human being he's talking to. >> she didn't cheat. >> that's the worst thing you can do to the family. >> we have so many, andy murray was penalized by rack os. >> what with about before, he won the match. that umpire should be out for life. they have to get to a point where the umpires communicate with us, communicate better, that we know the rules i. guarantee -- how many people do you think in that audience the other day and watching knew the rules? >> i don't think many people

did. that's why you said it shouldbe told. let me play you your friend and former teammate mary carillo who was commentating on this match. she kind of disagrees with what you had to say. >> she does. >> this is what she said about the match. >> carlos ramos is not a sexist. he is not a racist. he's not a misogynist. i've called about 2 billion tennis matches in my career. he's been in the chair for a lot of them. he's been in the chair for serena's before. he is a very strict taskmaster of a guy. i've seen him call out rafa nadal for illegal coaching, time violations, i've seen him call out novak djokovic. you don't mess with this guy. >> a little bit about what we were saying. he has a reputation -- >> mary and i have been texting back and forth on this, but i do think there is some sexism in tennis. even the men brought it up. mcenrow did. murray, djokovic said they do think the men get away with more. they just do because men are

outspoken when they stand up for themselves and women are looked at as hysterical. we are not. we are also speaking up. i could never speak like that when i was playing. the way that -- oh, my gosh. i very rarely could talk. you look at old interviews in the old days, we are much softer spoken, much like osaka is now. that's what it reminded me of in the '70s. we had to be so careful. it's different now. women are standing up. they're not -- they don't care any more. if they're going to be outspoken, have their opinions, it's good. people have a hard time accepting it. >> there were somewhat dueling op-ed as after this. you, the champion of women's tennis, martina avenatti rnavra somewhat disagreed. serena got part of it right, part of it wrong. i don't think you should apply a standard men get away with it women should get away with it,

too. the question is what is the right way to behave and honor our sport. he >> you have a temper on the court. you know howie motional you get and you really have to keep resetting, refocus all the time. but once you go past certain emotional marks, you're gone. you're gone. you can't see straight. i walked off the court one time. it's the worst thing i could have done. i couldn't help it. i had had it. i had had it. that's where you need great umpiring. i loved umpires that told me the rules. if they didn't know the rules i'd get upset. this is the way it is, okay. i felt he should have said, i'm not attacking your character. i think everything would have been different. >> let's say that was the case. but now, clearly this is a moment. something has to change in the rules or something. so what do you think should be the result of this conflict? >> the good thing is the game has to change, which a lot of us

have been complaining for years. communicate with the crowd. communicate with the crowd. we never know what's going on. >> while coaching? >> also allow coaching. we would get more attention to our sport like other sports, team sports particular, about coaching. they get more social media. it will help enhance our sport and have more people. the one thing that's lacking is we don't have women coaches enough. >> do you think this will be the moment? do you see it actually changing things? >> i think out of crisis, this is in our sport of crisis, i think, i think out of crisis creates opportunity and gets things right. this is an opportunity for us to get it right. >> all right. billy jean king, thank you. thank you for joining us. great to see you. really important moment. it is a amazing it brought a lot of attention to women's tennis, right? >> i guess it did that, to our sport tennis as well. but i hope that we'll get it right next year. >> thank you, billy jean. thanks for being with us. >> thanks a lot. >> i'm sure we all have our opinions on saturday's match.

but billy jean king speaks with the experience and authority of one who has lived her life inside the arena, and so does my next guest john kerry, though in a very different arena. kerry played a central role in the most critical events in american history. from serving in vietnam to negotiating the iran nuclear deal. kerry's war service earned him three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star as a swift boat commander in vietnam. then he became the face of the anti-war movement for his emotional testimony on behalf of vietnam veterans against the war before the senate foreign relations committee. >> each day to facilitate the process by which the united states washes her hantds of vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the united states does president han't hav something the entire world already knows. so that we cannot say that we've made a mistake. someone has to die so that president nixon won't be -- and

these are his words -- the first president to lose a war. and we are asking americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in vietnam? how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? >> very powerful stuff that came back in a way to haunt him later on. we'll get into that. as senator from massachusetts, john kerry became chairman of the foreign relations committee. and after losing the 2004 presidential election by a whisker to george w. bush, he went on to serve as secretary of state under barack obama. but after almost 50 years of service, much of kerry's diplomatic legacy is being unraffled in real time as the trump administration undoes so much of what the obama administration did. john kerry's new memoir is called "every day is extra" and heeds joining me now here in new york. welcome to the program. >> very happy to be with you. thank you. >> so much to dig down into.

you know, i almost want to go back to that testimony there in front of the senate -- you were a young man, you had just come back from the war. you were i think dressed in your military outfit there, right? >> i was wearing fatigues. >> okay. and you took on a whole different side of the war. and that got you a lot of bad will, if you like, from fellow veterans, particularly in the 2004 election. i mean, your book is about a lot of things, but you reserve a lot of fury for what they did. they swift boated you. >> i don't know whether -- fury is your word. i think i just state the facts. i layout what happened very clearly in the book because it was really the first major encounter in the political process with alternative facts. and it's really interesting. and i write the details of sort of what happened because abc news -- i was accused of killing a guy who was 16 years old and basically -- i mean, people were

alleging it was a war crime or something. we were in war. this guy had fired a b-40 rocket or boat and almost taken us out, blew out all the windows. then he stood up with another one ready to fire it as we beached in the middle of it. and he turned and ran. so abc news sent a crew over there to talk to the people and actually met his wife. and his wife said, no, no, no, he was 26 years old. he was a professional. part of the team that was there to kill the swift boats. but still the same story kept coming at us. so we learned, i learned a very important lesson that even though you think you've won the battle, in the mainstream media and you had newspapers cover it, if there are television ads up and people are still lying, you have to counter those wherever they are. and i think others have applied that in the politics today. >> one said the accusations john kerry made against the veterans

that served in vietnam, it hurt me more than any physical wound i had. that is a quote from a different swift boughat. how did that feel to you during the election and do you regret not taking time off to defend your record and to push back -- >> first of all, we defended the record. let's be very clear about this. the guys who were with me on my boat who actually were in the specific action for which they were also awarded medals, those guys all countered what was being said. and the people who were saying it were not there, most of them. not actually on the boat in the action. in a couple of instances they were nearby, but they weren't part of it. you know, we countered it. we were in every major newspaper in america, covered the real facts. the problem is when a group of people get together, come together in a television advertisement and they're saying bad things about you, you need to counter that. barack obama did that very

effectively when the reverend wright issue came up. estopped the campaign, he gave a speech and talked about it. i write in the book very honestly, i'm self-critical here. in the end it's my decisions, it's my campaign. i was responsible for saying, stop, everybody, here's what i'm going to do. and i should have done that. if that ever were to happen or i ever see anything like that again, i take it on. >> it was a precursor, some of it, to a lot of the, quote-unquote, accusations of fake news that are flying around right now -- >> it was the -- it was the first major example of it where lying becomes a central component of political campaign. and i might add, you know, tough things were stated when i came back, but they were true. i mean, what happened in vietnam at one period of time in certain places -- not by everybody, not at all by everybody.

i mean, you know, william kelly didn't represent everybody. it was a terrible incident. >> remind us -- >> what we talked about -- kelly was -- i think he was a captain at the time who led a team, platoon in to a community in vietnam and children and women were massacred and it was very ugly. there were instances like that. it was not the norm. but a million civilians died in this war. this was not an easy time. and a lot of vets that i knew who came back to america carried very, very difficult burdens with them. >> as a journalist, particularly in these times, i'm struck by you quoting the great journalist halverstam, the press would have loved to report good news. it is impossible for us to believe those things without denying the evidence of our own senses. the press there didn't just

report the truth. they exposed what we now know are the lies of the nixon and johnson administration and the incredible -- >> and ken burns's film, ken burns's film is an extraordinary documentation, very balanced, everybody's voice in it. but you see, i didn't realize this until i read neil shea en's book, bright shining lie, which is a brilliant book on the war. and he documented the early deceptions and the early lies and the reporting from the field that was incorrect, or grossly exaggerated. and i had no -- i mean, i knew of the war more from 1966, '7, '8 in that period. it goes back to '62, '3, '4 this misleading was taking place building a process -- >> it is so important for us to remember the context as you speak. given what's happening today, and given that we're really caught in this sort of caldron of alternative facts and all the rest. >> sure. >> you call your book "every day

is extra." why? >> because it's a philosophy that many of the people who came back -- many of my friends and the guys on my boats, have often used the term, remembering those who didn't come back, because we were lucky, because any of us could have been killed on any given day, but weren't. we were very lucky. i was lightly wounded. i was lucky -- i actually was mocked by the republican party because my wounds were light. and i didn't control what happened. but it was an amazing period of time. the fact is we were lucky, all of us, everybody who came home. and i write about how, for all of us, it was a motivation to lead a life of purpose, to remember the legacy of those who didn't come home, to serve and honor them by virtue of trying to make our country better and stronger, which is what they

fought for. they were all patriots, all patriots. and as john mccain and i talked many times when we became friends and worked together to try to resolve the issue of vietnam, we talked about how -- you know, we came from different places, but we both understood the ways in which the war had torn the country apart. and we both went for pretty much similar reasons, of service to country, sense of duty. we were the children of greatest generation parents who left us with a very strong sense of responsibility and service. >> you wrote very movingly about john mccain when he died earlier, a few weeks ago. and you spoke about how you both stood in his -- in the cell where he was kept as a p.o.w. in hanoi. >> remarkable moment. >> must have been. tell me a little about that, but also it's almost quaint to think there was at that time a

relationship of two senators of opposing political parties to work together and start the restoration of american ties with vietnam. >> christiane, as you know, there were lots of relationships of people like that in the senate. ted kennedy, orrin hatch. >> it's a generation. >> it's a generation, and it changed. it began to change in the 1990s. partly with the king rich revolution, we saw people come from the house which were less forgiving, adamant. there was an orthodoxy. the orthodoxy was pushed on everybody. and the senate lost something in that. the congress lost something. and i regret it because our country desperately needs to come back to a place where the senate does what it was designed to do. it is the place where you should slow things down. the place where you should work collegiately. the place where day to day politics are not supposed to prevent the doing of the business, and it has. it's so polarized now.

nothing is happening there, to be honest with you. and it's not that the senate rules have changed. the people have changed. and what they're bringing to the senate and the baggage they bring to the senate. john and i literally decided on a flight to kuwait where we were going over to review the immediate post-war period after the liberation of kuwait from saddam hussein -- >> this was in '91? >> yes, '91. and we started talking into the night. we were facing each other in seats. and rather than have an awkward silence and stares, we struck up a conversation. and i asked him a lot about annapolis, which is an extraordinary place. >> the naval academy. >> the naval academy and his service there, and the weight of his father and his grandfather and how that affected his attitude. so we had a really good conversation. but most importantly, we decided then and there together that we were going to work together to

overcome this division that still existed, to try to make peace among ourselves and also to make peace with vietnam. >> of course, it's a paradigm as well. if you can make peace and come together over something so divisive, you can presumably gather your -- >> work on the other issues. that's how you learn -- >> obviously vietnam shaped you profoundly, but so also did your childhood and potentially led to you becoming a diplomat. you open your book with the tragic suicide of your grandfather. how -- why did you pick that moment and how did that shape you? >> well, i really opened the book with my father dying in the hospital, and that was the intro to the suicide of my grandfather. and it affected me because my father lost his father to an act of self-imposed violence when my father was six years old. and i had to wonder about the impact on my father and what

that did to shape him and the choices he made in life. and it was really an intro to my parents, into the life they led and to the family. and so my father had an impact on me. my mother probably had a much greater impact. i think that comes out in the book. she was the original white-haired new england super engaged mom who was running around in her tennis sneakers pushing for recycling, pushing for the health committee of the community to be engaged, pushing for the environment, dealing with the audobon and loved her birds. she was great. i think she had the greater impact, activism, on engagement. you have to go out and make a difference. and when i decided to run for president, i wrote about this, i told her. she was in the hospital and we chatted, and it was after my father had passed away. i said to her, this is what i'm

going to do. she said, well, john, remember one thing, integrity. remember integrity. and it always guided me, that you need to be willing to stand up and take the flack. you have to stand up for what you believe in. you have to fight and be who you are. >> so that leads me obviously into news of the day and news of the big issues you dealt with in the obama administration and that are now being systematically being unravelled by the trump administration. so i first -- >> they're attempting to systematically -- i think there is a distinction. >> let's talk about it. they are potentially unraveling, you say attempting, the iran nuclear deal which you labor day so hard over a period of years to negotiate with the rest of the world, by the way, it's not just an american deal. it's on the verge of death. >> it may or may not be, christiane. certainly the administration is doing everything in their power to kill it, yes. but what i'm proud of is that

that was not just the united states that made an agreement. it was ratified in the united nations by a unanimous 15-0 vote in the security council and still today, china, russia, germany, france, britain, and iran are trying to keep the deal together. >> let's talk about the real world, then, because that's all well and good say that. those are facts. it is an international deal. but if the united states pulls out and its support and reimposes sanctions that are secondary sanctions on all these people you're talking about who support the deal, where is the deal? >> well, they're still -- they haven't broken -- they are still living by the deal. now, is the deal -- >> companies are pulling out, mr. secretary. european companies are pulling out. that was the deal. >> and here's the reason the administration is trying to do that. they are pursuing a policy of regime change. the united states of america historically does not do regime change very well.

you can look at place after place where it's been that way. moreover, if president trump -- i mean, they put out a series of demands to iran. let me make this clear. president obama and i and the administration were very clear, we object to their involvement in yemen. and we did things about it. we object to what they're doing with hezbollah. we object to the attacks on israel. we object to their engagement in iraq. we don't like what they're doing to unsettle the region. all of those are legitimate issues. but we decided that it was critical that if you're going try to pressure them and you want them to change what they're doing, it's better that you're not dealing with a country that has a nuclear weapon. so we wanted to take the nuclear weapon and put it over here. and then build on the support we had from china, russia and these other countries to put it to iran to change what they're doing in these other places and try to work with them to come up with a new modality for the security of the region. they indicated they were prepared to discuss those issues

and to do that. what donald trump has done by just pulling out -- >> with the firm backing of the prime minister of israel. >> of course. >> and the crown prince of saudi arabia -- >> the security, the top -- some of the top security people in israel believe the deal was working and that you shouldn't pull out of it because it is better to try to deal with these other issues with the support of these other countries. if we now had a major crisis in the region and we were called to quickly respond to which might be coming out of the fact that donald trump has pulled out of this deal, do you think china and russia and france and germany and britain are going to rush to the united nations and vote with the united states and say, yeah, we have to go in there and do something? not on your life. for the things that dup wanonalp wants to now renegotiate, do you think it's possible for the leaders of iran to come to the table and negotiate with a guy who has made their politics at home -- >> have you spoken to them? have you spoken to any of

these -- >> i did. i talked to them before the deal, before -- >> would they renegotiate with president trump? >> i tauktd with them. they're not going to renegotiate the agreement, no. and they're not going to negotiate, as president trump has not offered -- as president trump is trying to rupture the benefits that they were supposed to get from the agreement they reached, which they have kept. and he has now made it politically impossible for the leader of iran to say, oh, great. under the pressure of the great satan united states, which is what they call us, they're now going to capitulate and walk up and say, i'll do whatever you want. that leader doesn't have a prayer of affecting that or of being able to survive if he did that. this is no way to proceed. >> there is a lot of internal hard line posturing in iran. i want to quickly move to north korea obviously. i presume that you approve of president obama -- rather president trump meeting with kim

jong-un to at least see -- >> i supported engagement. i believe in engagement. i believe in reaching out and talking. i also believe, christiane, in having a strategy. i believe in doing the homework you need to do before you sit down for the meeting. and i don't believe the homework was done. and now you're seeing a sort of potential make-up meeting to try to make up for the fact they didn't have anything worked out on a communique, they didn't have details about how they were going to denuclearize. we both knew he has a different sense of denuclearization which involves japan and the united states doing things they may not do. they have been trying to hedge their own diplomacy with the north because they captain rely on this president. the christmas negotiations are what really brought about the meeting. >> between south and north. >> yes, between the south and the north. >> you framed it, i was there for some of the summit the

president had with the south korean summit, you yourself. the obama administration basically didn't do much about north korea to the point that you only mention north korea once, on one page in your very, very long book. >> it's not that we didn't -- >> well, you didn't. this is what the south korean national security expert advisor told me about this. let's just listen. >> yeah, i personally believe that if the united states had spent even one-fifth of time and effort on the north korean issue with regard to the -- compared to the iranian case, i think north korea could have been resolved. >> let me just say very bluntly -- no, i don't buy that. >> really? >> no, because we reached out -- we had all kinds of back channel initiatives. we had the same ambassador kim involved with us doing some of the outreach. i went to china multiple times in order to get china to put greater pressure on north korea. we got china to ratchet up its

sanctions. at least twice in order to put greater pressure. i publicly said at the time, i was critical of what was happening because i said that we had greater sanctions in place against iran, which did not have nuclear weapons, than we did against north korea which did. and it didn't make sense. but the problem was getting china and russia to move. when we left, president obama was very clear to president trump saying, your biggest problem is going to be north korea. we've been working this. here's what we've done. you need to go to the next step to be able to raise the sanctions. and president trump, to his credit, came in and his team did raise the sanctions on two different occasions. then they began to bite, and that's when you began to see a change. we -- i personally went to the apec meeting. ill addressed the north korean minister directly in the context of that meeting. and i said to him, we are

prepared to make peace. we are prepared to have economic assistance. we are prepared to discuss the security arrangements of the region. we're prepared to have a non-aggression agreement with you. all the things that are now on the table, we said to them, we are prepared to do. >> okay. >> but they refused to agree and they were having their own -- frankly their own struggle with china at the time, christiane. at the time china had had zero visits from kim jong-un because there was a great separation between china and the north at that period of time. >> a very quick question. this is about adversaries. what about allies? president macron recently said we can no longer rely on the united states for our security. these are allies in europe. >> well, that's a whole different can of worms. and that is one that is completely created by president trump's approach to europe, to nato, and the messages he has sent. his meetings -- his words for putin, his helsinki performance

which he never defended the united states or europe against what putin was doing. when you add it all up, they have serious, serious concerns. and they are very worried about what he might or might not choose to do. can i just say something about today? today is 9/11 memorial. i was thinking about what i went through when we were in washington witnessing that unfold and we watched the black plume of smoke rise up from the pentagon. i have a daughter here in new york and was worried about what had happened because she was near there. and i lost friends. those planes, two of them came from boston. we had friends on those planes. and today is a day we remember it. and what do we wake up to today e day means to us, but an hat ed attack on jeff sessions and the justice department in tweets this morning. i just find -- i think americans are hopefully increasingly

waking up, that the disorder, the lack of connection to a reality of the norms of the presidency and the needs of the presidency is costing us and is costing us in europe. it's costing us with leaders around the world. >> every day is extra. john kerry, thank you so much indeed for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> so, even as critics question president trump's global leadership, the american economy seems to be going gang busters. and a ceo of ibm, jenny rometi is setting a new standard for the kind of innovation and leadership that drives that success. she is inspiring her company to take major leaps in the fields of super computing and artificial intelligence. and in the era of me too, america desperately needs more women at the top and in the room, at the table. fun fact: there are more ceos named david here than there are women ceos combined. our walter isaac son sat down with jenny rometi to talk

science, trump's immigration policy and the world's first computer programmer. yep, she was a woman. here it is. >> when you took over in 2012, it was mainly thought of as a big iron company making big old computers. and since you've taken over, that's down to about 10% of what ibm does. >> yes. >> so tell me what you moved the company into and why. >> i would say people, you don't always see us, but you do rely on us because we operate almost 100% of the banks in the world. the airlines. 70% of all the business data comes right through us. we've had to reinvent ourselves era to era and arguably this is the most extensive. but this era it's been about how do you refashion the company all around data. >> are you worried about government regulation of data ownership? >> i think one of the most important words that jumps in my mind is responsibility. funny, not regulation first. so why do i not? do i not worry, do i worry? the tech industry is quite capable of being self-regulating

itself. it puts its mind to it -- >> do you feel that your competitors in silicon valley are doing as good of a job? >> i think every company's got to step up to this or there will be regulation we don't want, right? and so -- and that's why i say the word responsibility comes to my mind. >> do you think some of the tech companies in silicon valley, facebook and twitter and all, are causing a backlash on trust? >> look, we're the builders of this stuff. we believe the purpose of it is to help man do a better job, augment mankind. i don't mean that as men or women. it's to augment what man does, first his purpose. because if you believe that, you will build certain things and you won't build other things. ownership of data. people have trust -- wait a second, do i have to give you my data? do you own my data? and even more important than data is when you train an art financial intelligence, it's about training engines. that engine got trained. did you take it to my retail

competitor? they say, we can guarantee you the way you built it, your personal data is used to train this, it will not go to the next guy, right? we also said for trust, a.i. can't be a black box. it has to be explainable. and we learned that in our early days when we would work with doctors and it would say, well, here's a recommendation. any professional -- if i give you a recommendation, what's your first question to me? >> how did you figure that out? >> how did you figure that out, what data went into it, why? build it to answer those questions. therefore it's helping me. this explainability is a really big deal. that what you said about trust, you have to believe and live those kind of principles for people to trust. >> you just mentioned the difficulty sometimes of doing big data, especially when it comes to medicine, cancer. >> yes. >> doctors doing recommendations. when the "wall street journal" pushed back on watson, saying it

wasn't doing quite as well, what's the difficulty there and -- >> a, i don't agree with that article one bit for lots of reasons i think we can have an impact on health care. we will not solve cancer. we're not going to solve cancer. we can do our little pieces here to really advance this. first off, medical data doubles every 70 days. how can anyone deal with that? if you've ever dealt with anyone very sick -- my mama had cancer. your first questions are, are you sure that's it, are you sure that's the only treatment, the right treatment, there's nothing else? everyone goes through these things, right? then you look at how much is spent in almost every country in the world, particularly the u.s. and then look at the percentage of our own gdp spent on health care and what the real effectiveness is of it. so there is a problem. >> i don't think anybody would disagree with the problem part, but you could help with the diagnosis and the treatment. and so working with memorial sloan kettering, the cancer center here in new york city,

we've now trained the a.i. with their doctors and specialists on 13 different cancers which makeup 70% of the cancer types out there. and it is to help a doctor with diagnosis and possible treatments, degree of confidence, what other test should i use, et cetera. that's one area, but drug discovery with pfizer, different immune -- you'll see this a.i. play out with what are the different kinds of combinations of drugs that can be formulated and molecules. oncology is another. mayo clinic is now use ing it for clinical trial matching. what took 30 minutes is 8 minutes, you can do all breast cancer through clinical trial mapping. we're going to come up with predicting hypoglycemia. these are pieces that do in the end make a very big difference. but health care does not change overnight. >> you talk about public/private partnerships. but what is the role of government, both the federal government and state governments? >> i think two things. the role of government -- so, we have invested a lot of time in

getting some of the right policy frameworks out there for education in public/private partnerships. i think the role of government, where there is funding, set the right kind of policies that are going to incent, build in the right areas. when it comes back to education, the problem is so large, walter, it won't bevolved with just the government doing this by itself. even in our industry in i.t. there's a half million jobs open in the u.s. and we're only producing 10% of that coming out of universities. either you have to get people repaired without a university degree or accelerate that which is why it's going to take both. >> but are you worried about public disinvestment or career in government? >> it is important and imperative for the country that the government continue to foster these kinds of programs whether they be higher ed and as well elementary, secondary, et cetera. so i'm not as worried as long as

we all keep focused and put pressure on this. i know business round tables, one of our big agenda items, is on this. so, worry is not my word. constant focus and diligence on it is what i think it required. >> what are the things business round table has bnz talking about, too, is a lack of federal investment in research and development. that really flourished in the late 19 40s and brought us the internet, the microchip semiconductors and computers. >> it's a critical part that there be and remain -- if you think of what has led this country, it's been technology innovation. part of that has come because the government has been sort of the pioneer. and the different model in the u.s. is while the government investments in research, it does it with private sector. then the private sector can more readily commercialize it. other country, india, they envy the system we have like this. and so we've got to be careful not to pull that back in the wrong areas because this is still a race around skills in

these technologies. this to me is something the u.s. does not want to fall behind on by any stretch. >> do you think they're trying to -- >> whether it is china, whether it is the european union, france and germany, everyone sees this opportunity now and says, look, you've got to have technology innovation to lead. and skills is a currency in every country. >> and one of the things that sort of helps innovation, too, is immigration. >> yes. >> and that helps with the skills as well. you were one of the ceos who met with donald trump, others met with you, to say we've got to change some of these immigration policy. how successful were you with that and are you still pushing that? >> i would say ideas have no passport. skills, you have to be able to move around and bring the best skills. whether it's dreamers or immigration.

if you go back to what made this country successful, it's having the skill. have we made progress? i think we have to make more progress. things like the dreamers, we have 30 in ibm. >> 30 dreamers working -- >> 30 dreamers and a strong proponent about why we have to allow for these kind of things and taken all of our kids out -- i kids, our young ibmers to washington. these are productive citizens in this country about what they are doing for companies. and so i think immigration is a really strong piece. >> do you feel it had any impact on the white house on that? >> clearly more is left to be done. so our job is not done here, right? i feel we had good impact on education because it is really important. >> what about trade? aren't you worried we're putting up too many trade barriers? that would really hurt ibm. >> look, i'm a strong believer in free trade. yes, you should have fair trade. i don't think anybody would

disagree that there has to be fair trade. strongly believe those shsh negotiated. strong negotiations at a table with allies, with parties to get that to happen. we've got global supply chains and are capable of doing that. i think there are other smaller companies that don't have that flexibility -- it's not a huge issue for us. again, back to -- remember, we are 10% physical hard goods and 90% software and services. many done in their countries of where they are today. but in a broader picture for our economy, you want to have free trade across and you want to have that be fair trade, as i said. if you look at what our trade agreements looked like before, walter, they were not ready for this 21st century. they were not digital. so they needed modernization. there is no doubt trade agreement needed modernization to thrive in an i.t. data driven world. >> you are one of only 24 women ceos in the fortunate 500. and even more amazingly, that

number has been going down. why do you think so and what should we do about it? >> whether the number is 20 -- it doesn't matter. the point -- should it be higher? of course, it should be higher. what we spend all of our time doing is not only getting women into the work force, walter. the issue is keeping them in the work force. that to me is one of the biggest things we worked -- i think a great program, it had to do with once women leave for various reasons -- kellyanne conway a man, too, by the way. to take care of children, elder parents, et cetera, et cetera. what we found was difficult to get them back in. they're like, no, no, no, i'm sure time has passed me by. three years, four years of technology, i can't be -- we had this idea. let's put together kind of a returnship. you can stay for one day, you can stay for three months, four months, a refresh you are on all this. honestly we've had people go, okay, one day, this is right, this is crazy, i'm fine. back to work. others more, a month, catch up.

that is actually the biggest reason why you don't see more women moving up and up and up. it's this ability to stay in the work force through these life events. that to me is one of the most important things you can do. that creates a pipeline for the future. >> would we have more policies like that if we had more women ceos? it seems both a chicken and an egg here. >> no, i know many of my male colleagues as commit today thte topic as i am. people look for a big bang of the topic. it is the accumulation of the decisions you make. the jobs are available. do you insist a slate of women? or men and women. it is many different things. it is a thousand of these decisions that you have to stay with day in and day out that then make the difference. >> as a historian, i'll give you some credit at ibm because when it was the mach i computer, it

was grace harper, legendary programmer putting together. >> absolutely. >> now today's summit fastest super computer, it seems it's being run by two engineers, both of whom are women. >> yes, you get a better work product on the other end with a diverse work force. you get better ideas, better productivity, better work. you mirror the population. it's especially true when you build all these tools, a.i. and the like, they mirror the work force doing that, mirror the population it's going to serve. >> tell me about your mother. >> well, my mother, single mother raised all four of us. i was 16 at the time when my father left and left her -- kind of left all of us. and she hadn't had a college degree. didn't have the skills to go back to work, no money, time, no food. and really was by watching my mom that i learned probably one of the most valuable lessons i talk to work today, which is never let someone else define

who you are, ever. what my mom showed all of us by her actions after this had happened, she was no way going to be defined as a single mom, someone on welfare, whatever it was. she went back to school. i had to help, i was the old est. but she went back to school. she got a degree, she got a great job. all four of us, i would say i'm the under achiever of the group. all four went to college, have advance degrees. did fantastic. it was just by watching my mom. she never complained, she never cried. she just said, this isn't how this story is going to end. and don't let someone else ever do this to you. it's true for companies, it's true for people, it's true for countries. >> how does that affect your view of diversity in the workplace, encouraging a work force that was more diverse? >> yeah, you know, it actually had a really big impact on my view about skills and education. but it also had a lot to do about women and engineering. and i ended up going into engineering. and what it taught me about skills was, look, you have to be

able to problem solve. one of the best degrees is engineering. >> your patron saint, i hope, is aid a lovelace, comes up with the computer. aid a lovelace had at the end of her paper, she said machines will be able to do everything except think. it was 100 years later alan touring said, no, machines will be able to think. some day they'll be able to replace us. whose side are you on? >> ada lovelace. it's decades away, decades and decades. we're at a stage where there are still so many things you and i are able to do with this marvelous thing in our heads with only 25 watts of energy, whatever it is, right, that we are able to do. and so don't lose sight of that. i mean, that's why i think today the job is around making

things -- letting you and i do the kind of thinking and judgment that we should be doing, and then putting these technologies to work on what are some really hard problems, whether it's systemic risk, logistics, drug discovery, solving cancer. that's why i believe this is an era. it's not just a few years, right? it's not just data, because actually that's not what makes you win. what makes you win is whoever can learn the fastest. that's what these technologies are going to do, help you learn. >> jenny rometi, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, walter. >> i'm so struck by that quote from jenny rometi's mother, never let someone define who you are. those are valuable words. that is it for our program tonight. thanks for watching amanpour and company on pbs and join us again tomorrow night.

>> today that dream sets sail in europe, india, asia egypt and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by -- and by contribution s to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> you're watching pbs.

>> announcer: this is nightly business report. with sue herera and bill griffeth. new talks the u.s. is reportedly reaching out to china to resolve trade tensions while businesses and farmers sound the alarm against tariffs. supersize revenue. apple shows off its biggest and most expensive iphone ever, betting consumers are willing to pay up. shifting gears. auto makers with plants in the south are rushing to export vehicles as hurricane florence closes in on the carolinas those stories and much more tonight on nightly business report for this wednesday. september the 12th. indeed. and good evening, everybody and welcome. investors were