♪ welcome to "amanpour" on pbs. tonight, growing concerns of a nuclear arms race as the u.s. unveils plans to expand its weapons arsenal to counter the russian threat. my conversation with "the new york times" national security correspondent, david sanger. also ahead, a suffering with no end in sight. senior u.s. diplomat bill richardson on his very public rift with myanmar's aung san suu kyi over the rohingya crisis. and those refugees and family that fled myanmar only for their hope to turn to horror. ♪

"amanpour" on pbs was made possible by the generous support by rosalyn p. walter. >> good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. i'm in london with the global perspective. it seems like the cold war is well and truly back. is it? complete with a brand-new nuclear arms race between the united states and russia, the white house this weekend released its new new youclear p, aiming to put the nuclear arsenal back at the center of the defense strategy. it's called for a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons and has raised questions and alarms especially overseas, and especially from nations like russia and china because of the fear that they might actually one day be used. david sanger takes a close look at the new nuclear strategy in "the new york times" today. the headline, "to counter

russia, u.s. signals nuclear arms are back in a big way." he's the paper's national security correspondent. david, welcome from washington. >> great to be back with you. >> this is extraordinary. it really did grab all the top headlines here overseas over the weekend with people wondering whether this is an excuse to maybe one day even use a so-called low-yield nuclear weapon. >> well, it's a serious debate about there question because what's happened over time is that conventional weapons have gotten all the more powerful. weapons that could fly for an hour from one part of the world to another and hit, say, an underground nuclear location or missile location with a nonnuclear weapon. and meanwhile, it's been easier to dial up and dial down the

power of nuclear weapons. so you end up with these sort of, you know, half caffeinated weapons, right, that are a lot like standard weapons but also have nuclear characteristics. and of course the radiation that goes with them. and the question is if you have a lot of those, is the president tempted to use them. we have to remember that the russians are have these, as well, the chinese have. some and we've long had some kind of low-yield weapons. there's a debate about how having them makes them more likely to use them. >> first off, is there really a russian threat to the u.s. arsenal and the u.s. deterrent capability? i mean, all we hear is that russia could never make it in a face-to-face confrontation with nato's conventional warfare r. they way ahead in the nuclear posture? >> they certainly invested in a lot in the nuclear posture. and what people have missed is that while the numbers of

nuclear weapons are now down at a great low, and today marked the full implementation of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty which was negotiated early in the obama administration, eight years ago, and as -- as of today, russia and the united states can only have 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons. now that treaty expires in three years. and what was interesting about the doctrine that president trump published on friday is that it shows absolutely no interest in renewing it at a time that the russians are cheating elsewhere -- they've complied with this treaty. other treaties they haven't. the question is, if you reduce the numbers, what are we worried about? what we're worried about is that the systems have been modernized, the russians now have, as this document indicates, an under sea tomorrow trp -- torpedo. it could be launched across the pacific. it could hit california and basically set up a huge

radioactive wave. there are other higher tech weapons. so it's no longer a numbers game. it's about maneuverability, stealth, and new technology. of using one.ll dodrill down ona you reported it, we've been listening -- especially during the north korea crisis. what sort of loose nuclear war talk, right? and when people see a new policy like this saying that, you know, because we have such an overwhelming nuclear arsenal it's not a credible deterrent because nobody would use their nuclear arsenal. but this low-yield stuff maybe one day we can actually use it and help as a deterrent. are people really thinking like that? >> well, what's -- what's been different in all of this is the president's own choice of words. so this debate about low-yield weapons was underway during the

obama administration. and certainly there had been some research work done, although no decisions to actually manufacture new weapons during obama's time. but if you combine that with president trump's statements about fire and fury, the threats that he's got a bigger button on his desk than kim jong-un has on his desk, then you begin to see if you com-- begin to say if you combine the potential of a weapon -- whether he's going to use it we don't know -- you've got a particularly opponent combination. and when you really press your european friends or people in asia who are worried about this, it's actually president trump's words they're more worried about than the existence of the new weapons. >> and what scenario could you imagine? like a cyberattack against the u.s. -- what kind of scenario could you imagine the weapons

potentially being used or threatening to use them? >> well, that's one of the really interesting parts of this new nuclear posture review, as this once in an administration document is called. for the first time it lays out specifically that the president might choose to use a nuclear weapon in response to a massive non-nuclear attack on american infrastructure. what that mean? basically a cyberattack o somethingike it that took out, say, all of america's nuclear power plants or the east coast electric capability or all of our cell phone and emergency responder networks. then the question is, would you really escalate from a cyberwar to a nuclear war? and those who would argue that you need greater deterrent against cyberattack would say if you don't make the threat that you might do that, then you're adversary, whether it's china,

russia, iran, north korea, you name, it might think they could get away with a cyberattack instead. >> and we understand that even these low yields would be more powerful than what fell on hiroshima or nagasaki. can i just move in the national security realm to what you tweeted about, that is the families nunes memo. on this side of the atlantic, people thought it was a little bit of a damp squid -- in terms of national security, what implications does releasing this classified information have? >> well, for the nunes memo that was released the other day, as i read it, i didn't see anything of a particular national security import to it. it didn't to the sources and methods at least in the version that was released publicly. and we're told nothing was redacted. i couldn't figure out what the argument about the damage could be. people tell me that the democratic response to this

memo, the rebuttal memo, has got more detail and that that might have to be redacted. but you know, for journalist who are accustomed as you and i are to having a jousting match with the release of this data, i didn't see in this one that it really rated. >> david sanger of "the new york times," thanks for giving us some clarity there. talking of arms races and arms sales, a new u.n. report accuses north korea of supplying weapons to myanmar where the woman who was once lauded as the icon of democracy and human rights is taking fire from her allies since nearly 700,000 rohingya muslims began fleeing persecution ther aung san suu kyi was t subject of a film called "the lady." she was backed by the united states and awarded a nobel peace prize after years under arrest

struggling against military rule. under pressure from the u.s., she was freed and even won the country's first democratic election. since then, it's turned very sour amid a mounting military crackdown that the u.n. secretary of state -- sorry, the u.n. and secretary of state rex tillerson have described as ethnic cleansing. now veteran u.s. diplomat and former governor of new mexico other bill richardson, has resigned from an international advisory board on the rohingya crisis, calling it a cheerleading operation for aung san suu kyi. richardson has held multiple top-level positions as acc net secretary, u.n. ambassador, governor of new mexico, and tireless human rights campaigner. he told me why he's in despair about the crisis in myanmar. governor richardson, welcome from new mexico. >> thank you. >> can i ask you first to put this into context? i mean, america was the sort of shining bastion of light,

calling for democracy and supporting aung san suu kyi in myanmar. why is this important, this crisis, for americans to understand and to grapple with? >> well because, first of all, we're talking about potentially one million refugees being raped, killed, mistreated. america's always had a humanitarian streak. secondly, you mentioned it -- aung san suu kyi was support by democratic, republican presid t presidents, the congress, as they moved in a transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. lastly, this is a geopolitical issue, too. not as much as north korea, but there's concern about chinese influence in the region that because of the crisis that myanmar, bangladesh, that region not go too much into the hands of the chinese that are investing militarily and economically there. >> there has been a report over the weekend that north korea was

selling weapons to the military in myanmar. >> one of the features of u.s. policy has been to try to stop that especially military technology going to north korea, and unfortunately, myanmar has fewer and fewer allies. and so they're starting to rely on oppressive regimes to get financial and other military support. i believe that is the case. i think that there is that penetration of the in countries like myanmar. >> aung san suu kyi was not only championed by the united states, she was a global human rights and democracy icon. and yet she has been tarnished by critics who say she is simply -- she has simply failed to stand up for human rights in her own country. and you, as we said, have just resigned from a special board on the rohingya crisis. tell me what your last meeting with her was like and what led to your resignation. >> well, what led to my

resignation was the perception i had that aung san suu kyi did not want to listen to frank advice, that she needed more leadership to show to her military and the government that these human rights abuse, refugee abuses were wrong. she's unwilling to speak out. she wants to be re-elected. i've known her for 30 years. i participated as a cabinet member, a congressman, u.n. ambassador, boosting her, fighting for sanctions on the military when she was in house arrest, visiting her in house arrest. she's changed. she exploded when i said you have to release these two reuters reporters. they should be able to find out about the mass graves that are a big issue. and most importantly, i sent -- i sensed that this board that she had put together, distinguished people, that thit was just a whitewas that i

was just to do her government's bidding on the policy of the repatriation issue, the human rights issue. and it seems that aung san suu kyi has changed. she's in a power bubble where she doesn't want to hear frank advice and doesn't realize how bad the international community is viewing the treatment of these refugees. almost a million that are suffering in bangladesh, needing to go back to myanmar. >> so you talk about the reporters. of course, these reporters from right hers uncovered the latest mass graves in that area. did she give any reason why she thought they were -- did she answer you as to, you know, why you thought they should be relea released, and more importantly, did she ever use the word "rohingy "rohingya," because they've completely dehumanized these people. >> no, she's never used the word "rohing "rohingya," and it is clear who they are. she exploded at me saying that this wasn't the purview of the

commission which it is because a bedrock of the democracy is a free press. and these reporters were looking at some potential mass graves. not potential, they existed. there have been reports, the associated press, of more mass graves, more mass killings. and she didn't want to hear about that kind of advice. plus, i felt that the tour that they had organized around the area did not talk to muslims, did you go into the displaced people camps, did not -- it was a whitewash of the visit of the state that the government wanted to see. as a matter of conscience, despite my friendship, i admire her. i felt i should resign because my presence would not be a good part of my conscience. that's why i left. >> why do you think she's resistant -- people still in her

camp and back her and cannot believe this development say, well her hands must be tied. she can't do anything. yes, she's the leader, but she's not the official president. what do you think is the issue? >> well, i believe she's become a politician. she used to be a human rights icon, champion of democracy. she's now the head of state, but the military handles national security. there's a clear division. i think she wants to be re-elected again. she wants the support of the military. the buddhists, the majority in the country, does support her internally, her politics probably are i want to keep these policies that i'm doing. internationally when she goes against human rights groups, the united nations doesn't allow access by any kind of credible investigation into some of these atrocities, she's losing international support very rapidly. the worst part is she is --

she's refused to say to the military even though they have co-equal power, look, we can't continue doing this. in fact, she seems to be justifying their actions, covering up in a way some of these atrocities by not allowing investigations into these mass graves, these reports of atrocities. the mistreatment of the refugees in bangladesh. the repatriation process is not ready to move from bangladesh to myanmar because of safety issues. these refugees don't want to go back because they're afraid of their lives. >> the u.n. human rights commissioner has said that this crisis has potentially fueled a national security problem and a threat ahead because who knows what kind of isis -- what kind of militants may be able to feed on the despair of these particular persecuted muslims in that part of asia. do you share that concern? >> well, it's bad for the

region, for the international community. there's some factions of the rohing rohingya, they're called the arsa, that are militant. what this situation is breeding is more radicalization of the young people, the younger refugees that see no hope. they want to go home to myanmar, but they fear for their lives. they're being radicalized. this is why i believe that that is a legitimate concern. what we support a repatriation process where these individuals can go home safely, where aung san suu kyi speaks up against human rights abuse. and allows an investigation. >> it really is an extraordinary state of affairs that this icon has turned into the person that you're describing. governor richardson, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. thank you. and we have a long-standing

invitation for aung san suu kyi to have an interview, and that invitation still stands. the tragic plight of the rohingyas has been documented by many journalists including as we just said the two imprisoned reuters reporters who uncovered the mass grave. and a new short documentary by "the new york times'" ben solomon. tells one family's devastating story as their hope turns to tragedy after they flee to neighboring bangladesh, hoping to escape persecution at home. earlier, i caught up with ben as he was passing through london on his way back to asia. ben solomon, welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> this is just a 13-minute film, but it's reallyaffecting. what made you decide to do this? >> when i decided to make this film i had already been in bangladesh for about two weeks filming just around the camp and doing short stories. after doing smaller reports, i decided i wanted to do something more substantial and personal toward the people there.

i decided as soon as the family was going to lands on the boats where they were coming in every night, i was going to find the one that was the most captivat captivating and follow them through. i saw a woman who was very, very pregnant getting off the boat. >> you've got a wife and husband and their two children. at one point, we're going to play a part of your video now, they all pile into -- a rickshaw to try to get from point a to point b. let's play it, and we'll talk about it. >> come here. come here. come here, come here. [ all talking at once ]

>> put pressure on that -- put pressure on that cut there. hold it against it. are you okay? where are you bleeding? where are you bleeding? >> what was going through your head? here you were following these people, and suddenly you were mr. first-aid, mr. doctor, and mr. journalist. >> when i look at the footage, i'm surprised by how much i filmed. i don't remember even starting to record. it all happened very quickly. we had just met them the day before. it was such a surprise that it happened. whether it happened, i was -- when it happened, i was looking down, and my translator immediately started screaming. i just shot out of the car and -- with one hands on my cameras wide on the lens as i could and another trying to help. it was a crazy scene.

i've never experienced anything that dramatic and intense. >> so as you were patching them up and the team was putting them in various vehicles to try to get them to hospital, very, very sadly we find out that the wife's brother, the one you were saying "where are you bleeding from," he died. i found that sometimes when we cover these really dire, dire moments, sometimes the protagonists, they don't show their emotion. i mean, they're so desperate to carry on living, striving, to carry on doing what they're going to do, in this case get from terrifying myanmar to some safety in a camp. that when i saw the husband crying over the grave, i found it really amazing. have you seen the kind of emotion before? >> no. i think one of the most surprising things about working with the hoe hingas is how unemotive people are. this is -- rohingyas is how

unemotive people are. this is a people that spent generations being systematically oppress oppressed. they have no representation. you would expect peopleo really get shaken and get upset. for a lot of people, it's the opposite. it's so normalized. >> we're going to play another clip. as sad as it was to see the wife's brother die, now she's having her babi. >> so really the sad couple -- just double whammy. >> this was -- the hardest thing i've ever had to film in my career. >> how did they take it? >> they were completely broken.

this is -- a family that has seen a lifetime before, and i think that when they arrived in bangladesh, they expected life to get better for the worst things in their life to happen to them so soon after that joy, so soon after that hope of a better life, i can't imagine having to process that. >> so i wonder what they said and what you feel as a young reporter about the democracy icon aung san suu kyi who the world is now condemning for not being able to stop and not speaking out louder on behalf of the rohingyas. >> i think that the past few months has become a total stain on her record. it has destroyed much of her credibility, and it has also affected a lot of the hope for myanmar to progress from this once problematic military state to a true democracy. the reality for aung san suu kyi

is that after this there's no real way to hold herself on the pedestal of human rights advocate as somebody who can really stand up for this. at the same time, i think what gets lost in the conversation about her is the population of myanmar. the reality is that for most of the people there, they really think that the rohingya are terrorists across the board. most of the people are causing problems, they're not from myanmar. they're terrorists who are there. and the reality is it comes from decades of systematically doing this and putting it in the hands for the people. >> the u.n. refugee agency doesn't think it's safe for them to go back, does it? d brokered between bangladesh and myanmar something that on the ground when you're talking to the rohingya refugees is

inconceivable. when you talk to the rohingyas who have fled the persecution, violent attacks, the women were raped, the houses were all burned, there's nothing to go back to, the idea of going back so soon after with no plans in this deal for any safety is crazy. you talk to any of the rohingyas there, and they will tell you i will die before i go back. >> ben solomon, thanks for keeping the spotlight on them. >> thank you very much. a tragic and dangerous crisis, and that's it for our program tonight. thanks for watching "amanpour" on pbs. join us again tomorrow night. ♪ "amanpour" on pbs was made possible by the generous support of rosalyn p. walter. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪