Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini; Interview with Former French President and French National Assembly Member Francois Hollande; Interview with Financial Times Global Business Columnist Rana Foroohar. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 14, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Presidents are entitled to have the people that they want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trump picks his team, and even some Republicans are caught off guard. I get the latest from Washington.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILIPPE LAZZARINI, UNRWA COMMISSIONER-GENERAL: We will be operating until the day we cannot operate anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- hunger and hopelessness in Gaza, and not nearly enough aid to help. Philippe Lazzarini, head of the relief agency UNRWA, joins me.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP).
FRANCOIS HOLLANDE, FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY MEMBER (through translator): So, what they want with Donald Trump is going to have very negative
consequences on our own lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- France's former Socialist Party president, Francois Hollande, reacts to the return of Trump and the global rise of the far-right.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANA FOROOHAR, GLOBAL BUSINESS COLUMNIST, FINANCIAL TIMES: He's one of the most transactional presidents, one of the most financialized presidents,
one of the most self-interested presidents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- The Financial Times, Rana Foroohar, tells Haris Srinivasan, the booming American economy is due for a downturn.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Donald Trump will be inaugurated in a couple of months' time, but will he get the cabinet he wants heading into his second term? Senator Marco Rubio
looks set to be secretary of state. But some of Trump's other picks are raising eyebrows, not just amongst Democrats, but in his own party. Like
his choice for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, the now retired Florida congressman known for his pugnacious personality, who was under
investigation by the Ethics Committee. Or Tulsi Gabbard, for Director of National Intelligence, who critics accuse of being in the pocket of
Russia's President Putin, even Syria's Bashar Assad. And his pick for secretary of defense, Army National Guard veteran and Fox News Weekend host
Pete Hegseth.
These are not just ardent loyalists, their lack of relevant qualifications for such important roles concerns Democratic Senator Chris Murphy and
others, especially if Trump tries to ram them through without appropriate Senate consideration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): I mean, that, that would be, you know, the end of the United States Senate. If the Senate chose to end its power of advice
and consent and just allow the president to choose without any input, confirmation process, or approval his cabinet, I don't know why we would
continue to show up for work. That's not a democracy anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Let's go to Washington and Jeff Zeleny. Welcome back to the program. I think that was really important what he just said. You know, it
wouldn't be a democracy anymore. What would the rest of the world think of an America that has this kind of situation going on, especially if they're
rammed through. What are you hearing in Washington?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, Christiane, this is going to be the first real test of Trump's mandate, if
he perhaps over exercises it, or if Republicans follow along. We are going to see that in the Senate.
Look, the role of the Senate is to advise and consent. It is hard to imagine that all Republican Senators would go along with these nominees.
Let's start with Matt Gaetz. There is no more divisive figure, even among Republicans, and an unserious figure than Matt Gaetz. However, he has one
qualification, first and foremost, that drew him to the president-elect, that is his loyalty and his willingness to do virtually everything --
whatever he would like.
I mean, there's one regret that stands above all from Donald Trump's first term, that is Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, who, of course, went on
to recuse himself in the Russia investigation. And Donald Trump is not going to have that this time around. So, loyalty is first and foremost. But
how many Republican senators will stand up? Matt Gaetz will be the ultimate test of that, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: It does put in question the idea of America's commitment to the rule of law. And then, what about the other individuals I mentioned? A lot
of concern about Pete Hegseth for defense and also, for Tulsi Gabbard for National Intelligence Director. What are their qualifications and what are
the pitfalls?
[13:05:00]
ZELENY: I think another challenge will be Tulsi Gabbard. Of course, she was a Democrat. She was in the House of Representatives. But, you know, has
become very prone to conspiracy theories and has become friendly with the president-elect and his team.
Look, the irrelevant senators on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, are really going to scrutinize her. She will also have an FBI
background checked. There are a lot of questions about her. So, if not for Matt Gaetz, there's no question in my mind that Tulsi Gabbard would be the
first on the list of some eye rolls among Senate Republicans, and I think the rest of the cabinet nominees on from there.
Defense secretary, there's no doubt, I think what the plan sort of is going forward on that, but it is Matt Gaetz and a Tulsi Gabbard who I think will
-- you know, it is the president's cabinet. He has the ability to put in who he would like but I believe that he has some challenges on those two.
Hegseth for defense, I would be surprised if he did not get confirmed, at least, unless we learn something else. He's a Fox News Weekend host. He is
a rising star on the conservative side of the aisle. And I think that most Senate Republicans will probably swallow that and not buck the president-
elect on many things. But again, on Matt Gaetz that may be a bridge too far. We shall see.
AMANPOUR: And again, I mean, Hegseth is controversial, he's against DEI and the Pentagon, one of the most successful diversity institutions that
works really well in the United States. And indeed, he helped persuade President Trump to pardon soldiers who were accused of committing war
crimes. So, I think there's that in that sort of closet, if you like.
But, look, you remember when a lot of the MAGA congresspeople essentially talked about burning the place down. It's not that -- we're not here to
govern, we're here to completely change and end these institutions. Do you think that's what's on the cards?
ZELENY: Definitely to shake up Washington and, you know, turn it upside down. I'm not sure burn it down. Hopefully, the relevant guardrails are in
place for that. But look, Republicans yesterday also won the full majority. They have the trifecta here. Enough House races were called that
Republicans now will control the House of Representatives by a narrow margin and indeed the Senate. But this is something that, you know, is
going to be a wait and see.
But in terms of how the world views is, Christiane, I'm struck by is President Biden is flying off for what could be his last foreign summit at
the APEC Conference. He will be asked by world leaders. What is going on? And it reminds me of what President Obama, at the time, in the fall of
2016, was asked about. Who is this man, Donald Trump, that America has just elected? Well, boy, there are some long answers to those questions.
AMANPOUR: And, Jeff, President Biden will also meet Xi Jinping. And I remember, I was in Helsinki when President Trump appeared to give more
credence to Russian intelligence than to his own intelligence agencies. I mean, this is very dangerous for U.S. national security, isn't it?
ZELENY: Without question, I was in Helsinki as well and remember that very clearly, and that was the time when he actually did have some very relevant
senior officials around him at the relevant agencies. Of course, they all were either fired or they quit. So, now, the people he is nominating to be
around him as certainly leading the intelligence front are all loyalists and some would say sycophants. So, without question, it is dangerous and it
is unprecedented to say the least.
AMANPOUR: Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much as we wait and see, you know, how this proceed.
ZELENY: Sure.
AMANPOUR: Just to say also, The Wall Street Journal, which is a bastion of conservative, particularly their editorial board, has said that Matt Gaetz
is a bad choice for attorney general and written a fulsome reason why. It's an amazing thing to be watching.
ZELENY: Right.
AMANPOUR: Next, we go to Gaza. And a new Human Rights Watch report which says Israel is responsible for mass forcible displacements of Palestinians
which they deem a war crime and a crime against humanity. Israel's military said in response that it is, quote, "committed to international law and
operates accordingly."
The U.N. recently found close to 70 percent of the dead in Gaza were women and children. That's Meanwhile, the U.N.'s Palestinian relief agency UNRWA
faces being shut down within three months. Israel accuses it of collaborating with Hamas. UNRWA says that in this war more than 200 U.N.
employees have been killed and warns that if it's shut down, no other organization can replace its aid delivery system.
I spoke to the head of the organization, Philippe Lazzarini, earlier from New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Philippe Lazzarini, welcome back to our program.
PHILIPPE LAZZARINI, UNRWA Commissioner-General: My pleasure, Christiane.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about the -- what you all are calling the apocalyptic situation in Gaza, particularly in the north. I want to start
with the latest Human Rights Watch report. They are saying that Israel has basically overseen the forced mass displacement of Palestinians in Gaza.
They use the word deliberate, systematic campaign amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity.
Can you tell me what is your reaction to that? What are you hearing about what's happening in the north?
LAZZARINI: Well, if I listen to my colleagues on the report we are getting, I mean, it's harrowing horrors. And what they are describing is
post-apocalyptic environment. Basically, people just waiting to be killed either by airstrike, by disease, or even by hunger. And it is also true
that we have seen, over the last months, an entire population in the north being on the total siege, where hunger has been weaponized and where people
has been forced to displace. And I hear from my colleagues that no one is authorized to go back to the north. So, by any account, there is indeed a
policy of forced displacement.
AMANPOUR: And I want to ask you further. There have been -- like Haaretz has put out an investigation that the IDF is building roads and bases, that
the Netzarim Corridor that splits the territory is eight by eight kilometers -- you know, it's a huge swath of land. And Haaretz has
investigated and its conclusion is that the IDF is preparing to stay there at least for all of 2025 and maybe beyond.
Do you see those kinds of preparations for a military infrastructure, and what would that mean for the humanitarian situation?
LAZZARINI: Well, if this is the case, that means north of Gaza is not the land anymore for the Palestinian and there is no way that they will come
back anytime soon, which means that the Palestinian now concentrated in about 10 percent of the territory in the south of Gaza.
They have been, over the year, concerned about will the Palestinian be expelled from Gaza? Will we observe a second Nakba? For the time being,
what we see is just harrowing suffering of the population who has absolutely nowhere to go. But yes, we see a lasting presence of the Israeli
army, at least in the north of Gaza.
AMANPOUR: So, on top of that, as you say, the harrowing reality of a people who are not getting enough food, civilians saying that they are
seeing others dying of hunger. So, let's put it like this. As you know, the Knesset has passed a law aiming to dismantle UNRWA activities. It says it
wants to ban them. So, where -- do you see that happening, and what effect will it have if UNRWA, your organization, cannot be the main humanitarian
organization to deliver aid to people?
LAZZARINI: There is no doubt that in the mind of the author of this agnostic bill, they want to get rid of UNRWA, they want to get rid of UNRWA
in Gaza, in East Jerusalem, in the rest of the West Bank. And basically, the hope through this that. once for all, they will put an end to the
refugee statue of the Palestinian, and basically, they are saying also to perpetuate the victimhood of the Palestinian.
Now, if in 90 days, UNRWA has to live, that means that the backbone of the humanitarian response in Gezer will collapse at a time needs have never
been so high. But beyond the imminent response, what is also at stake is the future of the education of 600,000 girls and boys currently living in
the rubble and being deeply traumatized. Because there is absolutely no other U.N. agency or international NGOs which is capable to bring back in a
learning environment such a number of children. Only a functioning Palestinian institution can do this. Only a state of Palestine can do this.
AMANPOUR: As you know, UNRWA has been in, the crosshairs. The U.N. has fired, you fired nine of your staff members after an internal investigation
found that they may have been involved in the October 7th attack. And as you know, Israel has accused a number of UNRWA people, and they even said,
oh, UNRWA is a front for Hamas.
Well, yesterday, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon, called for you to resign. And he was standing next to the mother of a hostage. She
claims her son was taken hostage by an UNRWA staff member. I want you to listen to Danny Danon.
[13:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANNY DANON, ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Earlier today, in the 4th Committee, I confronted Commissioner Lazzarini on his responsibility for
UNRWA's infiltration by Hamas, its fostering of terrorism, and his total failure of accountability. I demanded that Commissioner Lazzarini resigned
if he had any decency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, this is, you know, a very emotional public demand. And this has been going on for a long time. There seems to be a war of words, or a
political war, between Israel and UNRWA. What's your response to that?
LAZZARINI: Well, Ambassador Danon shared the same statement when he was at the 4th Committee yesterday. And basically, I said that I really feel the
pain of I feel the pain of Jonathan (ph) mother. I feel the pain of any parents of the hostages, but I also feel the pain of any Palestinian mother
who have a lost their children.
Now, I also say it is very important that we start to promote, what I would say, mutual compassion. People have either compassion for the pain of the
Israeli people or have expressed compassion for Palestinian people, but no one really is in a position to understand the suffering of the others. And
I think this is what we need to promote today.
AMANPOUR: So, do you plan to resign?
LAZZARINI: I don't plan to resign, because I believe that the attack are not on my person, but the attack are on the function that I'm occupying as
commissioner-general, which means that any future commissioner-general will be attacked the same way.
AMANPOUR: Now, I want to ask you about the ongoing arguments over the sequencing of aid. As you know -- well, you know better than anybody, but
certainly, the people of Gaza know that not enough aid is getting through. The United States says it's not getting through. It had a deadline with
which to link aid to its military, you know, weapons for Israel. That came and went without much improvement.
So, Israel says that there is a ton of aid inside the Gaza border, and it's just waiting for the International Community to distribute it. You are all
saying that there isn't aid coming in, and in any event, you are basically being hindered by the IDF from distributing it. What is the actual fact?
And let me first play what the head of COGAT, so that's Israel's sort of, you know, coordinating aid body, said to CNN yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIMON FREEDMAN, COGAT SPOKESPERSON: We want to work together with the organizations to see the aid get to where it needs to get to. We've already
cleared this aid, it's gone through security, and it's now waiting on the Gazan side, waiting to be distributed. But the international organizations
need to increase their capacity for distribution.
Since the beginning of the war, they've entered a total of around 30 trucks to expand their capabilities. It's not nearly enough trucks, and we've been
encouraging them for months to purchase additional trucks, and we've been willing to facilitate that, but they just aren't taking the steps that need
to get there. So, the international organizations need to also increase their capacity if you want to see more humanitarian aid getting to where it
needs to get to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, you know, there's a term which is like circular firing squad. Each person saying, no, it's your fault that aid is not getting
there. The fact is that aid is not getting to people. What's your response to blaming again, the international agencies?
LAZZARINI: Listen, Christiane, I think it's time for international journalists to be on the ground and to report --
AMANPOUR: We do too. On the record, we do as well. We believe it's time for us to be there and we want to be able to tell the actual story and the
facts of what's going on the ground. But continue.
LAZZARINI: That's exactly what needs to be done. There is a war of narrative. The situation has never been as dire. We have never brought in
as little than during the month of October. And we have on the other side, the COGAT claiming that they have never provided as much assistance.
Reality is, hunger is spreading, famine is looming again. We had an alert, and this is due to the fact that the assistance is far to be commensurate
what the needs are all about.
AMANPOUR: And meantime, just in case it's not clear, we, the international press, are prevented by Israel from going in there. So, what I want to ask
you now is, with the Trump re-election. He also has a history of hostility towards UNRWA. In his first term, he cut funds to your organization.
[13:20:00]
He's elected -- as you know, he's selected pro-Israeli officials, hardliners actually in key cabinet posts, including the next ambassador who
claims there's no such thing as a Palestinian and no such thing as occupation, et cetera. What do you think it means for the welfare, the
human body and soul welfare of Palestinian people under a Trump 2.0?
LAZZARINI: Well, for us, the first priority is to make sure that the Knesset law are not implemented. And so, UNRWA can continue to provide its
services. Would this not be the case, I think it'll be catastrophic for the Palestinian in Gaza.
Now, we keep hearing that one of the priorities of the new administration is to promote peace. If we promote peace, there might be also a genuine
political pathway in which, I believe, an organization like ours, providing critical services like education and primary health have a role to play
until the day there is a proper alternative to take over the services.
AMANPOUR: If you had to bet knowing everything you know, and you're at the U.N., you must know what negotiations, if any, are going on, does that seem
likely any time soon?
LAZZARINI: Listen, I'm not ready to give up. I still believe that there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know how much longer
this tunnel is all about. It's true that it is very easy to be bleak nowadays, but we have to keep going.
AMANPOUR: And can you just confirm that you are personally banned from entering Gaza?
LAZZARINI: I'm personally banned to enter Gaza since January, and I'm personally banned to enter Jerusalem and the Armanda (ph) since June of
this year.
AMANPOUR: And what has it meant for the humanitarian situation and delivery and how have your workers survived, or tell me what's happened to
UNRWA workers in Gaza?
LAZZARINI: Well, you know, we have an environment of fear. This law is also fueling it. We had an incident last week where the IDF was searching
houses in the North and West Bank. They entered into an apartment. They saw that the person is working with UNRWA because it's UNRWA computer. They
say, how come are you working for a terrorist organization? Forced the staff to give access to all the data of the computer. The female staff were
then blindfolded, brought to an interrogation place for six hours. So, that exposes, in fact, our staff even much more to harassment.
AMANPOUR: Philippe Lazzarini, thank you so much for joining us.
LAZZARINI: Thank you, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, Donald Trump's victory in the United States is part of a larger shift to the right across the globe, particularly in Europe. While
some leaders, like Hungary's, are all in for Trump, others are worried what his return means for the liberal democratic world order. So, how is Europe?
And what might his presidency mean for the war in Ukraine?
Francois Hollande was France's left of center president until 2017. He's now a sitting MP, and this week he joined me here in the studio.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, welcome to the program.
FRANCOIS HOLLANDE, FORMER FRENCH PRESIDENT AND FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY MEMBER: Thank you very much for the invitation.
AMANPOUR: What do you make as the leader of France, the former leader of France and the current MP, of the election of Donald Trump, Donald Trump
2.0? What's your reaction?
HOLLANDE (through translator): This election was not so surprising because it allowed Trump to return as President of the United States, but it was
the scale of his win which was really surprising.
AMANPOUR: What will it mean for Europe when you see this shift, as you've just said, a massive shift to the right, at the same time, it's happening
in Europe as well, even in your own country, with Marine Le Pen, even in, you know, Italy, in Hungary?
HOLLANDE (through translator): There is this trend, which is certainly not unique to the U.S. and which is now rising in Europe, a return to a united
Europe, nationalism, fear, and so on. But the various far-right movements getting inspiration from Trump are also anxious about what Trump is
actually going to do.
So, that's to say what Donald Trump is going to do now. And I know him sufficiently well to know that he will do what he says, higher tariffs and
appeal for European investment in the U.S., a commercial confrontation with China, which will weaken global economic growth. All that will be a major
challenge for Europe.
[13:25:00]
And so, all these people calling for protectionism and American withdrawal, they will all suffer from the politics of Trump. So, that will certainly be
a political challenge, and that's what the democratic forces will have to address with their far-right. So, what they want with Donald Trump is going
to have very negative consequences on our own lives.
AMANPOUR: So, Europe, anticipating his return, many Europeans try to Trump proof, try to already set up their own defenses and responses even before
the election. I just want to play what the current French president, Macron. said in Budapest at a meeting, a summit just this past week. Let's
listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): There has been a strategic awakening that we must embrace as Europeans. We cannot entrust
our security to the Americans forever. I believe it's also important to send a message that we are now providers of security solutions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLLANDE (through translator): This message hasn't always been properly heard or understood, but now that Trump is going not only to withdraw
American forces stationed in Europe, there are U.S. soldiers who are going to return home after all, but he will almost certainly ask NATO share the
burden of cost of the security of Europe.
Obviously, the Americans will do what they want, but it is essential that Europe takes responsibility for its own security in proper agreement, of
course, with the Trump administration.
AMANPOUR: I want to play a little bit of the interview I did with Marine Le Pen, the head of the National Rally, before this election in France in
the summer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARINE LE PEN, FORMER LEADER, NATIONAL RALLY PARTY (through translator): We are defenders of nations. We want a Europe of nations, a Europe that
respects the decisions of the people and not a super technocratic structure such as it exists today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What is she saying?
HOLLANDE (through translator): Marine Le Pen has been cautious here because she doesn't want to rock the boat. Her position is certainly not to
leave the E.U. Nobody wants to leave the E.U. The British example has been very instructive about the consequences, but she doesn't want Europe to
progress.
The various far-right movements, Orban, Le Pen and many others are not looking to break up the European Union. They don't want to upset public
opinion after all, but the far-right wants to stop the construction of Europe, prevent any further integration, including on the security issue.
And they're ambiguous about Russia too, which Orban certainly does not conceal and which Marine Le Pen tries to evade.
But we know perfectly well about the links between the far-right, the French, the Italian, and obviously the Hungarian far-right groups and
others with Vladimir Putin.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I was going to come to this because the defense of Ukraine is still the big question and nobody quite knows where it's going
to go. Donald Trump has expressed certain differing views, very pro-Putin, pro-negotiation, but the people who he's appointed already for secretary of
state, for national security adviser, for defense secretary, a Fox News anchor, they have all had pretty negative or ambiguous views, skeptical of
aid to Ukraine. In your opinion, what will happen to Ukraine in this next administration, in the next six months?
HOLLANDE (through translator): Well, we have to look at what Donald Trump says himself. He wants to stop the conflict in Ukraine, even in the space
of a couple of days. So, he's going to stop all aid to Ukraine. And almost certainly, together with Putin, he's going to ask for a peace conference to
be organized. And this will mean abandoning the territories which are occupied at the moment by Russian forces on Ukrainian territory, which
would be tantamount to a capitulation on the part of Ukraine, not to push as far as Kyiv, but to just absorb -- as was done in the case of Crimea, to
absorb into Russia the territories they're currently occupying.
Can Europe thwart this process? Yes. Provided we continue to supply Ukraine with military aid, but at a much higher level, because in all likelihood,
the American administration is going to withdraw from the Ukraine in question.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: Do you think Europe should allow Ukraine to use the weapons as Ukraine wants to use the weapons, including the long-range weapons, to
strike Russian military targets that are attacking them? And should the United States change its policy to allow Ukraine to do that before this
next administration?
HOLLANDE (through translator): Knowing full well that there are North Korean soldiers on Russian territory, attacking Ukrainian forces, should we
not react to that? That would show unprecedented weakness. So, yes, if Russian forces are using foreign contingents like North Korean forces, of
course, we must authorize Ukraine to use such missiles.
AMANPOUR: When we last spoke, you said Putin only understands strength. you think the west actually, even though they've given all these weapons,
have just not given enough, and have almost, as some people say, allowed Ukraine to survive but not to win, and in fact, to lose slowly?
HOLLANDE (through translator): Well, it's true that Europe hasn't given enough arms to Ukraine, and we haven't put them in a position to win. We've
simply enabled them to resist, and that becomes more and more difficult for them because every day Russian forces take yet another village. So, we have
to change tack.
If the Ukrainians ask us, and we'll see what Zelenskyy's position is on this, when Trump comes to power, if the Ukrainians ask us for aid at a
higher level, then we must supply it.
AMANPOUR: One last question on Ukraine. The former defense minister of Ukraine told me it is not just about a couple of villages in Eastern
Ukraine, it's about the future of Ukraine either as a west leaning democratic state or being absorbed into Russia. Do you believe that if
Russia demands neutrality from Ukraine, no security guarantee that this is the end of a democratic Ukraine for the foreseeable future? That it
becomes, again, part of the Russian project?
HOLLANDE (through translator): Yes, that is a serious risk. If Putin actually absorbs into Russia, the provinces, which is occupying at the
moment, he's going to simply wait -- and for a new opportunity, one or two or five or 10 years down the road. His objective is to challenge the
independence of Ukraine and to install in Ukraine a puppet regime as he did in the past.
So, we have to guarantee the security of Ukraine, not necessarily by NATO or Ukraine joining NATO, but it must be guaranteed by Europe.
AMANPOUR: On Gaza, on Israel, the last time we spoke you called for a ceasefire, an urgent ceasefire and the return of the hostages. None of that
has happened since we last spoke. And the death toll is mounting, I mean, gigantically.
Again, Donald Trump has nominated people who have very hardline views on, you know, the situation there. Very pro-Israel, very pro-settler. His
nominee for ambassador, Former Governor Mike Huckabee, is an evangelical who has said there is no occupation, there's no Palestinian, doesn't exist.
And that annexation of the West Bank and the settlement areas, why not? What do you think should happen right now? What can the west do, the U.S.
outgoing administration?
HOLLANDE (through translator): Well, first of all, we in the west must talk to the Arab countries because they're the ones who must come up with a
solution for Palestine and for Israel. Recognizing that Israel also needs to acknowledge a Palestinian State. Obviously, the position of Saudi Arabia
is decisive here. And Arab countries actually can influence Trump because they have links between the various leaders and try to convince him that
the major risk would be a conflagration throughout the entire region.
Trump doesn't want war. All of Trump's speeches to the American people are about using force to prevent war. But we have to get the message across to
him that in that region, force can actually trigger war, war with Iraq. And so, we have to get him to tell the Israelis that, at a certain point, they
must stop this conflict. [13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: Macron had called for an arms embargo on weapons that were going to be used to attack Palestinians in Gaza. The United States did a small,
you know, talk about suspending certain weapons. And it even said, we're going to reconsider our military aid if you don't get aid into --
humanitarian aid into Gaza. No humanitarian aid of any consequence is getting in, and the U.S. deadline has passed. Should there have been a
serious attempt by allies of Israel to withhold military support for this war?
HOLLANDE (through translator): France, and indeed most European countries are not supplying Israel with any more arms, whereas the U.S. is. So, it's
up to the U.S. to convey the message that humanitarian aid, over and above the weapons question, is essential, even an obligation on their part. So,
Trump would be committing a very serious error if he didn't lay down a condition before he takes power in February.
And the humanitarian question could spark an international outrage, which would boomerang on Israel and there would be extremely harmful
consequences. So, it is essential that we should yield to the Israelis on this. Humanitarian aid must get through.
AMANPOUR: President Hollande, thank you so much for being with us.
HOLLANDE: Thank you very much for your questions.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, the economy was a key issue for American voters in the election. Trump has promised to make incomes soar and make the cost of
living, quote, "come tumbling down." But, like many economists, Financial Times global business columnist, Rana Foroohar is not convinced, fearing
that his plans for deregulation, tax cuts, and tariffs will likely bring an economic downturn. She joins Haris Sreenivasan to discuss the
practicalities of the Trump economic agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Rana Foroohar, thanks so much for joining us. You wrote in a recent column
for an op-ed questioning whether America has become a distressed asset, and if we as a country are a victim of its own success. Explain what you mean
by that.
RANA FOROOHAR, GLOBAL BUSINESS COLUMNIST, FINANCIAL TIMES: Yes. Well, you know, my conceit was that we are about to get Trump 2 and one of the many
things you can say about Trump is that he's one of the most transactional presidents, one of the most financialized presidents, one of the most self-
interested presidents that we have ever had and we'll have again. And to me, that sort of dovetails with self-interested markets and self-interested
economies.
And for the last 40 years or so, with a couple of exceptions, I would put the Biden administration is one of the big exceptions, we've had economic
policy that's been run, I think, in a very selfish way. It's been run on the sort of Chicago school shareholder value model, where as long as share
prices are going up and consumer prices are going down, everything's fine.
You have Trump about to inherit an economy that was actually doing very, very well, but for a variety of reasons, one being the felt experience of
the inflationary blip that we saw, big blip that we saw during COVID, which is hit a lot of people hard, but also an idea that he was able to present
that trickle down works, tax cuts will make the economy grow even faster.
We're taking a strong economy and an economy that was working well, you can like Bidenomics or not like it from a political standpoint, but the
evidence was that the U.S. had the best recovery of the post-COVID period. So, it was working. And he's now going to inflate that economy even more by
using debt and deficit to bolster asset prices, to deregulate markets at a time when that's the last thing we need to be doing for the safety of the
economy, and I'm very worried that we're going to get a big correction.
And so, that's what I mean by the U.S. as a distressed asset. My feeling is that, in some ways, we are politically buying in at the top of the market,
and we're about to see a potential downturn in the next couple of years because some of the policies that this president may implement.
SREENIVASAN: So, before we get kind of further into debt and deficit, I mean, right now, the indicator that people see on TV on a nightly basis is
the stock market, right? And in the wake of the election results, we have seen a meteoric rise in stocks and in crypto currencies. Why should we not
look at that as the indicator of more stability to come? If -- I mean, what you're saying is true. What we're seeing is kind of a sugar high.
[13:40:00]
FOROOHAR: Oh, 100 percent. Well, first of all, markets have very little to do with the real economy. In fact, oftentimes share prices for a specific
company will go up if they stop investing in things like research and development, if they lay people off, if they cut costs, if they offshore
jobs, that will all make a stock price go up, but it won't enrich a community, it won't develop the new, new thing from an innovation
standpoint, it won't create jobs, it won't create income growth.
So, stock markets and the real economy are often inversely correlated. And in fact, over the last 20 or 30 years, as markets have become a more and
more important part of how we drive growth, and by that, I just mean asset growth, asset price, inflation of stocks and homes, et cetera, you've
actually seen slower and more volatile real economic growth. You've seen more financial instability. You've seen more financial crises.
So, in some ways, you could take an X and say, when the stock market's doing better, you can sometimes argue that the real economy is doing worse.
What I will say is this, if you look historically, we are at a period in this country where we are about six years overdue for a slowdown if you
discount that quick V shaped downturn in recovery of COVID, which was kind of a one-off event.
Recession and recovery cycles tend to happen about every 10 years, it's been over 16 since we had the last one, the last real one. So, no matter
who was in office, we were probably due for some kind of a slowdown. To have a president coming in and trying to bolster the market and create more
debt and deficit growth at a time when you already have the potential for a slowdown, that creates a very risky dynamic, that's the sort of times that
you get big stock market corrections, financial crises, and serious downturns.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you talk about the debt and the deficit, I mean, there are certain policies that the president has put forward, one
being a very famous one on tariffs, especially on China. What would the ripple effect be if there was a pronouncement from the administration that
we were able to implement large scale tariffs across the board?
Because right now the way that he has sold it to his supporters and voters is that this will penalize other countries will make things more expensive
for them.
FOROOHAR: Yes. It's really important to step back and define the way Trump thinks about tariffs and the way the Biden administration thought about
them, the way that they can be thought about. Trump is using a very gilded era, gilded age approach to tariffs. It's about protectionism. It's about
defense. It's about penalizing others. It's about using the consumer market as kind of a bargaining chip, which I expect that he will do. We will hear
a lot about that. If the country is not doing what he wants, you may see tariffs pulled out as a threat.
That's a very different way of thinking about a tariff than say, a one-off measure to correct against anti-competitive practices on the part of China,
let's say for dumping steel or for dumping electric vehicles below price into a market. That's a way of protecting U.S. workers.
I think what Trump is going to do is not what he says he's going to do, which is put 60 percent tariffs on China across the board and 20 percent on
other allies because that would actually probably crash the U.S. stock market and potentially weaken the dollar. I think that what he's going to
do is use tariffs as a bargaining tool in a very political way that will create a lot of uncertainty in the market and to the extent that they're
used in any broad-based way, because there's no real industrial strategy to go along with it, you would probably see that as an inflationary tax on the
U.S. people.
SREENIVASAN: Speaking of taxes, what if the Trump administration is likely to be successful, at this point, if they have control of Congress,
continues to roll back taxes? What does that do to, I guess, just the basic budget math of the country?
FOROOHAR: Well, it's kind of classic Republican economics, trickledown economics 101, right? I mean, many -- Reagan did this in the second term,
you know, you roll back taxes, but you don't cut spending. And so, guess what, debt and deficit goes up.
The reason such a problem at the moment is that, for starters, post-COVID, all countries, rich countries in particular, have had rising debt and
deficit levels, the U.S. particularly so, this is coming at a time when there's been somewhat of a pullback from the U.S. dollar.
[13:45:00]
Russia and China are building up gold reserves. China has started its own fiscal stimulus program as a way to try and repatriate capital into its own
country. That's all about trying to pull away from the dollar-based system.
Now, I'm not saying that the dollar, as a global reserve, is going to change anytime soon, but I will say that the only thing that allows the
U.S. to not be, say, Zimbabwe and, you know, running debt and deficit higher and higher without any real sense of how it's going to get paid off
and have that not spiral into a panic, is the fact that the dollar is the global reserve currency.
If that begins to change and you get much higher debt and deficit levels, you could then see borrowers, as they have by the way, in every treasury
issuance for the last several years, starting to tiptoe away from U.S. assets, that could then raise borrowing costs, that then begins to really
hit, not only trust in the U.S. as a political economy, but it hurts wallets of average people.
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk a little bit about the underlying basics of the U.S. economy. Right now, if we were to think about the stock market, it is
-- well, it's a class of assets that is not equally distributed, right? I mean, the bulk of stocks in America or even real estate in America is owned
by an incredibly small group of people. What is the policy of the Trump administration, or at least the promises the Trump administration 2.0 has
made, what does it do to kind of the average working class person that might not have access to the stock market versus some billionaire friends
who've been very active in his campaign?
FOROOHAR: Well, I mean, I think you pointed out a very, very astute thing, which is that about 85 percent of all the asset wealth in the stock market
is owned by roughly 10 to 12 percent of the population.
So, for those people asset price inflation is great, saying, oh, I'm going to cut corporate taxes. Oh, I'm going to get rid of antitrust policy. And
so, potentially there'll be a mergers boom, and that'll create a short-term sugar high, maybe a little more stock gains. That's good if you own a lot
of assets, but if you are like the average American, and you get most of your money in a paycheck, that may not necessarily mean good things for
you, because what tends to happen during M&A booms, layoffs. Companies merged. They don't need half of their back office anymore. Those jobs go
away.
This is happening at a time when A.I. is starting to move higher and higher up the food chain, and you've got tech titans like Elon Musk now
potentially coming in and, you know, right sizing the government, which will mean more cuts.
So, this again creates that dichotomy between the asset owning class and people who really make their money in a paycheck. I will also say that I
think some of the policies that Trump has proposed, like no tax on tips, are incredibly cynical because only the lower 5 percent of the
socioeconomic ladder even makes money in tips, most of those people make so little money they're not paying taxes already. It's not going to make a
difference on the federal balance sheet. And what we really need is decent jobs. You know, we need a guaranteed minimum wage. We need things that
actually create real security, not a kind of a faux marketing slogan of security.
SREENIVASAN: One of the issues that animated voters so much in America to the polls was immigration. And one of the things that President-Elect Trump
told people was that he wants to institute mass deportations. What are the economic consequences? I mean, and right now, he has staffed what his
suggested heads for the Department of Homeland Security and the borders czar, and his deputy chief of staff at the White House are all people who
really are focused on immigration as their topic.
So, if he is able to rollout, even a fraction of the intended plan, what are the economic ripples that we will have to deal with here?
FOROOHAR: Well, let me give you the counterfactual first, which is that the fact that there was higher levels of immigration during the Biden
administration, both legal and illegal, frankly, actually contributed to a less to a lessening of labor market inflation.
So, what could have been much higher inflation, some of the levels that you saw in continental Europe was less in the U.S. because we have this talent
pool, and that's historically true for the U.S. because we have higher levels of immigration, we have sort of a trend GDP rate of about 3 percent
versus, say, roughly 2 percent in Europe. A lot of economists say that's down to our labor market, which is down to immigration and mobility.
[13:50:00]
If you start to knock those folks out, regardless of where they come from, then you're going to be creating more tightness in the labor market, and
that's potentially going to be inflationary. So, it's interesting that some of these swing state voters that, you know, certainly had taken that body
blow of higher food and fuel and housing inflation and voted for Trump thinking that he's going to lower it, they may end up seeing that he raises
it.
SREENIVASAN: What do we know about the people who are coming in that will have significant economic influence over the administration, whether it's
the new treasury secretary, whether it's economic advisers? Because one of the services that Project '25 did -- Project 2025 from the Heritage
Foundation did was really just start giving you lists of people that the president could call on, but also everybody else could take a look at those
lists and see what was coming.
FOROOHAR: Yes. Well, rather than get into particular individuals, let me just sort of say, I think there's kind of two blocks. There's Wall Street
and hardcore MAGA. And I think that those two groups are going to be very much in collision about policy decisions. So, if you think about just the
folks that would like broad-based tariffs, America first, a much more protectionist view to the economy, well, that requires a weaker dollar. It
probably requires a lower stock market. That's antithetical to the Wall Street crowd, to the hedge funders, to the people that are in this kind of
American oligarchic group, I would say.
I could go on. I think, you know, immigration, again, maybe the MAGA folks love it. But if it raises inflation, Wall Street doesn't love it because
then that starts to get into is J. Powell going to raise interest rates or he's going to have to raise interest rates? And then, what's Trump going to
say is the Fed going to get politicized. That's also bad for markets because, boy, there's nothing investors -- global investors want to see
less than a fight between the White House and a Central Bank. I mean, that's a classic emerging market kind of crisis scenario.
SREENIVASAN: I guess finally, I want to ask, you know, most people look at the country's finances and try to draw a parallel to their own, for right
and for wrong, and say, you know what, here's how I'm trying to balance my checkbook at home. Where's the checkbook in the United States? So, some
people might be interested in decreasing deficits and so forth.
But as leveraged as the United States is and as financialized as politics in America has become, what are some kind of unintended consequences of any
kind of exogenous event that might create a quick or maybe a long decline in U.S. stocks? What does that do to our ability to pay for services or how
government functions?
FOROOHAR: The great, great question. Well, what I can say is even before Trump was elected, bringing in a budgetary plan that independent experts
would say it's much, much more inflationary than what we've seen so far, there was a sense that if we got a big correction in the stock market, say
20 percent, that combined with the level of U.S. debt could bring on a currency crisis, a budgetary crisis, basically, you would have a government
that would be unable to pay back creditors without slashing entitlements or military spending. Those two things are going to be very politically
unpalatable.
And so, does that create a kind of an emerging market style crisis in the U.S.? I mean, this is where you get into, is the U.S. a distressed asset?
Is the U.S. itself acting like an emerging market? And I think some of these levels of risk say, yes, we are.
Now, what does that mean for your wallet, for the average person? Well, think about your 401(k) and imagine if, as certain experts would say, the
market currently is between 20 and 40 percent overvalued. Think about if that correction happened. That's a lot less money in your retirement.
That's also immediately an international credit event that would probably raise rates in the U.S., which would make paying for everything from homes
to cars to any kind of alone more expensive.
SREENIVASAN: Global business columnist and associate editor for the Financial Times, Rana Foroohar, Thanks so much for joining us.
FOROOHAR: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, some rare good news in this sea of bad. The world's largest coral has been spotted deep in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. At over
100 feet long, it's even visible from space. And, as you can see, the mega coral is teeming with life and has been doing that for over three
centuries. The discovery was made during a National Geographic Pristine Seas exhibition in October, with scientists calling the find the ultimate
dream of their careers. Although, it's not immune to the effects of global warming its survival offers a glimmer of hope that all is not lost, at
least in this case.
[13:55:00]
And that's it for now. But tune in next week to find out about the man who changed the media landscape forever. And that is Ted Turner, founder of CNN
back in June of 1980. The first ever 24-hour cable news channel. He vowed to keep rolling until the end of the world, and a new docuseries, "Call Me
Ted" takes people back to where it all began.
I spoke to the makers, the husband wife duo producer, Joni Levin and writer director, Keith Clark. And you can catch my interview with them next week.
And the series is streaming on Max now.
And if you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online,
on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
