Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Romney Slams Obama Foreign Policy; Obama Administration Fires Back; Two Chinese Companies Under Suspicion; World Pulse Works To Empower Women

Aired October 08, 2012 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL. I'm Suzanne Malveaux. We're taking you around the world in 60 minutes. Here's what's going on right now.

Twenty-nine days until the election and Mitt Romney, as you just heard, attacking the President on his leadership around the world. Romney just wrapped up his first major foreign policy speech at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. It is the country's oldest military academy. And, Romney, he essentially came out swinging, very harsh rhetoric. He condemned the President for leading from behind, declaring it is time to change the course in the Middle East.

Want to bring in, first of all, my colleague, Wolf Blitzer, who was watching it with us.

And, Wolf, first of all, Romney criticized, and his campaign criticized the Obama administration for not having an overall strategy in this region. And here's how he summed it up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The know the President hopes for a safer, freer and more prosperous Middle East, aligned with us. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We can't support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, Wolf, we know he was referring to a lot of the protests around in the region, and even the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. But when you listen to what he is saying here, how much of it, do you think, is about a failed strategy or what is simply out of the White House's control at this point what is going on in the Middle East?

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Well, a lot of it is clearly out of the White House's control what's happening in the Middle East. It doesn't make any difference what the strategy would have been. There are internal developments in North Africa and in the Middle East that are happening right now. And irrespective of what the U.S. and others could do, those developments are going to go forward for good or for bad.

I thought that one of the most significant things we did hear clearly and decisively from Mitt Romney, Suzanne, was that his articulation for a continued internationalist role for the United States, because there are some, including some of the conservative movements, some Republicans, who want to have more of an isolationist, a retreat, if you will, from an international involvement. Go back to the U.S. borders. Stay away from so many issues around the world. Cut back on U.S. foreign aid, for example. You hear this -- you heard it decisively for -- from Ron Paul, for example, when he was running for the Republican presidential nomination. You hear it to a certain degree from his son, Senator Rand Paul. There are other isolationists in that Republican Party.

But from Mitt Romney, right now, you heard the exact opposite. The United States must take the lead. Must stay involved. Whether in Afghanistan or, you know, he complained about the President's abandonment, if you will, of Iraq and in the Middle East, elsewhere around the world. A very robust international policy -- internationalist policy. And I thought that was a significant statement on his part.

MALVEAUX: Let's talk a little bit, Wolf, about what the voters are looking for, because you have the Romney campaign criticizing the Obama administration strategy or this doctrine that the Obama administration called leading from behind. Specifically Libya when the White House, in a calculated effort, let France and Britain take lead in establishing this no-fly zone, and the U.S. played assist.

Well, Romney is now calling that leading from behind as following. Very different than what we saw from President Bush with his own preemptive first strike doctrine, forging the war in Iraq and using it as his justification for the war on terror. What do you think American voters are more comfortable with? Do you think that it is the Bush preemptive approach that resonates with voters, or is it really more about what President Obama is trying to do?

BLITZER: Well, there's clearly no great, you know, desire on the part of the American public to get involved in wars. Once again, as was the case with Iraq, for example, for Afghanistan, the U.S. -- I think the public, if you look at all the polls, very happy the U.S. is out of this -- out of Iraq right now, completely militarily, even though, as you and I know, Suzanne, the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. And Romney made some valid points about the reduction of democracy under the government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki and its association, it's increasing alignment, if you will, with its neighbor Iran.

But the U.S. public doesn't want to get back involved in any kind of warfare situation. And Romney is walking that delicate tight rope. The U.S. will take the leadership, but won't get involved militarily. I think Fareed makes a valid point when he suggests -- Fareed Zakaria -- when he suggests that the whole notion of arming the Syrians, finding those Syrian moderates, those pro-western rebels fighting Bashar al Assad, that may be a new strategy on the part of Romney as opposed to the Obama administration which has been totally reluctant to arm any of the rebels in Syria, fearing those weapons could wind up in the hands of the so-called terrorist. The bad guys, if you will. That's a clear differentiation. But I think from the American political perspective, there's no great desire to get involved militarily on the ground or in the air, for that matter, in Syria or elsewhere.

MALVEAUX: All right, Wolf, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Of course we're going to bring in Fareed Zakaria to talk about this. Fareed in New York.

Of course, you were watching this as well, and one of the points that you brought up is that these two leaders, these two men, really see eye to eye on a lot of foreign policy issues. The only one that we really heard that was different was what you had actually talked about, and that was Romney's stance on arming the Syrian rebels. How does the United States go about doing that? Because we know the Obama administration, even learning in "The New York Times," they're discouraging U.S. allies, Arab allies, to actually get involved.

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS": Yes, you know, if you were to have listed to that speech, you would assume, atmospherically, that Romney had very strong disagreements with the Obama administration, but his problem is that Obama has run a foreign policy almost like a moderate Republican. It's been internationalist. It's not been too liberal in the sense of human rights oriented. It's been tough. So the Syrian issue is the one place Romney can find to make a distinction.

But as you point out, it's a very difficult policy to enact. The Syrian insurgency is really an uprising of 100 armed militias all over Syria that are not particularly well connected to one another, so you wouldn't know whom you were arming, you wouldn't understand what the goals of the people you are arming is, and there is a danger that some of this would blow back in just the way it did in the Afghan case where the people we armed turn into terrorists.

But I think that -- I would guess that a President Romney would confront many of these same dilemmas and would be quite cautious, which is why, even in his rhetoric, he doesn't say, we should arm the Syrian rebels. He -- if you read that paragraph, it's quite convoluted. He says we should work with our allies and make sure that the rebels get the weapons they need, which sounded to be like he's saying, we should allow the Saudis and the Qataris to provide more assistance, not arm them ourselves.

MALVEAUX: And Romney implied that the administration was being deceptive, trying to convince us that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a random response to the film that insulted the Prophet Mohammed. Let's listen in and evaluate that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: These attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology and others, especially on women and girls, who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

(END VIDEO CLIP) MALVEAUX: So, Fareed, we know he's talking about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, but President Bush, before him, and several other administrations, they essentially were containing the extremists, the terrorists, by propping up these dictators, right, in Egypt, Libya, Syria. The list goes on. Now you've got this dangerous power vacuum in many of these countries. Has the administration done enough throughout the region to help them transition from what we saw as these dictators to now democracy?

ZAKARIA: Well, here you reach at a very, very interesting problem. You could argue that the administration hasn't done enough, but what you would be arguing then is that the administration, the American administration, should provide more assistance to the newly elected democratic governments in, say, Egypt and Tunisia, which are Islamist, which are, you know, are -- which these elections were won by people who think of themselves as kind of followers of a kind of political Islam. Now, many people in the conservative movement despise these people and regard them as forces that we should be battling.

So Romney has a very difficult agenda there, where he wants to criticize Obama for not helping make Egypt successful democratically, but does he really mean that we should be supporting these groups that -- many of whom believe in some kind of Sharia law and such? Should we be supporting these groups more?

I doubt that that is a place that conservatives would be comfortable. And Romney, as a result, even there is a little bit vague. Other than saying that Obama has done it wrong, he doesn't really tell us specifically what he would do.

MALVEAUX: Let's talk a little bit about Iran. David Sanger of "The New York Times" he writes recently as August that "despite increasingly painful sanctions, and a covert program called Olympic Games that aimed to show the Iranian program with cyberattacks, Iran has made substantial progress in producing enriched uranium in recent years from about one bomb's worth when Mr. Obama took office in 2009 to the equivalent of about five bombs worth today."

We recently saw the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, draw this very clear red line before the U.N. just a couple of weeks ago. Is there any daylight between these two when it comes to how tough they're going to get on Iran?

ZAKARIA: Not really. Look, the truth of the matter is, it's important to understand that Iran has a very extensive civilian nuclear program. And when you talk about one war (ph) bombs worth or five bombs worth, this is not bombs. This is the amount of uranium they have that could be converted were this to become a military program.

I would argue, and I think this is generally speaking, experts would agree, the Obama administration has been very tough on Iran. The sanctions are global. They are crippling. They are hurting them. But the truth is, the Iranians, you know, Iran is one of the world's great petroleum exporters. They have money. The nuclear weapons program doesn't cost that much. So the only thing you can realistically do beyond this would be to bomb Iran. And the issue is not will the sanctions be able to somehow physically stop the Iranians from pursuing the nuclear weapon -- energy program or a weapons program, the question is, will it bring them to the negotiating table because they feel the pain is so crippling, because they feel their economy is in a death spiral. That's where the pressure is going to act. The pressure isn't going to suddenly shut down their ability to make nuclear -- to produce nuclear energy.

MALVEAUX: All right, Fareed Zakaria, thank you very much for your analysis, as always.

Want to bring in our military expert as well to talk about some of the differences between these two leaders, General Spider Marks.

And, first of all, one of the things that we heard is that these are two individuals who believe that the Middle East is an unpredictable place. It is perhaps a dangerous place as well. But Mitt Romney makes the case, he makes the argument that it is now more dangerous. That we are not safer off than we were four years ago. Is that consistent? Is that right?

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, there is some evidence that there is -- there are a number of problems, obviously, with the case in Syria and the enrichment of uranium that we've clearly been able to see in Iran, but also look at Syria's -- the support that Syria is getting from Iran through Iraq. And I think it's very important that we realize that Iraq now has saddled up very closely with Iran, at least all indicators are that it is moving in that direction, and Iraq essentially has become a line of communications for Iranian support to Assad's regime and its survival in Syria. That can be addressed. So the short answer is, yes, it's entirely more complicated and more dangerous.

MALVEAUX: Is it fair the criticism that Romney weighed against the President about Iraq? I mean you could look at this as a failed effort by the Bush administration after the Iraq War that there is not a more democratic and stable society in that country. That it is not the responsibility of the Obama administration.

MARKS: Well, clearly we left Iraq, and I think that was the right thing to do. However, we also retain the -- we should retain the capability and the flexibility to maintain a very robust relationship with the Iraq leadership so that we can reinforce it as necessary. And there are more elements of power beyond military. Clearly you've got economic -- you've got efforts at governance. We still have a very robust American embassy, so they get a sense of what's going on inside the decision makers in Iraq, and we also have a military presence in the form of a military assistance group, if you will, so that we can bolster that as necessary. But that now has reached the point where it must be a request from the government of Iraq. We can influence the requests and the questions that they ask us, so we should be able to reinforce that relationship as necessary.

MALVEAUX: Is it realistic, because one of the only differences between these two is on the issue of Syria and whether or not those rebels should be armed and providing arms. Is that a way of actually ending this civil war, as Romney suggests, as actually arming -- heavy arms to those rebel, who (ph) a lot of people don't even know who they are or whether or not they would get in the hands of terrorists?

MARKS: Well, that's a single attack that can be taken. It, by itself, you know, exclusive of other efforts that should be ongoing right now primarily with Russia to try to exert influence over Russia so that they understand the cost of their medaling and involvement in Syria, which clearly they are. So the United States can achieve, through a coalition and through proxies, some advancement of the opposition parties if we can support them with arms and try to coalesce external, as well as internal, parties in Syria toward a common goal of eliminating Assad. That also has to be worked from the outside in diplomatically. And certainly the United States is, I must assume, is working on that aggressively. We haven't seen it, though.

MALVEAUX: All right. General Spider Marks, thank you very much. Good to see you.

Of course, we're not done yet with Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech. In a couple minutes we're going to go to the co-chair of the Obama campaign national security advisor committee and we're going to get her take on the speech.

And the growing suspicions surrounding two of China's largest telecom companies operating now in the U.S. Some in Congress say they actually pose a national security threat.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Both Mitt Romney and President Obama agree that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They say they draw a red line at a nuclear Iran, but the two men differ on where that line actually is. The President says he will move against Iran if it makes direct steps to acquire a nuclear weapon. Now, Romney promises to stop Iran from ever making a nuclear bomb.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability, it has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and us and has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in our nation's capitol.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: We're talking about Mitt Romney's big foreign policy speech.

I want to bring in Hala Gorani to talk about it and, first of all, one of the things we did mention and they've talked about this is this idea of avoiding a nuclear Iran.

From what I can tell and from what a lot of people say, it looks like the sanctions aren't working and it looks like diplomatic efforts aren't working either. How are people responding?

HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's just really a question of making a difference between what Mitt Romney is proposing, the approach being toward Iran versus Barack Obama, the tightening of sanctions.

But when you say there hasn't been much of an impact, perhaps not in terms of the development of nuclear capability or nuclear energy or nuclear products, but you did see that currency crisis over the last few weeks in Iran that experts say was a result of that economic squeeze applied on the country because of these sanctions. And this is a big problem for the leadership on the executive level in Iran, but also as far as the clerical leadership is concerned.

They have to address the frustrations of their citizens who've seen the value their currency plummet by 40 percent, 50 percent in a matter of weeks.

MALVEAUX: Tell us about Syria. You've got an active civil war that's taking place there. These rebels, who are looking for more arms, heavier arms, and our administration, the United States administration, saying, you know what? We're not going to go there because it could end up in the hands of terrorists.

How are people responding when they listen to Mitt Romney and he says, well, yeah, perhaps we do need to arm these folks?

GORANI: I think people are going to be reading carefully what Mitt Romney proposed in the event that he does win in November, that -- what a difference would that make in the U.S.'s approach to the civil war in Syria.

The White House and the administration has been certainly less open about the idea that arming the rebels at this stage is something that will resolve the situation or help bring the conflict to an end and bring democracy-minded rebels to power.

Here, the rhetoric is a little bit different, but it's not suggesting, as far as what I read, that the U.S. should directly arm the rebels, but facilitate the arming of rebels, which by some accounts is already happening.

You have CIA operatives on the border with Turkey, vetting and identifying rebel groups, and by the account of some reporters that arms coming from some Gulf countries are already flowing into Syria to help the rebels. It's still very asymmetrical, but it's certainly helping the rebel cause.

MALVEAUX: So, we're dissecting all of this and you've been in the region. You've covered this many, many years. Are people on the ground there in the region, are they watching this the way we are and the election and thinking, OK, somebody different in the White House ...

GORANI: Short answer or long answer?

MALVEAUX: Somebody else in the White House might make a difference, or maybe not? You know? GORANI: I think the sense is that, from people abroad, is that, look, you have Barack Obama who's conducted a foreign policy that is not entirely dissimilar to the one before him and any president has a margin of maneuver that is very much reduced in terms of foreign policy.

You might have some slight differences, here and there, but overall, the U.S.'s approach to foreign policy won't change dramatically in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; in terms of Iran, where, really, the sanctions approach is the one that's being used; in terms of Syria where there's still a lot of hesitation regarding the rebel groups.

So, no, I think that people, A, are not listening to this speech abroad yet -- he's still a candidate -- and, B, if there is a change in leadership, it's very much a wait-and-see approach because Barack Obama's approach to foreign policy, in some people's minds, has not made a dramatic -- has not been dramatically different from what was there before.

MALVEAUX: All right, Hala Gorani, thank you. We hope that people will continue to -- will start to pay attention.

GORANI: I think with that foreign policy debate you might see more interest for sure. Absolutely.

MALVEAUX: Thank you, Hala.

So, we've broken down many aspects of what is now being called the "Romney doctrine" at this hour. Up next, we're going to see how the Obama team is responding to the speech.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: The Obama campaign not wasting any time responding to Mitt Romney's foreign policy address. In a new television ad, the Obama team reminds voters of the tough reviews that Romney received the last time he traveled overseas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Reckless, amateurish, that's what news media and fellow Republicans called Mitt Romney's gaffe-filled July tour of England, Israel, and Poland. When our U.S. diplomats were attacked in Libya, "The New York Times" said Romney's knee-jerk response showed a tremendous lack of presidential character.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Michelle Flournoy is a former Obama administration top aide, currently advising Obama's re-election campaign on national security issues, served three years as undersecretary of defense for policy.

Michelle, good to see you. The new ad that is out now, you know, everybody has on the job training here. We know that President Obama, when he first came into office, didn't have a lot of foreign policy experience.

Can you cut Mitt Romney some slack on that first visit or do you think that really indicates a lack of understanding on the world stage?

MICHELLE FLOURNOY, FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, his initial performance abroad certainly did not inspire confidence, but the truth is, beyond that, he hasn't been able to articulate a clear vision for where he would take this country.

He talks a lot about criticizing the President, criticizing his policies, but when you actually look at what he says, there's -- he seems to either embrace the President's plan or, where he differentiates himself, really goes way away from the mainstream and takes us into some pretty uncertain territory.

So, I think that the thing that makes people uncomfortable about him as a potential commander-in-chief is the sense of a lack of compass. Where exactly would he lead? He doesn't seem to know that.

MALVEAUX: The only difference that we really see, at least from Romney's major speech here, is that regarding Syria. For the most part, he is very similar in his approach to the world as President Obama. There doesn't seem to be a lot of daylight between him, except for arming the Syrian rebels.

What is the main distinction here, the real highlight of differences between these two leaders?

FLOURNOY: Well, again, I think he was very -- the first part of the speech was very critical of the President and, yet, as you said, when he goes through the particulars, it sounds like he is rearticulating exactly what President Obama is doing in places like Iran, in terms of our support for Israel and the Middle East peace process.

MALVEAUX: So, why should somebody, voters, support the President then? If they are so similar when it comes to foreign policy, is there a major distinction between these two that people should be listening for?

FLOURNOY: There is. The President has a record. The American people have lived through the last four years where they've seen the President go after al Qaeda and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. They've seen him bring the troops out of Iraq. They've seen him put in place a transition plan for Afghanistan.

What they've heard from Romney has been all over the map and, frankly, they see him listening to a set of advisers who the same advisors who brought us the first Iraq war, who advised President Bush in the first administration and who really did so much damage to our standing in the world and our leadership in the world.

And, so, it's very hard to know where Mitt Romney himself stands and, when he does listen to his advisors and stake out some of these positions, like, you know, Russia is our number one geopolitical foe, or, you know, day one in office I'm going to start a trade war with China, it's very disturbing. And I think, you know, yes, the election is about the economy, but people have to have a fundamental sense of comfort about this person as commander-in-chief, and I don't think they have that with Romney.

MALVEAUX: If I can interrupt here, one of the things that people seem to be concerned about here is the level of defense spending and really whether or not that needs to be cut, whether or not that needs to be bolstered to protect U.S. interests around the world, and here's what Mitt Romney said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: I'll roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I'll make the critical defense investments that is we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: So, we just spoke with General "Spider" Marks who says that, in some ways, Americans aren't safer than they were four years ago, that this is not the time to make those kinds of serious cuts to our defense. What is the campaign's response?

FLOURNOY: The cuts that Romney was referring to are what would kick in with sequestration, that is, if the Congress fails to reach a budget deal, these across-the-board cuts would kick in. The President is on record as opposing those. Secretary Panetta is on record opposing those. No one wants those to happen and, so, that is not the plan of this president in any shape or form.

What is the plan of this president is a plan that he devised with the full participation and support of the joint chiefs of staff and the combatant commanders and it lays out a four-year defense plan that keeps our military the best in the world and keeps faith with the troops and their families.

MALVEAUX: All right, we're going to have to leave it there and, obviously, we'll be paying very close attention to the debate with these two regarding foreign policy. That will be the third and final debate between the two.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

He faced his strongest challenge yet and he won, but despite his victory, Hugo Chavez still has obstacles to overcome. We're going to take a look at the path forward for the Venezuelan president, as well as his country.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: A House intelligence committee report says that two of the world's biggest telecom companies could pose a threat to U.S. national security because of their ties with the Chinese government. The companies, they've been trying to expand operations here in the United States, but this report suggests that using Chinese equipment could make us vulnerable to cyber attack and even open up telecommunications to military and commercial spying.

Our foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty, is at the State Department and talk a little bit about the two companies that we're focusing on. One is Huawei, the other, ZTE.

What is the main threat here? What do they fear?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, what they're saying -- I mean, the intelligence committee, number one, has been looking into these companies for a year and what they are saying, essentially, is that, albeit these companies are huge -- I mean, Huawei, $30 billion company. It is around the world. It has at least 120,000 employees, 1,500 of them in the United States.

But this committee is saying that, essentially, they're a Trojan horse, that they are connected in some fashion with the Chinese government and, if I let them in, if you let them provide telecommunications equipment in the United States, that they will allow somehow access to the Chinese government to carry out intelligence spying, commercial spying, and it shouldn't be allowed.

However, they also say, you know, this is a country of free enterprise and, so, they're urging companies not to deal with them.

But the companies, Suzanne, are responding. They're saying that, number one, they are not -- both companies say they're not connected with the Chinese government and, in fact, William Plummer, who is a representative from Huawei said that it's not fair to hold hostage an independent employee-owned company that's bringing affordable broadband across the planet.

So, I think what you've got here is there's no smoking gun. This committee is not saying there's any concrete proof, but what they're saying is we've looked into it, they didn't answer all of our questions sufficiently. Therefore, we shouldn't deal with them.

MALVEAUX: And is there any evidence, first of all, that there is this spying or stealing of intellectual property by Huawei and, secondly, what is their relationship with the Chinese government because we do know there have been accusations certainly in the past that the Chinese government has done that.

DOUGHERTY: Right. Well, there is no -- as far as I can see, any concrete proof of that, you know, tying, let's say, cyber attacks to either of these companies. They provide communications equipment all over the world.

I think the connection to Huawei is that the founder of the company, quite a long time ago, was with the People's Army, as many people were, but then he left the army and began this company.

So, you would have to delve into, I think, a very long investigation, but a lot of those implications go back to the early, early times of this company.

So, don't forget that this is a very, highly political situation and you certainly do have cyber attacks, et cetera, but not necessarily coming from these two companies.

MALVEAUX: And, Jill, just to be clear here, this report, the recommendations from the report, essentially, you cannot -- you can't enforce this, right? I mean, this is markets. This is something that the U.S. government can ask companies here not to do business with Huawei and the others, but they can't actually say this is forbidden. Is that correct?

DOUGHERTY: Exactly. And, you know, that it has to be up to each individual company. They would, of course, have to find another provider and, presumably, what the Congress would want would be a U.S. provider.

MALVEAUX: All right, Jill Dougherty, thank you, Jill. Appreciate it.

Want to get a quick check of the markets here. The check on the big board, it is down by 30 points or so. Bond markets closed today for the Columbus Day holiday, but stocks, they are trading. You can see Dow down again 30 at the moment and third quarter earnings kicking off tomorrow when Alcoa reports.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: President Hugo Chavez wins another six-year term in Venezuela. The turnout was huge. Almost 81 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. Compare that with about 61 percent in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The man going up against him, Enrique Capriles, made a strong showing, but it was Chavez who ended up winning more than 54 percent of the vote.

I want to bring in our Rafael Romo and, Rafael, you've been covering this, so, first of all, I've got to ask you, are these numbers legitimate? Is this a legitimate election when you hear that turnout was more than, what, 81 percent?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN SENIOR LATIN AFFAIRS EDITOR: That was the first question that everybody had, right? But when Enrique Capriles came out last night and recognized officially those results, you have to believe what the opposition is saying.

They had a presence in every single one of all polling places throughout Venezuela and they didn't see any irregularities. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, no evidence of tampering.

MALVEAUX: You have been covering this. You talked a little bit this strategy from Hugo Chavez, some of the things, the big give-always, homes, refrigerators, all that. I mean, he just -- all the tactics, right, that could possibly be used to get voters to support him.

ROMO: Well, the reality in Venezuela is that, apparently, giving hand-outs to the poor works and has worked very well for President Chavez. He has established living units, living complexes for people with low- income, handed out refrigerators, a number of different things and benefits and welfare programs and social programs all financed by oil money that really have increased his popularity with the poor.

The poverty level in Venezuela is about 35 percent, so that has worked for him.

MALVEAUX: So, how is his health? Because he's had a couple of bouts now with cancer. He's been fighting that. Is he going to do well in his administration?

ROMO: Well, part of the reason why he went to Cuba to get treated is because Cubans are very, very good at keeping secrets and, so, nobody really knows what kind of -- first of all, what kind of cancer he has, number one. And, number two, back in July, he declared himself "cancer-free." Is that the truth? Nobody really knows.

Now, he had two surgeries and, last year, he first announced that he had cancer in June of 2011. He still looks puffy which could tell you that he's still taking some sort of steroid treatment. But, whether is "cancer-free" or not, it's an open question.

MALVEAUX: All right. Well, we'll see if he governs any differently this go-round now. He's got another six years. A lot of corruption in that country. Rafael, thank you.

ROMO: Thank you.

MALVEAUX: Ten years ago, even five years ago, you wouldn't even think it's possible, but thanks to social media and other technology, women living in the world's toughest conditions who are, now, they're getting a voice. They're making a difference. You're going to meet two of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, there's contact. Stewart into the middle of the pack and over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: This is from the final lap of Sunday's Good Sam 500 in Talladega, Alabama. It happened when Tony Stewart tried to block a move. More than 20 cars were involved. Somehow Matt Kenseth in the number 17 car was able to avoid the carnage. He won the race under caution.

And can this power pose make you a winner? Well, Olympic gold medalist Usain Bolt thinks so. He is ready to defend his title in 2016. More photos of the day up ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MALVEAUX: More fears today that Syria's civil war will escalate into a regional fight. For the fifth day in a row, Syrian army forces are exchanging fire with Turkish troops on the border. And in northern Syria, this is what's happening. Syrian troops, they are pushing to retake the key cities of Homs and Aleppo. Opposition activists say at least 76 people have died across Syria so far today. This is the suburb of Aleppo in northern Syria. The person who posted this video on YouTube says it shows regime war planes attacking buses there and killing civilians. CNN has no way to independently verify the video.

Well, empowerment. As children, it wasn't a feeling that Stella Paul or Hummingbird knew. They didn't know it well at all. They learned to find power from within. They broke free from lives of abuse and repression. And now, through their work with World Pulse and the power of social media, they are teaching other women how to do the same.

CNN is proud to support World Pulse, whose mission is to connect women globally, put the focus on human rights issues and help women find their own inner strength.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STELLA PAUL, WORLD PULSE AWARD-WINNING CORRESPONDENT: I'm empowering young people in Nepal to become agents of social change.

"HUMMINGBIRD", WORLD PULSE AWARD-WINNING CORRESPONDENT: Every woman has a story to tell. I help women tell their own stories.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Well are proud to be joined by Hummingbird, a native of Syria, and Stella Paul, born in India. They were chosen from 600 World Pulse correspondents to represent the organization on a tour here in the United States.

Welcome. Congratulations.

HUMMINGBIRD: Thank you so much.

MALVEAUX: This work that you do is so incredibly important. Tell me, first of all, why it is personally important to you, Hummingbird.

HUMMINGBIRD: It's very important to me to deliver the voices of my people in Syria. And my target was to go to the -- to the American society inside because I heard many people telling me that we don't know what is going on. We are confused. And I am here to tell them that I know sometimes it's confusing, but don't let that freeze you from doing -- from not doing something about it.

MALVEAUX: It takes a lot of courage to do what you do. Do you ever fear for your life or your safety?

HUMMINGBIRD: Of course, I do. I had my fears and my doubt all the time. But sometimes it takes a leap of faith to bring change.

MALVEAUX: It's just incredible when you think about that because people watch and it's just a lot of pictures to people. And you bring a human face to it because you know and you understand what's happening there in your own home country.

Stella, I want to talk to you a little bit about this because what is taking place in India, some young girls, they are just simply thrown away, they're discarded. What was your experience there?

PAUL: OK, Suzanne. Every single month we are killing 1,600 girl children in their mother's wombs. And I am a survivor of that human infanticide. So my experience begins right there. Someone who was -- that girl who was thrown away and then still was able to make it back. So -- and that's something that keeps driving me. And I -- through my work, I try to make sure that I'm going to do something about it.

MALVEAUX: How did you survive that? How did you get through? When you say you were thrown away, can you tell me what happened?

PAUL: Yes. I was sick with diphtheria, along with my brother. And my brother died. And my family decided that, as a girl child, I do not -- I'm not worth saving. So they actually destroyed all the medicine that was available around me. And they just decided to leave me alone and just let alone to be died. But I survived because my mother had the courage to stand against the family decision, and she had the courage to find a doctor who could perform a surgery. And I actually live with the scar on my throat, which is the result of that surgery that he performed. And it's a reminder of what happens to girl children in India.

MALVEAUX: I see that scar. You know, it's just heartbreaking to hear your story. When other people see this, is there anything that we can do?

PAUL: Of course. When other people see this and when I tell them their story and I say that bad things are happening every day, but we can do something about it. We -- if we can empower ourselves and we can get help. We can get help very quickly. We can reach out to other people. If you can't help yourself, if your people around you can't help yourself, other people will come in. But the important thing is to let them have access to technology so they can make that connection possible, reaching out it others, asking for help. And that's what I do. Giving them the help of technology so they can help themselves and others.

MALVEAUX: And, Hummingbird, tell us about -- we see these pictures and we hear these awful stories and nobody knows how this is going to end, this civil war that is taking place in your country. You're going back home. What do you do next?

HUMMINGBIRD: We will continue talking about it. We will continue to gather the forces of the local communities. There are many people working inside Syria under cover, and they are unknown. They are the heroes that are hidden for the world. There are also other women, many women, many beautiful women are working inside Syria to help the refugees and field hospitals, in taking aid to the refugees in schools, and their voices are not heard usually. And I want to amplify their voices also. MALVEAUX: All right. Well, you are today and it's just extraordinary the tour that you have taken throughout the country, the fact that you are heading back to your home countries and making such a powerful, powerful change. It's just very, very inspiring. Thank you very much, both of you, and congratulations for the recognition.

HUMMINGBIRD: Thank you.

PAUL: Thank you.

MALVEAUX: All right.

It sounds a little strange, but an astronaut wandering around a famous Italian landmark. We're going to show you why, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MALVEAUX: Welcome back to NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL. We're taking you around the world in 60 minutes.

Here is what is topping the charts. Take a look at what an Italian rock band's softer side looks like.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)

MALVEAUX: Singing their love song, (INAUDIBLE), is Negroamaro. The band's name comes from a local grape which translates into "bitter black".

Several stories catching our attention today, photos as well. Take a look at this.

In India, women wait to fill out applications for affordable housing. It's a government program for women of homeless families. Some five million applications were handed out.

(INAUDIBLE) perform martial arts outside a temple in Amarstar (ph), India. It is a ritual to celebrate the guru who founded the city.

And Usain Bolt says he is a legend, plans to dominate in the next Olympics. In the meantime, the Jamaican Olympic gold winner shared some of his moves with sprinters in New Zealand. Showed a group of folks techniques during a track and field clinic.