Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg; Interview with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 12, 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.
Evacuating Ukraine's war wounded. My exclusive report aboard the medevac train never before filmed.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: I'm still against war. The main purpose of NATO is to prevent war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: After a decade at the helm of NATO, the secretary general's term is up. An exclusive exit interview with Jens Stoltenberg about war, peace,
and how a Trump 2.0 might affect the alliance.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Next time we won't be nice.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is my house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't touch my girl.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is my home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Israeli settler violence escalates in the occupied West Bank. Correspondent Nic Robertson meets a Palestinian farmer under threat.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): I still think his policies are a million times better than Harris'. But to get to people in the middle, he has still more
work to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Republican Senator Rand Paul tells Walter Isaacson why he supports Donald Trump but hasn't yet endorsed him.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. And we begin in Ukraine, and the longstanding demand from President Zelenskyy to
use western weapons against Russian targets. In Kyiv this week, the U.S. secretary of state and the British foreign secretary gave no concrete
commitments on that issue. But Antony Blinken today said the White House will quote, "adapt as the war changes."
Now, how that translates on the ground could not be more critical for Kyiv as Russia pushes back now against the counteroffensive into its Kursk
region and Ukrainian troops struggle to hold on to the key town of Pokrovsk in the east.
In an exclusive exit interview, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg tells me, this land war, Europe's biggest since World War II, is one of the
worst catastrophes of his 10-year term. That full conversation in a moment.
But first, as the fighting continues, so too does the flood of casualties from the front. There is a lifeline in the form of Ukraine's constantly
running railway hospitals. They've never been filmed before, until this exclusive report. This operation is considered a military secret, so we're
not revealing its route or identifying those on board by their full names. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (voice-over): On a hot late summer morning, departure time is fast approaching at this railway station in Ukraine. But this is no
ordinary train, it's a hospital on wheels, evacuating dozens of wounded military personnel away from the Eastern Front as Russia's brutal offensive
grinds on.
Paramedics carefully loading patient after patient, many of them unconscious, onto repurposed carriages. It's a highly organized special
operation and it's never been seen before. CNN gained unprecedented and exclusive access to what so far has remained a closely guarded military
secret.
Before the train moves off, I meet 35-year-old Oleksandr, wounded by a drone strike, which has caused him to go deaf in one ear. His call sign is
Positive, but he doesn't feel it.
OLEKSANDR, UKRAINIAN SOLDIER: Very tired, but hard times, and we must --
OLEKSANDR (through translator): -- keep fighting no matter how hard it is.
AMANPOUR: Do you have enough people, enough weapons to defend?
OLEKSANDR: No.
AMANPOUR: You don't have enough?
OLEKSANDR (through translator): No, enough. No. There aren't enough people, and there definitely aren't enough weapons.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): As the train rolls on, we make our way to the intensive care unit, where several soldiers are on life support. Bed after
bed of broken and battered bodies, lives shattered in an instant. 90 percent of the wounds being treated here are from shrapnel.
[13:05:00]
And yet, many of these patients know they'll be patched up just to be sent back to the front as soon as possible. This train and its cargo sum up
Ukraine's state of military affairs. Mostly ordinary citizens who've answered the call. Outmanned, outgunned by Russia, and yet, still putting
up a hell of a fight.
Nurse Yulia makes this journey twice a week.
AMANPOUR: How do you feel being in here with these very badly wounded soldiers? How does it make you feel?
I'm an empathetic person, so it's difficult, she tells me. But you have to switch off your feelings at the moment of work, and later you can reflect.
And the story of frontline morale is on display here too. If electrician Oleksandr was feeling down after 18 months fighting this brutal war,
Stanislaw, who signed up in March, is still full of patriotic fervor. He can still summon a smile, even though he has shrapnel in his body and
damage to his lungs.
STANISLAW (through translator): Personally, I was ready for it. I was ready to trade the shower stall, the good sheets and the bed, the good
conditions that I had at home for a foxhole. I knew where I was going and what I was doing.
OLEKSANDR, UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES MEDIC (through translator): The most difficult part is evacuation from the front line. Combat medics who work on
the front are dying, just like soldiers.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): As these carriages rumble on through fields of gold, think for a moment of history repeating itself in Europe when
thousands of ambulance trains evacuated casualties from World War I's trenches, more than a million to the U.K. alone.
Tonight, darkness descends as we arrive at the destination, and suddenly, there's activity everywhere again. As ambulances line up, collecting and
dispatching to hospitals across the country. On the platform, the railway chief describes his pride and his sorrow.
OLEKSANDR PERTSOVSKYL, CEO, PASSENGER OPERATIONS AT UKRAINIAN RAILWAYS: I see these kids who are saying goodbye to their dads who are heading towards
the frontlines to seeing those same guys coming back effectively unconscious or with amputations, it feels like the price of the war is
incredible.
AMANPOUR (voice-over): Like a conveyor belt, industrial scale conversion of healthy young men and women into this. And yet, as one of them told us,
Ukraine is strong and motivated. While Russia has quantity, we have quality, and we will win.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR (on camera): Now, Russia's brutal war in Ukraine and a land war in Europe has been one of the biggest challenges for NATO since perhaps its
inception from the ashes of World War II. And we filmed that report in Ukraine just before interviewing Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in
Brussels. He's the man we've grown used to seeing lead that organization, and after a decade at the helm, he is stepping down at the end of this
month.
I sat down with him at NATO headquarters, the center of the allies' military power for his first exit interview. It's a wide-ranging
conversation his surprising journey to lead the most powerful defense alliance in the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Secretary General, welcome.
JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Thank you so much for having me.
AMANPOUR: It's the end of an era, 10 years, perhaps the longest ever secretary general of NATO. I want to ask you first, what stands out as the
biggest successes for you?
STOLTENBERG: The biggest achievement, not only for me, but for NATO has been that we will have been able to reinforce NATO's collective defense,
make NATO stronger. The world has become much more dangerous over these 10 years, but NATO is much stronger. More defense spending, higher readiness,
and for the first time in our history, combat ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance. These are big achievements.
AMANPOUR: And bigger.
STOLTENBERG: Yes. And of course, also bigger. Four new members, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and now, Sweden and Finland. That has, of course,
made also NATO stronger.
AMANPOUR: What would you say are the biggest disappointments, failures, catastrophes?
STOLTENBERG: The full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It started in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, but then the full-scale invasion in 2022. And
then, of course, what happened, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, that was and remains painful.
AMANPOUR: Well, I wasn't expecting you to say that. Tell me why.
[13:10:00]
STOLTENBERG: Afghanistan, that was -- that is and was painful because we tried something that we didn't achieve. We tried to build a democratic free
Afghanistan with equal rights for men and women. We realized after some years that was too ambitious. That was something that required too much.
So, I think one of the lessons learned from Afghanistan is the danger of mission creep. We started in 2001, that was right to go in and to fight al
Qaeda, to take Osama bin Laden. So, what started as a focused counterterrorism operation moved into a big ambitious nation building
mission. And that mission creep was too much because reality was that we didn't have the resources, the will to do that for decades.
AMANPOUR: And yes -- yet it was more than 20 years. There was like trillions of dollars spent, lots of people. And now, we can safely say that
it's gone 360 back to Taliban 1.0. I mean, that is a catastrophe in fact.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, extremely bad and a catastrophe, not least for the people of Afghanistan, in particular women. And I met many women members of
parliament, journalists who begged us to stay. And for many years, I promised that we will stay. We were going to leave on a conditions-based
approach. So, we were only going to leave when we had the confidence that the African government was able to take over and secure the country.
But after 20 years and after paying a high price in blood and treasure, we realized, NATO allies realized, the United States realized that we could
not continue this. And therefore, we made the decision to leave Afghanistan.
I believe that was the right decision. But I believe that we should have in a way understood it earlier and stayed on the first mission fighting
terrorism. That's a focused mission, and we achieved a lot. We degraded al Qaeda, we prevented Afghanistan from being a safe haven for international
terrorists, and we actually gave a million of girls education. And that's a lasting achievement.
AMANPOUR: Except it's not, because they've all now had that education taken away from them, those of high school age, women have been completely
removed from the workplace. The latest edict is they can't even be heard in public.
But it brings me to President Trump because, let's face it, the deal to pull out of Afghanistan was literally just surrender, essentially, handed
over to the Taliban. There was no discussion with the Afghan government, no discussion with Afghan women. And so, I want to ask you then, you had to
deal with President Trump, who's appeared to be very anti-NATO, very anti the alliance, very transactional. Do we know whether he'd ever agreed to
Article 5? What did you learn from how you dealt with him then and what happens if he's elected again for NATO?
STOLTENBERG: I focused on the issues. Of course, I am a Nordic Norwegian Social Democrat. And there are many differences between a conservative
Republican from the United States and me. But -- on climate and on abortion or taxes. But, as secretary general of NATO, I focused on the issue of NATO
security.
And, on those issues, it was possible to have a working relationship with the Trump administration, because the main message from the Trump
administration as actually from the Obama administration and now the Biden administration was that European allies had to spend more. It was President
Obama and Vice President Biden that actually pushed allies to agree to spend more on defense at the NATO Summit in 2014.
AMANPOUR: Which was your first year?
STOLTENBERG: Yes. And then, since 2014, allies -- European allies and Canada have really stepped up. We have to remember that in 2014, only three
allies met the guideline of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. This year, 23 allies will spend 2 percent or more. So, that's a huge difference.
And that was my message to President Trump, let's focus on the issues, and that actually helped.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that danger then is neutralized, the danger to NATO from a second Trump administration?
STOLTENBERG: Well, we don't have guarantees and certainty in politics. But I believe that regardless of the outcome of the U.S. elections, the U.S.
will remain a loyal NATO ally. Partly because it's very broad political support. If you look at the opinion polls, if you look at the U.S.
Congress, it's overwhelming support to NATO.
[13:15:00]
Second, it is in the U.S. security needs to have a strong NATO. U.S. is concerned about China, the size of China. The U.S. represents 25 percent of
the world's GDP. Together with NATO allies, we represent 50 percent of the world's GDP and 50 percent of the world's military might. So, NATO makes
the United States stronger.
And thirdly, the main criticism from Former President Trump and others has not actually been primarily against NATO, it has been against NATO allies
not spending enough on NATO, and that is changing.
AMANPOUR: Let's get back to Ukraine. You know, we know that you have all stepped up in an unprecedented way. We also know that it's not yet enough.
What do you think NATO and individual governments have to do in terms of the narrative going forward? What do they have to say publicly to make
Putin understand your intent and to make Ukraine understand your intent? Do you have to sort of shift the narrative a bit?
STOLTENBERG: I think we need to be even stronger partly in what we do as in provide more military support on top of the unpleasant support, which is
-- which has already been delivered. But as important is actually that we communicate a long-term commitment. Because --
AMANPOUR: So, loud and clear?
STOLTENBERG: Loud and clear for long-term. Because now, President Putin, I'm afraid that he believes that he can wait us out. And as long as he
believes that he can wait us out, the war will continue. So, we -- the paradox is that the stronger our military support is, and for the longer-
term we are willing to commit, the sooner the war can end.
I don't think we can change the mind of President Putin, but we can change his calculus. So, we need to make sure that he understands that he cannot
win on the battlefield. He will pay a high price, it will be a lot of suffering if he continues to fight this war. And then he may be willing to
sit down and accept a solution where Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent nation in Europe.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that partly -- part of what makes Putin understand the seriousness and inflicting enough pain, as you say, to bring him to
some kind of negotiation, which does not exist right now. Obviously, the Ukrainians want not only more weaponry and the right kind of weapons, but
they want the restrictions taken off them. They want to be unshackled, to be able to strike targets, military targets, that are striking them,
whether they're weapons depots or air bases or whatever it is, missile bases. Is that going to happen? Are they going to get that from NATO?
STOLTENBERG: So, I fully understand the desire from Ukraine to have as few restrictions as possible.
AMANPOUR: But those make sense, don't they?
STOLTENBERG: Yes. But -- and the reality is that some allies don't have restrictions at all. And some allies -- and many allies have actually
lifted or reduced, loosened up the restrictions, or less restrictions now than just some months ago. And that's the right approach, that's the right
thing to do.
Because you have to remember what this is, this is a war aggression. Russia invaded another country, that's a blatant violation of international law.
According to international law, self-defense is legal. Ukraine has the right for self-defense. And that includes also striking legitimate military
targets on the territory of the aggressor, Russia.
So, yes, Ukraine has the right to strike these targets and we have the right to provide the weapons that they're using to do so without us
becoming a part of the conflict.
AMANPOUR: So, you think the United States will accept that argument?
STOLTENBERG: Well, also, the United States has also allowed for some strikes against legitimate military targets on Russian territory. But I
will -- I'm careful going into the details of how these restrictions are imposed or loosened up because sometimes it's not always helpful to be too
specific about these issues.
AMANPOUR: And also, some governments don't want to make it public.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, which I understand. I mean, the government -- NATO allies and NATO governments want to support Ukraine, but at the same time,
we're not going to be a party to the conflict.
AMANPOUR: What about, though the Polish government, and notably, the foreign minister, has said that they would consider shooting down ballistic
missiles over Ukrainian territory because they believe that they have a duty to protect themselves under their constitution if those missiles are
coming that way, you know, west towards them, they need to take them out
STOLTENBERG: So, first of all, we need to distinguish very clearly between shooting down Russian missiles drones over NATO territory. And we have seen
some airspace violations. And of course, we have the right to take actions against those.
AMANPOUR: But he's saying over Ukraine.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, that's a different thing.
AMANPOUR: Because they could come into Poland, i.e., NATO.
STOLTENBERG: And that's a totally different thing. We have to provide Ukraine with the capabilities so they can shoot down, and they are shooting
down a lot, a very high proportion of the incoming Russian missiles. But we should provide more.
[13:20:00]
But to start to shoot down Russian missiles of Ukraine from NATO territory with NATO forces, that will make NATO very easily a party to the conflict,
and NATO allies don't want to be party to the conflict. And we need to then understand that. So, we were then undermining one of the main tasks we
defined at the start of this war. We said that we will support Ukraine, we do, but we also said that we want to prevent escalation beyond Ukraine. We
want to prevent this war from becoming a full-scale war between Ukraine and NATO in Europe.
AMANPOUR: Well, I think you all agree, I think the U.S. agrees that the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk has changed the dynamic and has sent a
definite message to not only their own people, not only to their allies, but also to Russia. It's one more way of inflicting pain and determination
and resolve.
How do you see, what you just referred to before, some kind of negotiation? What does it look like as long as Putin is still there? And what is
Ukraine's ultimate security guarantee?
STOLTENBERG: Well, first of all, I strongly believe that it is for the Ukrainians to finally decide what are acceptable conditions for peace talks
and a resolution. But my message is that we don't know with certainty when Putin I willing to sit down, but we know with certainty that the likelihood
for that to happen increases the stronger Ukraine is militarily. So, military support to Ukraine is the path to peace.
Second, when there is an agreement on a line, then it's very important that this is the end. Because first, they took Crimea and we said that was
unacceptable. After a few months, they took Eastern Donbass back in 2014. Then we have something called Minsk 1, that was an agreement that lasted
for some months. And then, Russia violated that one and pushed the border even further west. We have Minsk 2. And they waited for eight years and
they had a full-scale invasion.
So, now, if we have a new agreement on the line, then we need to be sure that's -- it really stops there. And therefore, we need security guarantees
to Ukraine. That's partly to arm them, to make them able to deter further Russian aggression. But of course, at the end of the day, it's Article 5,
it's NATO membership that is the ultimate security guarantee for Ukraine, and we are working for Ukraine to join NATO.
AMANPOUR: Can I broaden out a little bit some sort of arc of life questions? You grew up in Norway. And in your youth, you were an antiwar
protester. You protested outside the U.S. embassy against Vietnam. You protested at one point your own country's entry into NATO. How did you
change?
STOLTENBERG: So, first of all, I -- perhaps I didn't change as much as I believe and you believe and it's -- it seems to, because I'm still against
war. The main purpose of NATO is to prevent war. The main purpose of NATO is not to fight the war, but it's to deter war. And we have done so
successfully for all NATO allies for 75 years. So, peace is NATO's main task. And I was, of course, in favor of peace when I was a teenager
protesting against the Vietnam War.
Then on NATO, I think what I have learned, but I learned that when I was actually in my 20s, because at that stage I turned the youth organization
of my party from being against NATO to being in favor of NATO. That is back in the 1980s. And at that stage, I didn't imagine at all that I would end
up in NATO.
But I did that because I just believe in the idea that when we have an authoritarian neighbor, we need the unity. We need to stand together to
ensure that this authoritarian neighbor is not able to control neighbors. And back in 1949, when NATO was established, Norway was the only country
neighboring the Soviet Union of the NATO allies. And Russia said that was a provocation effect. Of course, it was not. And some of the arguments that
was used against NATO being part of -- Norway being part of NATO in '49 is actually the same arguments which are used against eastern allies becoming
members of NATO later.
AMANPOUR: You talk just now about Russian threats. They're constantly dangling. Putin's constantly saber rattling. How serious do you take that?
I mean, you can't dismiss it, but you think he's going to let off any kind of nuclear weapon?
STOLTENBERG: We are very closely monitoring what he is doing. So, far, we have seen reckless rhetoric threats, several red lines that has been
crossed and nothing has happened. But of course, you have to take it seriously. That's also the reason why we have communicated very clearly to
President Putin to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought and he knows the strength of NATO. And that's also the reason why
we have increased our military presence in eastern part of the lands.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: Back to your teenagerhood. It's been said -- I mean, I've listened and I've heard you say that as a youngster in your home kitchen,
there was like kitchen table diplomacy. Your father was a foreign minister, a defense minister, and he had freedom fighters and all these -- including,
I think, Nelson Mandela, who you met there.
STOLTENBERG: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Was that -- how did you react to that? Was that like normal?
STOLTENBERG: It was not -- it was normal that my father and my mother had guests around the kitchen table from all around the world because they were
both very, I would say, internationally engaged people or persons. Nelson Mandela was not a frequent visitor in our house, but he was there. There's
a very nice picture of him eating some croissant actually that was served by my father.
AMANPOUR: Very Norwegian.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, not very Norwegian. But anyway, it was -- but there were people from all around the world and many people from South Africa
resisting the apartheid regime coming to our house.
AMANPOUR: And what did you learn about diplomacy and peace, the process?
STOLTENBERG: First of all, I learned the importance of compromise. And again, South Africa, Nelson Mandela is an example of that. The whole way
they got rid of the apartheid regime was reaching a deal. And also, this -- the process afterwards, how to reconcile the different powers and forces,
political forces in in South Africa. So, compromise is a way to find peaceful solutions.
AMANPOUR: Unfortunately, it doesn't look very possible in many places right now, whether it's Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Palestine, it's really
terrible right now. Let me ask you about -- you touched on authoritarianism a moment ago, and one of the big aims of this whole defense of Ukraine is
to make sure that authoritarianism, totalitarianism doesn't win.
It's kind of a backwards way of saying, when you were prime minister you had the worst day of your life when there was, in July of 2011, bombings
and shootings that cost, I think, 77 lives, including a lot of the Youth Labour Party. And yet, your response was to call for more openness and not
batten down the hatches, as many people would do now. Why did you do that? Why was that your instinct? And how do you think democracy is thriving
right now?
STOLTENBERG: Because I believe that the terrorists should not be able to define who we are. We want to be open, free, democratic societies. And the
terrorists, they want the exact opposite. So, if we, what do they say, they limit democracy, limit openness because they attack us, they actually
achieve their goals.
Second, I just believe that open democratic societies are more resilient against any kind of terrorism and violence. And what we saw in Norway on
the 22nd of July is that, you know, terrorists use different religion, different political ideology, but they have the same --
AMANPOUR: This was a far-right?
STOLTENBERG: Yes, this was a far-right white Christian guy. And he misused, of course, his religion to attack people he disliked. It doesn't
matter what kind of ideology they use or what kind of religion they believe in, it is wrong. And we need to unite and defend the democratic values.
AMANPOUR: And finally, I want to do a rapid-fire round. OK. One or two words.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, I'll try.
AMANPOUR: What's your favorite food?
STOLTENBERG: That's a Norwegian salmon, fresh, uncooked like sashimi.
AMANPOUR: OK.
STOLTENBERG: So, it's a kind of mixture of Norwegian and Japanese, actually.
AMANPOUR: What's your favorite music?
STOLTENBERG: That's kind of things I listened to in the '70s. That's Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan and that kind of --
AMANPOUR: Talk about Leonard Cohen, because there's a relationship between your mother and Leonard Cohen.
STOLTENBERG: My mother was married to a Canadian for three years. She studied at McGill University. And this Canadian, Ian Clark, was a friend of
Leonard Cohen. And Leonard Cohen, later on, that's not my mother, got a Norwegian girlfriend, they moved to a Greek island. So, Leonard had a very
close relationship to Norway.
AMANPOUR: Do you like his music?
STOLTENBERG: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What's the latest book you read? What are you reading now?
STOLTENBERG: The latest book is very boring. It's about NATO. It's about deterring aggressions about NATO. But I read some Norwegian authors. I have
some friends, a guy called Roy Jacobsen, who writes very beautifully about Norway. So, that's one of the authors I like.
AMANPOUR: And can we ask what you're going to do next?
STOLTENBERG: You can ask, but you will not get an answer. Partly -- mainly because I really don't know.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
STOLTENBERG: And it's a bit -- it's a privilege to have served at NATO for 10 years. I've been prime minister for 10 years. Now, I really don't know
what I'm going to do. That's a bit scary, but it's also a feeling of freedom and that new opportunities will be there.
AMANPOUR: Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General, thank you so much.
STOLTENBERG: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:30:00]
And the next NATO secretary general is the former Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte. Now, to Gaza, where the United Nations says six of its workers
were killed in an Israeli airstrike on a school complex, the highest single death toll on U.N. staff since this war began. The Israeli military insists
the site was being used as a Hamas, quote, "command control center."
Meanwhile, violence in the West Bank is picking up, with airstrikes in the north killing eight Palestinians according to local health officials.
Again, Israel says it's targeting terrorists. This just days after the biggest operation in the occupied territory in two decades.
But Israeli settlers are also stepping up their violent intimidation tactics against Palestinians there. With little to no interference from the
Israeli officials and security guards. Correspondent Nic Robertson went to the West Bank to document just one example, part of a far wider pattern.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): This is the face of Israeli settler intimidation in the occupied West Bank.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Next time we won't be nice.
HAMDAN BLALL, PALESTINIAN FARMER: This is my house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't touch my girl.
BLALL: This is my house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I -- don't care if this is your house. This is my house now.
BLALL: OK.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): It was early August. Hamdan Bilal is the Palestinian farmer they'd come to intimidate.
HAMDAN BILAL: I was asleep under this grapeseed tree. I was asleep there.
ROBERTSON: This is your farm here?
BLALL: Yes. And when I wake up, I saw the cows grazing --
ROBERTSON: The settler's cow?
BLALL: Yes, the settler's cow.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Not for the first time the settler threatening him, putting his livestock on Blall's land.
BLALL: They bring the sheep to grazing in our field. The plan is, it's like to steal our land when they destroyed everything.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): A plan to take his land farm that he says accelerated when the Gaza war began.
ROBERTSON: All those outposts have been built since October 7th.
BLALL: Yes.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): On this occasion, the settlers getting closer and more aggressive. The day with the cows, worse than previous.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Touch my cows. Touch my cow, I dare you, I dare you.
BLALL: What? You kill me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will see what I do. Lower your phones. Lower your phones.
BLALL: You threaten me in my house. This is my house. This my house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You cover your face, but we know you.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): The settler whom Blall says he recognizes claiming God gave him the land.
BLALL: But this is my house.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was given it by God and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
BLALL: Shame, shame, shame.
ROBERTSON: When the settlers are here and threatening you, what's going through your mind?
BLALL: I can't explain it, how I'm feeling. It's like blocking me.
ROBERTSON: Did you call the police?
BLALL: I called the police. I talked with them for like seven minutes.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Blall says the Israeli police didn't come. They declined to comment to CNN. Things really got ugly after that call.
BLALL: What do you want?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to dance with you, man.
BLALL: Dance with me?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to dance with you.
BLALL: I'm not you bitch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You look sleek. You are my bitch and you look sweet.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Then in Hebrew he threatens to rape Blall.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Rape in the name of God they say. You get what I'm saying?
ROBERTSON: According to Israeli media, the sort of settler violence that Hamdan Blall experienced has so worried the domestic intelligence chief,
the head of Shin Bet that he wrote to the prime minister warning of Jewish terrorism coming from these hilltop youths and that it was damaging
Israel's international standing.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): The rebuke was enough to bring stinging criticism from Netanyahu's right-wing pro settler security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir,
who controls the police. Ben-Gvir called for the intelligence chief to be fired.
Late last month, 37-year-old Khalil Saleem Ziaida (ph) was laid to rest in Wadi Rahel. He was the second Palestinian to be killed by settlers in the
occupied West Bank in August. The U.N. says settlers have killed 11 Palestinians since October 7th. On the street where Ziaida (ph) died from
settler gunshots, rocks litter the road. The Israeli settlement, the attackers came from, a few hundred yards away.
Footage in the Palestinian village captured the moment of the Israeli settler attack.
The question everyone here is asking, how can the settlers get away with the intimidation and the killings?
MUKHTAR AHMED, RELATIVE OF DECEASED: I question the Netanyahu and the government of Israel, why killing?
ROBERTSON (voice-over): And the conclusion they are coming to is that Netanyahu's government feels it can act with impunity.
MUNTHER AMIRA, POPULAR STRUGGLE COORDINATION COMMITTEE: The government is trying to show the international community that they are taking some
actions against some settlers. But it was clear yesterday, a Palestinian has been killed here. We know the settlers -- the settler who have been,
you know, shooting toward our houses.
[13:35:00]
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Back at Hamdan Blall's farm, I asked Israeli peace activist Shai Parnes, whose group, B'Tselem, released the video of the
settler attack why is settler violence up?
SHAI PARNES, B'TSELEM SPOKESPERSON: They just don't hide anything anymore. That's what's really changed.
ROBERTSON: And why don't they hide it anymore?
PARNES: Because this is part of their ideology and they don't care because they see nothing happens to them. They bombard Gaza for 10 months with tens
of thousands of Palestinian casualties, and still Israel has total impunity.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): He says he believes authorities know who threatened Blall, a nearby settler, Shemtov Lusky (ph).
ROBERTSON: So, why isn't he arrested?
PARNES: Because that's always Israel policy, state violence, as well as settler violence, is to expel Palestinians, make their life miserable, and
to steal their land.
ROBERTSON: Hi, this is Nic Robertson with CNN. Is this Shemtov?
ROBERTSON (voice-over): I call Lusky (ph).
ROBERTSON: I want to talk to you about the video of you threatening farmer Hamdan Blall and Susir (ph). Was that you?
ROBERTSON (voice-over): At first, he denies it was him.
SHEMTOV LUSKY (PH): No.
ROBERTSON: It wasn't you?
LUSKY (PH): It wasn't me.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): I play him the video.
ROBERTSON: You recognize this?
LUSKY (PH): Next time we won't be nice. You understand this. Don't touch me.
ROBERTSON: You recognize that? That's your voice. That's your voice.
LUSKY (PH): OK. It's my voice.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): I want to ask to meet for an interview that he hangs up.
LUSKY (PH): Go -- yourself.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): I call again
LUSKY (PH): All day long, they're telling the cops I was here.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): When I ask him to tell me more about his conversations with the police, he changes the subject.
LUSKY (PH): I didn't do anything because I am free and because I didn't do anything wrong to anybody. So --
ROBERTSON: Shemtov (ph), listen, we both know this is you. We both know this is you. So, let's sit down and do an interview politely together.
LUSKY (PH): Nic.
ROBERTSON: Yes, sir.
LUSKY (PH): First of all, I don't care what you think. Second of all, I don't care what anybody in your country think of me.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): I ask again to meet him. He wants money.
LUSKY (PH): Five-minute interview, $10,000. OK. OK. Bye-bye.
BLALL: I will die here.
ROBERTSON: Blall knows Lusky's (ph) apparent impunity isn't just putting his land on the line, but his life too.
BLALL: If he will kill you, he will take it. If you accept that, he will take it in any way that you feel in his voice, he has like powerful, big
powerful behind him.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Nic Robertson reporting on an alarming and growing trend in the occupied West Bank. Now, after the recent presidential debate in the United
States, still undecided Americans are weighing who to vote for in November.
And while our next guest far prefers the Former President Trump, Senator Rand Paul still isn't ready to give him his endorsement. And he's joining
Walter Isaacson to explain why.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Senator Rand Paul, welcome to the show.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Thanks for having me.
ISAACSON: So, the debate this week, give me your take on how each of the candidates did and what struck you.
PAUL: You know, I think candidates are looking to try to influence people in the middle. And so, about 40, 45 percent of people in the U.S. are
Republican, and about 40, 45 percent of people are Democrat. There's about 5 or 10 percent that are up for grabs. And so, I always look at a
presidential debate as, you know, how do you do with those people in the middle?
I think one common attribute, not everyone, but a lot of people in the middle don't like controversy. They don't like conflict. They're the kind
of people at the dinner party who say we shouldn't talk about politics or religion. They don't really like too much engagement. So, I think that
makes it difficult for Donald Trump because he is, I think, at least bombastic at times, and I think it's harder for him to engage the
independent vote.
That being said, there are a lot of practical things that affect everybody, whether you're a partisan or a nonpartisan, and that are things like, you
know, the price of groceries, the price of gasoline. If you're an average American citizen, can you -- do you have enough money to afford gas to go
on a vacation by car? And I think those are real things happening in America right now that many in the middle class are struggling because
they're losing the value of their paycheck, their paycheck is not going as far.
And so, with inflation, the average working families lost about $1,000 or two. I don't know if he necessarily drilled in on that enough to be
effective. I would call the debate a draw.
[13:40:00]
ISAACSON: One of the things that they talked about at the beginning is an issue that you care a lot about, which is deficits. And he cited the
Wharton School and all of its professors saying he had the greatest economics plans. But the Wharton School said he would add more than $5
trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. And you've even mentioned that Trump, while president, added $8 trillion to the deficit. That's been
your biggest dispute with him. Is that why even though you say you're in favor of Trump, you haven't given a full-throated endorsement of Trump?
PAUL: Well, the dispute isn't just with Donald Trump. The dispute is also with Kamala Harris. I mean, the Trump administration added $8 trillion in
debt. The Harris-Biden administration will add another $8 trillion. So, I think both parties are terrible with spending and with debt. And I don't
think there's enough concern with this.
I've been proposing for years we should look at all spending. Most people up here say, well, we can never talk about entitlements. Well, entitlements
are two-thirds of the spending. I consider anybody who takes entitlements off the table for discussion to be a non-serious person. Harris has
definitely taken that off the table, but so has Trump now. So, both of them have taken two-thirds of spending and say, we're not going to do anything.
Well, then the remaining spending, which is about $2 trillion, half is military and half is nonmilitary, most Republicans take the military off of
the consideration as well, and military gets automatically increased as well. You're left with a tiny sliver of government, and most of that
government is government that Democrats support as well.
So, there really is a constituency for all the spending, but there seems to be nobody or very few of us have up here are worried about the
ramifications that one day America may wake up, have a bond sale, and have nobody show up to buy our bonds or have to pay exorbitant interest.
Even now with the slight tick up in interest to paying, I think the Fed -- you know, we're paying a little over 3 percent on our interest for our debt
now, interest is now bigger than the military budget in our -- it's a -- it's one of the largest items in our budgets now, interest, squeezing out
other spending. So, I think the debt needs to be discussed. It's part of the reason I haven't enthusiastically endorsed Trump, but it doesn't mean I
think Harris is better. I think Harris is actually worse on spending and has shown no concern for the deficit.
ISAACSON: What about the tax cuts? Should they be allowed to expire in order to bring down the deficit?
PAUL: The interesting thing about tax cuts is we've debated these since the time of Reagan. People still say when Reagan cut taxes or cut tax rates
it caused the deficit to go up. No, it was spending. Spending went up. Reagan was not very good with spending and neither were the Republicans or
the Democrats back then.
When you look at cutting rates, revenue typically goes up. So, if you look at the 2017 tax cut, there's a slight dip in revenue, but if you look at in
two-year cycles, 2017 to 2019, 2019 to 2021, what you find is in every two- year cycle tax revenue has gone up since the tax cuts.
So, the revenue, cutting tax rates, having the government take less of your check expands the economy, you get more growth and you actually get more
tax revenue coming in. So, I don't think letting the tax cuts would -- expire would do great things for the deficit, but I think it would be very
destructive to the economy.
ISAACSON: You talk about the need to rein in entitlements, that anybody who isn't willing to say, let's focus some on entitlements, is being, I
think your word was unserious. I think you, another doctor in the Senate, Senator Bill Cassidy, are among the few to say, let's look at what we can
do.
But let me get specific. Are you talking about Social Security and Medicaid, Medicare, and are you talking about raising the age? What would
you do?
PAUL: So, there's $6 trillion we spend, $4 trillion is entitlements. So, that's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and food stamps occupy about $4
trillion worth. They all need to be reformed. One of the big reforms is raising the age. And people say, well, you know, what do you want? You want
to punish old people and make them wait longer to get their things? And I say, no, look, I aspire to be an old person. I'm on my way to being there.
I want it to be there for me when I get there. And the only way there's enough money is to gradually raise the age. We're living longer.
I didn't do that. Republicans didn't do that. But we're living longer and we can't -- you know, Social Security worked in the beginning because the
age cutoff was 65 and the average life expectancy in 1937 was 65. It worked because half the people died and didn't receive any. It was a very fiscally
sound program It ran surpluses for a long time. But now, that we're living longer, it has to be moved.
In 1983, we moved it from 65, very gradually to 67. In most of Europe, they have attached the age to longevity index, and it goes up gradually based on
longevity. And that's what we need to do here. How fast we do it can be debated and figured out. But the age of Social Security and Medicare has to
gradually go up, and we have to figure a way to distribute our health care in a more competitive fashion so we don't waste so much money.
[13:45:00]
And I'm not opposed to some of the things that Democrats do. I think that Democrats and some Republicans have been for competitive pricing for
Medicare and using the bulk purchasing to bring down the prices without question. I think we should also look at the people who are ever greening
their patents. Basically, you have a patent for 15 years. They come and tweak the patent a little bit and they want another five years. They tweak
it again. They want another five years.
And so, this idea that patents can go on 20, 25 years is something that ought to be stopped. There are ways of trying to fix some of these
problems, but I've been here 12 years. I've introduced a bill to raise the age. There's never been a vote on the full Senate floor on any reform of
Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security other than to maybe expand them. And really what we have to do is control the cost of them so these programs can
remain for the next generation.
ISAACSON: You said a little earlier that Former President Trump's tone was belligerent and sort of aggressive, and you thought it probably didn't
serve him that well in the debate. To me, watching the debate, one of the main things was tone. There was a sense of anger and resentment that I
think Trump has pushed, and I don't mean that in a partisan way. But -- and that Vice President Harris is trying to do a future looking thing.
Do you think Trump, by talking about, you know, immigrants eating dogs and the resentment, and saying at the end of the debate that the country is in
great decline, do you agree with that strategy?
PAUL: I think that in trying to appeal to people in the middle, you have to try to meet them where they are. And a lot of it's about personality and
the way you present yourself and not so much about policy. But I meet people every day who will say, well, you know, I'm not a big fan of Donald
Trump's decorum, but I love his policies. That's what I hear every day from Republicans who lean towards voting for him.
And I think there are many people in that camp, I think there are people even in the independent camp that may not always like his presentation may
not always like the way he presents himself, but are conservative in the sense that, you know, for example, Kamala Harris wants to give everybody
$25,000 to buy a house. Well, that's a ridiculous economic notion. There is no money to give them. Where would she get it? Is she going to take it from
someone else? Is she going to print the money?
So, most economists have said that's a bad idea. The idea that you would set price caps on things being sold and charge people with -- you know,
that make goods with charging too much or price gouging. Even on CNN, the economists came forward, not typically conservative and said they ought to,
you know, rethink that and think about what's happening in Venezuela with price controls.
So, I think Trump can win on the policies because I think Harris' policies are so bad. It's still, though, a challenge for him to get to people in the
middle because there's a long history, he has a long public history with the folks, and he has to convince the people in the middle that maybe
there's a softer side, or maybe there's a side this less bombastic.
And I'm not saying -- I support Donald Trump versus Harris. I'm more supportive. I haven't endorsed him, but I still think his policies are a
million times better than Harris'. But to get to people in the middle, he has still more work to do
ISAACSON: You say you haven't endorsed him in a full-throated way. Have you talked to him?
PAUL: Not in a while. You know, during his presidencies, I was pretty close and talked fairly frequently with him, and I assume they'll need to
talk to me about my vote if he were president again. And I think that relationship will begin again.
There hasn't been so much in the last year because I haven't been that involved with just endorsing. And I haven't said I wouldn't endorse, but I
have said that things like, you know, the debt are important to me. The lockdown, I think, was a mistake. And I think there needs to be a promise
that there won't be a lockdown again. I think the lockdown was a horrible mistake.
I think also that we need to investigate the U.S. funding of the lab in Wuhan and make sure that doesn't happen again. Not only just in Wuhan, I'm
concerned that we are funding research to create super viruses, basically gain of function viruses that don't exist in nature. We're doing that in
the United States, and I'm concerned that an accident here could have a death toll, not a 0.3 percent, which is what COVID was, but I worry about a
death toll of 5 percent of the public or 10 or even 50 percent of the public.
There are viruses they're creating that could kill 50 percent of all America. That should be more strictly regulated. And I'm putting forward a
bill to regulate gain of function. And I'm hoping to have a bipartisan bill. I'm hoping to have this within the next month or so, maybe pass the
Senate. This will be a big step forward. But I want assurances from Donald Trump that he will assist in the investigation and be supportive of this
type of legislation.
ISAACSON: Government funding could be running out soon. Speaker Mike Johnson's got a juggling act to do, but eventually, the Senate will have to
deal with it. Do you think there's a way to do a continuing resolution, keep the government funded or the things that you would want to see
insisted upon in your plans if you came to the Senate?
[13:50:00]
PAUL: One of the things that I've promoted forever, which would make the situation better and allow for a cleaner debate, is a legislation to keep
the essential part of government open when we have a dispute.
And so, what would happen is we have a lot of revenue coming in. We have $4 trillion in revenue coming in, that would pay for most of basic government.
Why don't we just agree not to shut the government down when revenue is coming in while we have a dispute and figure it out?
The other thing we could do is we could try to divide up the spending. So, instead of having all the spending in one bill, where if it doesn't pass,
everything shuts down, the parks shut down, and it's disruptive. If we pass the bills individually -- you know, our founding fathers in the history of
the Congress was, you had 12 appropriation bills. And then, if you had a dispute over one, and let's say with the IRS, the Democrats wanted $80
billion to collect more taxes, Republicans thought that was too much money and was going to be too aggressive tactics on honest working people. And
so, we have a dispute over that. If we had only that item to dispute and maybe the Department of Treasury or whatever shut down for a few days, but
everything else stayed open, then we can have a debate over it.
But from a fiscal hawk's point of view, we have this discussion. We have a debate. Sometimes government shuts down, but we never reduce the cost of
spending. We never win. Those who want less spending never win. We always lose because everybody finally folds and says, we don't want to be blamed
for shutting the government down, which is disruptive. But also keeping it open and not reforming it is bad, I think, ultimately for the country and
for the future of the country. To run a $2 trillion deficit is just not good.
ISAACSON: You've been generally critical of America's over involvement in military actions around the world. Would you put -- let's start with Israel
and Gaza -- more restrictions now on our military aid to Israel given the way it's been since almost a year now, since the October 7th massacres?
PAUL: I think all foreign aid should have conditions on it, and it's our money. We -- you know, we -- for example, throughout the Cold War, we gave
billions of dollars to Mugabe in Zimbabwe. He was a terrible dictator, tortured his people, and we should have put conditions on it. So,
unconditional aid is a terrible idea.
The issue in Gaza is a difficult one. And for the most part, I've stayed out of directly telling Israel what to do because it's hard. I mean, they
lost 1,200 people at a concert, you know, innocent people killed, murdered, raped, and their response largely has to be their own.
I would say that when I've been to Israel, there's much more of a plurality or a discussion and openness to different point of views over there than
there is over here. If you say something over here, you're often accused of being anti-Semitic, if you disagree with anything that the Likud Party puts
forward.
But frankly, ultimately, they have to make the decision. I did not vote to give him another $26 billion. So, I voted in the past, the $3 billion that
we give Israel every year should gradually be phased out. Netanyahu said in '96 that it was not to be permanent and that it was to be a temporary and
it was to be phased out over time.
Israel is a very rich nation. So, one way of not telling Israel what to do would be to gradually quit giving them the money and then we wouldn't
interfere in their decisions. But it also wouldn't be our money. But the same goes for everything else. If we want to give $100 billion a year to
Ukraine, Ukraine's now saying they're going to want $60 billion a year for the next 10 years. That's not counting rebuilding everything. They're going
to ask us to rebuild it as well.
Should we have any say? And people say, well, they have to decide when they're done fighting. They have to decide when they're going to have
peace. Well, if we're finding the whole war, shouldn't we have some say in what it would be?
And the one thing that needs to be discussed -- and people will not from the right and left are both adamant they will not discuss this is the one
thing that you can give to Russia in exchange for peace, if there's going to be any negotiation, would be the idea that Ukraine would be a neutral
country.
That doesn't involve them giving up territory. In fact, part of the deal could be -- and it could have been early on before the war went on so long,
could have been Russia retreats within its own border in exchange for Ukraine agreeing to be a neutral country.
Now, I don't know that they would have accepted that, but it's never offered. In fact, the opposite is offered. All the bellicose European
countries, as well as the bellicose NATO defenders in our country are like beating their shoe on the desk that they absolutely must and will be
members of NATO. Well, that's been the biggest complaint Russia has had, that there being a military alliance on their border from a former province
of the Soviet Union that that was objectionable to them. Same goes for Georgia on their border, once a former Soviet satellite as well. So, I
think we have to look through these things, and there needs to be somebody outside the box talking about it.
[13:55:00]
One of the most galling things I've seen is McConnell and Schumer and others who come forward and say, well, we're not giving this to Ukraine.
The money -- most of the money is going to our defense contractors. And I find that just disgusting. The idea that 100,000 people, maybe 200,000
people have died in Ukraine and you're justifying it because it enriches arms merchants in our country, I find that absolutely despicable and
distasteful.
And, you know, war should not be something that's glorified by profit. There's going to be profit. I'm a capitalist. I'm for profit. But I'm never
for advocating for more war and an endless war simply for the profit of arms merchants.
ISAACSON: Senator Rand Paul, thank you for joining us.
PAUL: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: A little revisionism there on Ukrainian history. But that's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
