Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

What Should the US Do about Syria?; South Africa and Nelson Mandela

Aired April 30, 2013 - 15:00   ET

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

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.

Today, the President of the United States held his first news conference in nearly two months. And the first question was about Syria.

President Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would be a game- changer. And today he was asked why recent evidence hasn't changed the game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: . what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don't know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don't have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened.

And when I am making decisions about America's national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I've got to make sure I've got the facts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Well, yesterday on this program I spoke exclusively with a Syrian American doctor who is as close to having as many of those facts as you can get. His organization has handled critical tissue samples from victims, handed them directly to U.S. officials over four weeks ago.

Listen to what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ZAHER SAHLOUL, PRESIDENT, THE SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY: . our members took samples from four patients who died, unfortunately. And they took them to Turkey, to our office in Turkey. And it was delivered to the members of the American embassy in Turkey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now one of the first to publicly confirm that chemical weapons had been used was Israel. And later in the program, I'll have an exclusive interview with the former head of the Israel Defense Forces, who says that doing nothing now is not an option.

Seventy thousand Syrians have been killed since the uprising began over two years ago. Will chemical weapons finally force the world to spring into action? In a moment, I'll speak with a former top State Department official, who laid out why the president must act.

But first, a look at the other stories we're covering tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Nelson Mandela, a global icon, a national treasury, and in danger of becoming an exploited commodity.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): And a song from the heart of Aleppo --

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): -- but his talent has made him a lightning rod.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: We'll get to that in a bit. First to President Obama's red line for intervening in Syria. I asked Anne-Marie Slaughter, who's the former director of policy planning at the State Department under President Obama what he should do now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Anne-Marie Slaughter, welcome to the program.

ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF POLICY PLANNING, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Thanks so much.

AMANPOUR: You heard President Obama today again discuss what he may or may not do. What did you make of his today definition of the red line?

SLAUGHTER: Well, I think President Obama is inviting President Assad to continue pushing that red line ever further by essentially saying, well, this is enough facts; we need more facts. There have only been two attacks when actually there have been reports of six attacks. But this is -- this is the game President Assad has been playing all along: go slow, keep ratcheting it up. And the Americans won't act.

AMANPOUR: When you say inviting Assad to keep pushing that line, do you mean to use much more chemical weapons? What exactly do you mean?

SLAUGHTER: I mean that essentially he's saying that this -- these two uses of chemical weapons are not enough for us to take firm action. And essentially Assad, by many reports, has been using some combination of chemicals since before Christmas.

The symptoms that are being reported now are the -- very similar to the symptoms that were reported to a U.S. consulate before Christmas. And there was a cable from that consulate to the State Department, saying that they thought chemical weapons had been used.

That's -- that has been repeated a couple of times since. And only now, finally, when the Israelis and the French and British are all saying we think chemical weapons have been used, we finally come out and said, yes, we think they've been used, too. But we are not willing to actually say that that red line's been crossed.

AMANPOUR: Well, I've been interviewing doctors and indeed the leader, the commander of the free Syrian forces, who've told me there are more than two instances, that there perhaps were three or four, or even five.

They stretch back to August -- and give me specific issues of evidence, whereby a doctor, the main doctor, the Syrian American doctors there have collected tissue and blood and hair and urine and clothing and told me specifically that they'd handed this over, as you mentioned now, to U.S. officials connected with the embassy in Istanbul.

Were you at the State Department at that time?

What do you know specifically about the evidence that the State Department has?

SLAUGHTER: No, I wasn't at the State Department. I haven't been there for couple of years. So I don't know more than what is reported, except that, again, even back around Christmas time, you had foreign intelligence services looking at this evidence and saying we this is chemical weapons.

At that point, the United States said, no, it was -- it was riot control gas, even though many of the symptoms are not at all consistent with the use of riot control gas.

But it -- essentially the issue then went away; it was out of the headlines. This time, it's, as I said, it's been so pushed by our allies, saying, you know, these are -- this is chemical weapons, that we've agreed that it's chemical weapons. But now we're saying, well, we don't have enough facts. And as far as I'm concerned, at every turn, if you don't act, Assad takes that as a green light to continue.

AMANPOUR: You wrote a column for "The Washington Post" this weekend, in which you invoked what I remember and that was the genocide in Rwanda, when the shameful declaration from the State Department talked about "acts of genocide," and the reporter said, well, how many acts of genocide does it take to have a genocide by which you have to react?

Are you equating that kind of equivocation with the equivocation today in Syria, over weapons of mass destruction?

SLAUGHTER: I don't think we're there yet, because the president is saying, look, you know, I want to get the facts.

But what I am saying is he has to be very aware for the sake of the country, for the sake of the region and, frankly, for the sake of his own legacy that that kind of equivocation once it's really clear that chemical weapons are being used, could lead to really the kind of horrific massacres like those that we saw in Rwanda and that will remain something that President Obama will look back and wish he'd prevented for the rest of his days.

AMANPOUR: And finally, there is suddenly a huge surge of stories being put out there that the entire opposition practically is jihadist, is Al Qaeda, is the Al-Nusra Front. And that terrifies people, understandably. Nobody wants to suddenly intervene and see the beneficiaries being Al Qaeda affiliated.

What do you think is the opposition? Because most of them say, well, we're not Al Qaeda. We just need weapons.

SLAUGHTER: There are many, many different opposition groups. It is - - it is probably true that Al-Nusra and other groups are very well organized and well armed.

For that, we can -- we have ourselves to blame because we've had the opportunity to provide arms and much stronger support to the many groups who have said, look, we started this, marching in the streets, unarmed, peacefully, demanding our rights, demanding that the regime stop killing us, torturing our children, giving us our rights.

That is still what we want. We are being increasingly marginalized by the more radical factions. But that's because you are not, in fact, helping us.

So this is -- it's -- it is a difficult situation. But there are many, many different groups. And if we're ever going to get a political settlement, we need to be helping those groups that are, in fact, supportive of a pluralist Syria that respects the rights of all its citizens.

AMANPOUR: Anne-Marie Slaughter, thank you very much for joining me.

SLAUGHTER: You're welcome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now Syria, of course, is keeping a keen eye on what's happening next door in Syria -- rather, Israel is keeping that keen eye. No one knows that better than the man who led the Israel Defense Forces for four crucial years. That is my next guest, General Gabi Ashkenazi.

You almost never hear from a former chief of the IDF. So it was truly a rare occasion when he spoke to me, his first-ever on camera interview outside Israel. Ashkenazi told me that it is time. The world, he says, must take action over Syria now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: General Ashkenazi, thank you for joining me.

(CROSSTALK)

GAVRIEL "GABI" ASHKENAZI, FORMER CHIEF OF GENERAL STAFF, ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES: Thank you for having me.

AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program.

ASHKENAZI: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you first about Syria. It seems to be a consensus that Bashar al-Assad has used sarin gas, chemical weapons in various locations against the opposition.

If he is not confronted, what do you think is going to happen next?

ASHKENAZI: Doing nothing definitely is the wrong message.

AMANPOUR: Do you think it'll encourage him to use them again?

ASHKENAZI: Right. Right. So I'm not trying to explain Assad. But we have to be clear that it was his decision.

Right now he is saying that it was not his military. So I think before any action we're going to do on the ground, it should be very clear that he was aware of it and he was part of it and -- but, anyhow, we need to do something. Doing nothing, it's not an option. That's what I'm saying.

AMANPOUR: So your professional recommendation, doing something, would be what? A, B, C, what would it be?

ASHKENAZI: Well, I think -- I think it ranges from trying to help the opposition in a more concrete way, like providing them, instead of non- lethal assistance -- lethal assistance, that mean --

AMANPOUR: Weapons.

ASHKENAZI: -- weapons, you know, in order to help them to topple Assad, to take him down, maybe to impose a no-fly zone, at least on part of -- part of Syria.

AMANPOUR: If Assad falls, is that good for Israel?

ASHKENAZI: It's a mixed picture. I think generally speaking, from a strategic point of view, I think it's good news on the one hand.

Why? Because if Assad falls, it's break the -- what the radical access from Iran through Damascus to Hezbollah and Hamas.

It will be a major blow to Iran Hezbollah. Hezbollah will be more restrained. People should understand that Syria was and still is the logistic hub of Hezbollah. And most of the weaponry which Hezbollah possess came from Syrian depots. The money came from Iran, but the rockets came from Syrian depots.

I think Iran really lose its only state ally in the region, the gate to the Arab world. So that's good news for Israel.

AMANPOUR: You hear more and more certainly strategically placed reports saying that the Obama administration is more and more concerned about jihadis, Al Qaeda-linked operatives inside Syria.

How concerned are you about that in terms of Israel?

And do you believe that, had there been more help for the Syrian opposition earlier, this would not be a problem today?

ASHKENAZI: I think that we should help them a year ago, maybe a year and a half ago, when we had 10,000 deaths and less foreigner coming from Chechnya or Iraq or whatever and more extremists affiliated to Al Qaeda, like Jabhat al-Nusra and others. But that's the situation right now.

I think, from an Israel perspective, I think we can deal with this. If the threat will be a cross-border terror, I think we have experience to deal with it.

AMANPOUR: Let's move to Iran. When you were head of the IDF, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak asked you to draw up a P-plus plan for attacking Iran.

ASHKENAZI: In one specific case, they want to increase the readiness of the option. And that's what we did.

AMANPOUR: What is P-plus?

ASHKENAZI: Again, I'm not going to talk about --

AMANPOUR: But it's very ready?

ASHKENAZI: It's highly -- it's readiness.

AMANPOUR: So why did you say no?

ASHKENAZI: That's incorrect. That's factually wrong.

AMANPOUR: Did you say yes?

ASHKENAZI: No. The question --

AMANPOUR: Did you draw up the P-plus plan?

ASHKENAZI: The question was then whether we are -- whether -- what is the time, the correct time to consider military options. And we were part of the discussion. And we made our recommendation to the cabinet. And my opinion then was that we still have time.

AMANPOUR: So my question is then, did you draw up this plan?

Did you -- did you do what they asked you to do?

ASHKENAZI: Eventually we decided not to do it.

AMANPOUR: But for some reason, you didn't think it was a great idea. Your military advice was this was not a great idea.

Why not?

ASHKENAZI: Because I think military option is the last resort. Unless the sword is literally on your throat, you don't use it if you still have time to exploit other options.

AMANPOUR: Israel and Turkey had a really bad rupture over the flotilla incident in the last Gaza war. And now President Obama seems to have brokered a rapprochement between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey.

ASHKENAZI: Yes. I think it's important to fix the relationship with Erdogan, with Turkey. Turkey, it's important that country in the region.

AMANPOUR: So the flotilla, the killing of the Turks and the people on board has left a very bad taste, obviously, in Turkey. And you know that there are some quarters which are calling for indictments, including the indictment of yourself.

ASHKENAZI: Yes, I know.

AMANPOUR: What do you say to that?

ASHKENAZI: Well, being a general in the IDF, it comes with the job. It's not the only indictment that -- I'm not the only one and it's not the only case. I hope this current reconciliation and the negotiation will bring it to an end. AMANPOUR: But you think it was a mistake to attack the ship?

ASHKENAZI: We tried to stop them. And we did everything that in our power to ask them to stop. AMANPOUR: What do you think is the biggest risk to the state of Israel today?

ASHKENAZI: I think there are some internal issues, as the last election demonstrated.

AMANPOUR: Do you mean the divisions, the orthodoxy, the extremism?

ASHKENAZI: We have, I think, rearticulated our narrative as Israelis to see that we have more cohesive society, sharing duties and rights together and the way -- the way we used to be in viewing, you know, 30-40 years ago, I think that's the real challenge.

AMANPOUR: General Ashkenazi, thank you very much for joining me.

ASHKENAZI: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And when we come back, we will turn to South Africa. Its iconic national hero, Nelson Mandela, led the fight to end apartheid and inspired the whole world. Today, there are fears that he's being exploited by those who are closest to him.

But before we take a break, one more heartwrenching look at Syria. Those there are children, picking through a mountain of garbage in Aleppo. They're searching for anything they can sell or eat.

UNICEF estimates that 2 million children have been caught in the conflict. It's a lost generation that's growing up without schools or playgrounds, without even a childhood.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

Now for all of us, all over the world, Nelson Mandela is a true icon, as I said, not just for South Africa, but around the globe. He is the last great moral leader still standing.

Each time he enters the hospital, the whole world holds its breath, fearing the worst. Mandela hasn't been seen in public since his last and his latest brush with ill health last month. But now he's emerged publicly in these pictures which were taken yesterday. Mandela there at home with current leaders of his African National Congress party.

Rather than comforting, though, the pictures have sparked outrage. South African President Jacob Zuma is accused of exploiting the ailing leader, putting a frail and uncomfortable 94-year old on public display.

The incident comes on top of Mandela's own family mining his legacy. His granddaughters appear in this reality show called "Being Mandela." And the family is behind Mandela-branded wine and a clothing line, amongst other ventures.

Eusebius McKaiser is a South African political analyst and appropriately enough, an expert in moral philosophy at Wits University. And he joins me now from Johannesburg.

Mr. McKaiser, thank you very much for joining me.

Do you agree --

EUSEBIUS MCKAISER, SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's a pleasure.

AMANPOUR: -- do you agree with the outrage that has been sparked? Was this something terrible that was done to Madiba, as you all call him?

MCKAISER: Yes and no, Christiane. I think it's fascinating. Of course, there's a backlash against what happened yesterday. And the backlash is because this is political opportunism. But of course, it's what politicians do the world over.

They try and tap into brands that are popular and the reality is that brand Nelson Mandela is a powerful global brand. It's right up there with Coca-Cola. It's as familiar as the Red Cross signature.

And so, of course, the ANC government wants to be able to tap into it. And let's be honest: this brand is going to be alive and well long after the bodily demise of Nelson Mandela. So the backlash is justified because we all want Nelson Mandela's image to be politically virtuous. So to that extent, I do think that the public sentiment and the backlash is justified.

On the other hand, I think that South Africans need to do some soul- searching. Part of the backlash has nothing to do with the ANC. It has to do with South Africans wanting Nelson Mandela to be immortal. And I think the imagery was a shock to our psyche because many of us did not want to see evidence of our worst fear. And our worst fear is evidence that Nelson Mandela is merely mortal.

AMANPOUR: Do you know what? I feel exactly the same way, because you're absolutely right. In those pictures, he does look mortal. And certainly some people are saying, let's not keep dragging him back into public; let's leave him alone and let us have regular updates on his health.

To that end, do you think, paradoxically, this picture may go a few steps towards preparing all those legions of people who love so much for his eventual death?

MCKAISER: That's a fantastic question and if it does do so, I think that's a good thing because I think the South African public have got to give itself greater credit for having learned since he's absent from public political life to have got on with the business of forging a future without a great public icon like Nelson Mandela at the political helm.

So I think there's a possibility, paradoxically, Christiane, that it can indeed do that. But it's only possible if we set aside the backlash against the ANC government and ask ourself (sic) what does the backlash say about ourself (sic)?

But at the moment, all the attention is focused on the political opportunism -- and rightly so.

But I think if we spend a little bit of time focusing on what does the backlash say about our own relationship with the man, with the brand and with our obsession with his non-existing immortality that we ascribe to him, then we might make more progress in terms of what might come out of this for ourselves as a nation rather than just the backlash against the ANC government.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you perhaps a devil's advocate question. There seems to be also a bit of a backlash against members of his family, people, granddaughters and the like, who are engaged in a reality show, "Being Mandela," who've got a whole line of products named Mandela.

I mean, don't they have a right, really? That's their name as well. They want to get on with their life. It's not so different to what people in other parts of the world do, capitalizing on brand names and fame.

MCKAISER: Well, the difference is that when people capitalize on brand names the world over, they don't capitalize on brand Nelson Mandela. And so for better or worse, the family members of Nelson Mandela have inherited the brand name that, unfortunately, is imbued with political virtue.

And when you commercialize political virtue, of course, you're going to be susceptible to criticism the world over.

I mean, if you take, for example, "Being Mandela," the immediate surnames of those children are not even Mandela. They are Dlaminis. They are related a couple of degrees removed from Nelson Mandela. That's what makes it even more absurd, that North Americans should be tapping into this reality show in Nelson Mandela's name.

So I think the commercialization of a politically virtuous brand, Nelson Mandela, deserves the scorn that it has got. I mean, in the final days of Nelson Mandela's bodily existence, his family should be dignified because that is what his legacy demands. And so I think the public outcry in relation to the family infighting is entirely appropriate.

AMANPOUR: Eusebius McKaiser, thank you so much for joining me.

And I think the world really does share your concern and your care for this incredible man. Thank you very much indeed.

And we will be back after a break with a final thought.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, for more than two years, we've watched and we've reported while Syria tears itself apart.

But imagine a world where a love song can unite people on both sides of the battle line.

Recently, Abdul Karim Hamdan, an aspiring young singer from Aleppo, appeared on "Arab Idol." That's a hugely popular TV talent show based in Beirut and modeled on its British and American counterparts. Hamdan chose to sing an old Arabic folk tune. But he rewrote the lyrics, making it a love song, not for a woman, but to Aleppo, the embattled hometown that he loves.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Now the song brought the judges and the audience out of their seats. And overnight, his performance became a YouTube sensation, with 2 million views in just three days. But he also became a lightning rod for both sides in the civil war. Death threats appeared on Facebook and pro-government posts call him a traitor.

In answer to his critics, Hamdan says, "I sang for Syria, only Syria." And whether or not he goes on to win the competition, he has already won millions of hearts in his bleeding nation.

And that's it for tonight's program. Meantime, you can always contact us at our website, amanpour.com. Thanks for watching and goodbye from New York.

END