Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Defending the Nuclear Deal; "El Chapo" Escape Causing Concern in U.S.; Imagine a World. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired July 23, 2015 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[14:00:00]
FRED PLEITGEN, CNN HOST (voice-over): Tonight: grilled over the nuclear deal, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry defends the agreement in
front of Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon. And we've achieved that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN (voice-over): But what do the critics say?
Also ahead, as U.S. presidential hopeful Donald Trump visits the U.S.- Mexico border, just how strained are relations between the two countries?
And will the brazen escape of drug lord El Chapo fuel tensions?
(MUSIC PLAYING)
PLEITGEN: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Fred Pleitgen, sitting in for Christiane today.
The deal is done by the hardest work is just beginning. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz have been
grilled at a Senate committee hearing in Washington. As they try to persuade lawmakers to back the nuclear deal with Iran, Kerry and Moniz have
less than 60 days to make their case before Congress votes on whether or not to approve it.
Addressing the floor, Secretary Kerry vehemently defended the deal as, quote, "the only viable option to diplomatic resolution."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KERRY: We believe this is a good deal for the world, a good deal for America, a good deal for our allies and friends in the region and we think
it does deserve your support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: So can Secretary Kerry get the support he needs? The deal, which he signed last week, limits Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for
inspections and sanctions relief. But it faces plenty of opposition on Capitol Hill from the Republican Party as well as from some Democrats who
feel it doesn't go far enough.
Joining me now from New York is Joe Lieberman. He's a former Democratic and then independent senator from Connecticut, well versed in
Middle Eastern affairs, has been there many, many times and also opposed to this deal.
Mr. Lieberman, first of all, welcome to the program.
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I), CONN.: Thanks, Fred, good to be with you.
PLEITGEN: Now you've called this deal "a toothless agreement."
Why do you think that?
LIEBERMAN: Well, that was actually a headline writer who called it that. But to me, it's an unacceptable deal. I mean, Secretary Kerry just
said that the goal was to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program. That was the goal but that wasn't achieved. I mean, basically we're -- we got
them to freeze their program for a while. If they keep their promises and then ultimately we've given them a legal path to become a nuclear weapons
power; whereas right away or at least within six or nine months, we're going to lift the economic sanctions on them, give them billions and
billions of dollars that they will use to strengthen their repressive regime at home and to support all the terrorist proxies and agents that
they have throughout the Middle East.
So I'd say too much risk for the U.S. and our allies in this agreement, too much reward for Iran.
PLEITGEN: But Secretary Kerry was also making the point that at the time that this administration took office, there were almost 20,000
centrifuges that were in operations; there was a lot of enriched uranium out there. They're going to have to get rid of 98 percent of their
enriched uranium stockpiles, dismantle the reactor in Arak, which is, of course, the one that could create weapons grade plutonium.
Does that not convince you that this is a better road than further -- than what was in place before?
LIEBERMAN: It does not. The fact is, respectfully to my friend, John Kerry, that when the administration came into power in 2009, there were
about as many centrifuges spinning as there will be spinning after this agreement goes into effect.
But it is true that they went up to 19,000 or 20,000 after that. So it came back down. As I said in the first 10 years of the agreement, there
will be a certain freezing or turning down of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. But basically the infrastructure will remain there. And we've
got to remember we're dealing with a country that has repeatedly violated international agreements and promises.
The only way I think we could ever trust an agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has cheated so frequently and continues to say that
they want to see the destruction of the U.S., would be if there were airtight inspections in the agreement. But the inspections provision
creates an ornate bureaucratic process that will take weeks and months before the international inspectors --
[14:05:00]
LIEBERMAN: -- will be able to get onto a site, where they suspect Iran is breaking the agreement. So this is a deal full of holes. The
alternative is not war. The alternative is to go back to the negotiating table as has happened before and negotiate a better deal.
PLEITGEN: But the problem with that is, sir, and this is something that Secretary Kerry has also pointed out, is that the sanctions against
Iran are not something that America is putting in place alone. You have allies. You have states that are sort of allies, like the Russians, who
didn't want the sanctions in place anymore.
What's going to happen if this deal falls apart and the U.S. is blamed, is that the international sanctions against Iran are going to fall
apart? And Iran will be in a stronger position anyway, won't it?
LIEBERMAN: Well, unfortunately, that's where this bad deal puts us. But the question is -- I mean, the administration always said, here in the
U.S., no deal is better than a bad deal. I'm convinced this is a bad deal and therefore no deal would have been better.
Now if Congress rejects this bad deal, which I certainly hope they will, and I believe they can and probably will, then it's true that our
allies in Europe, particularly in Western Europe, will have to decide whether they're going to maintain their sanctions, go back to the
negotiating table with us or whether they're going to pull out. But I do want to say that if Congress rejects this agreement, then the American
sanctions will stay in place. And those include provisions that say not only to the Iranians but to anybody else in the world wanting to do
business with the Iranians, you've got to make a decision. Do you want access to the American economy and particularly the American banking
system? Or do you want to do business in Iran?
And therefore, I think the fact that we still have those strong economic sanctions from the U.S. will continue to put economic pressure on
Iran, which, hopefully, will bring them back to the table to negotiate a deal that's more balanced and fair to the rest of the world.
PLEITGEN: One of the things the president has said is that he would veto any sort of action by Congress to try and stop this deal. I just want
to, for our viewers, play a sound bite from the president, from the Jon Stewart show, saying why this deal's so important. Let's listen to that
real quick.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is an adversary. They are anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic. They sponsor terrorist
organizations like Hezbollah.
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": Sounds like a good partner for peace.
OBAMA: Probably -- well, as has been said frequently, you don't make peace with your friends.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: "You don't make peace with your friends."
Sir, what do you say to that?
And second of all, would there be enough votes, you think, in Congress to override a presidential veto?
LIEBERMAN: Well, it's true that you don't have to make peace with your friends. But it sure helps to be making peace with an enemy that you
can trust and is not as full as antis, of antis as President Obama quite correctly said.
So the -- here's the interesting thing to say, in my opinion, about the congressional consideration of this agreement. No one believes that it
can be approved by Congress. And that's a pretty stunning thing to say. The question is will it be rejected, disapproved by Congress? I believe it
will.
And that's a stunning thing to say. And then the question is, after President Obama vetoes it, as he says it would, will there be two-thirds of
the members of both houses who will vote to override the president's veto? That's harder.
But I think it's in range. And I think the more people learn about this agreement, the side agreements, the poor inspections, how much money
the Iranians will get to support their terrorist proxies, the continued statements by Ayatollah Khamenei, that they want to destroy -- "death to
America, death to Israel," on and on and on, I think we got a real shot at it.
But it's a -- it really -- the tables are in -- the rules are stacked in favor of the White House on this one because all they need to get is
one-third of the members of either chamber of the U.S. Congress plus one. They don't need anywhere near a majority. But I think even though the
threshold is high here, members of Congress are taking this vote seriously because they understand it could be the most important vote they cast in
their careers. It will have that big an effect on the future security of America, our allies and the world.
PLEITGEN: But, sir, one of the things you've just mentioned was Ayatollah Khamenei. He is skeptical of the deal as he said. In Iran, the
Revolutionary Guard, its commanding general is also opposed to the deal. The forces in Iran that are for this deal are moderate forces in Iran.
Don't you think --
[14:10:00]
PLEITGEN: -- which is the majority of the people in Iran, by the way, and the members of the Rouhani government.
Isn't it better to support moderate forces in Iran and hope for change to happen there over the next 10-15 years than continue with the hard line
that will keep Iranians against America?
LIEBERMAN: That's a great question. So let me say first that I agree with you, that the -- in this part, that the majority of the people of Iran
really want a different course for their country. But the majority of the people of Iran are essential being held hostage by a radical and extremist
repressive regime that Ayatollah Khamenei leads.
This agreement strengthens that regime, not the moderates. The regime will use it to strengthen its power, the guard corps will strengthen its
power. Iran will use the money to stretch out its influence across the Middle East. The Arab nations will try to build their own nuclear weapons.
I'm afraid that the -- what the agreement will really bring -- although the administration argues that the only way -- only alternative to the
agreement is war, the agreement will actually militarize the Middle East much more and will create the prospect of a war, including possibly a
nuclear war because not only Iran will have nuclear weapons but at least one of the Arab nations will as well.
PLEITGEN: Joe Lieberman, thank you very much for joining us today.
LIEBERMAN: OK, good discussion. Thank you, Fred.
PLEITGEN: And after a break, we cross the U.S. border to the major problem facing Mexico. The hunt for fugitive crime lord El Chapo Guzman or
"Shorty" in English, a massive bounty is on his head. But he has huge resources of his own. What's being done to put him back behind bars?
That's next.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
PLEITGEN: Welcome back to the program.
Well, he sparked a storm of criticism over his comments on illegal immigration to the U.S. and as we go to air, he's headed to the front line
of the crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN (voice-over): U.S. presidential hopeful Donald Trump will tour his country's border with Mexico near the town of Laredo, Texas, and
there we can see his plane, right there.
The billionaire has already said he plans to build a wall along the border and make Mexico pay for it. See what the Mexicans say about all
that.
There he is, coming down, waving to the people.
And while immigration is a major election issue in America, within Mexico, the nation is captivated by something completely different, the
hunt for El Chapo Guzman.
The drug kingpin, Joaquin Guzman, broke out of a maximum security prison west of Mexico City earlier this month. Now his brazen escape is
putting U.S.-Mexican relations on somewhat shaky ground.
Let's discuss this with Michael Vigil, a former chief of international operations with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. He's the
author of "Deal," a book about working undercover for the DEA.
And Ana Maria Salazar, political analyst for Latin American Affairs. She is live for us in Mexico City tonight.
And first of all, Ana Maria, I want to come to you.
How big an embarrassment is this for Mexico's president?
[14:15:00]
PLEITGEN: Because he campaigned on a platform of getting tough on these drug cartels.
When Guzman was caught, he said there would be an absolute embarrassment if he got away again. And here we are now.
ANA MARIA SALAZAR, LATIN AMERICAN POLITICAL ANALYST: Actually, Fred, I have to correct you. When he campaigned, he basically said that he was
going to change the strategy that Mexico had followed, which is this confrontational war against organized crime.
Obviously, in the last two years, he had to change his position and they started taking a tougher position against these cartels, arresting
very important kingpins, including El Chapo Guzman. And now that he escaped and there was a lot of indications that there could be this
possibility of him escaping, because he is an expert, his organization is an expert on tunnels, it is a huge embarrassment.
And they're definitely going to have to create a mechanism and a strategy to make sure that they catch him again.
PLEITGEN: Well, Michael, one of the things that has been offered up is U.S. help to catch him again. But so far the Mexicans don't seem to
want that.
Why is that?
And what do you think the chances are of him being caught again?
MICHAEL VIGIL, FORMER CHIEF OF INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION: Well, Mexico is accepting assistance from U.S.
law enforcement agencies. They know that they have to work together in order to bring this kingpin back to justice and put him behind bars.
So there is coordination taking place right now between, let's say, for example, DEA and the Mexican government in terms of sharing
information.
One of the things --
(CROSSTALK)
PLEITGEN: What about -- what about sharing resources, for instance? Because the DEA could offer things like drones, things like personnel on
the ground. I mean, as far as I remember, the operation to catch Guzman for the second was a joint DEA and Mexican operation, wasn't it?
VIGIL: Well, that's correct. But you have to understand that there's -- Mexico is very keen on its sovereignty issues and the Mexican public
would look at that as a major encroachment by the United States if we started using drones or military elements.
PLEITGEN: Ana Maria, I want to come back to you and one of the things that we in the international community sometimes lose sight of is how
bloody this drug war in Mexico has been and how much of an issue it is for the people there.
How bad are things?
SALAZAR: Well, it is pretty bad. And Michael and I had the opportunity to work together years ago. I was a deputy assistant secretary
of defense for drug enforcement. And at the time, U.S. policy was focused on Colombia and grabbing, I don't know, Pablo Escobar was one of -- I mean,
it's a good comparison, where you had a lot of resources from both countries focus on one individual because he had escaped and he was --
literally it was an embarrassment for the Colombian government and the U.S. was very keen on catching him.
So the reason why I bring up this example, it's because I do think that there's probably more information and discussions taking place that
we're aware of because clearly U.S. intelligence and U.S. support is going to be very important to find this man, not only because he may still be in
Mexico, but you know, he may be in Honduras. He may be in Central America. The first time he was caught he was caught in Guatemala. So it's kind of
hard to imagine that there's not an ongoing discussion taking place between both nations, that we may not be seeing right now.
Now the situation in Mexico goes up and down. Right now the most recent numbers show that, for example, homicides have gone down in Mexico,
20 percent in the last two years. But kidnapping has gone up. And the problem is -- and this is what makes it so difficult for the Mexican
government, these organizations are among the most dangerous and violent organizations in the world.
I mean, there's been massacres in Mexico of migrants by these organizations of 250 people, 300 people. I mean, they can control entire
territories in which they basically are -- they basically rule.
So the Mexican government has an enormous task and also challenge to be able to go after these organizations, respecting the rule of law and
trying to capture them and trying to put them in jail and trying to make sure that they get a trial.
The big debate that's going to come up with El Chapo Guzman, if he's ever captured again -- and I do think he'll eventually be -- they'll find
him; I don't know if they'll capture him, but they will find him -- is whether -- and this -- and Michael knows this very well -- whether he's
going to be extradited to the United States.
And I think the second time around, there's going to be a lot of pressure from the U.S. government --
[14:20:00]
SALAZAR: -- to make sure he's extradited to the United States.
PLEITGEN: Well, exactly.
And, Michael, I was going to ask you, there was big pressure, there was some pressure from the U.S. government to extradite him -- a little
late in the game -- but it was there.
What does this say, though, about the Mexican criminal justice system, that, I mean, you have a jail that was known as one of the most secure in
the country, if not the most secure in the country, and they dug a tunnel there for a very long time, presumably way more than a year -- I think he
was in custody for about 500 days -- truckloads of dirt must have been moved away. The thing had ventilation, had lights, everything.
How can something like that happen?
VIGIL: Well, the fact of the matter is that you have to keep in mind that Chapo Guzman, who heads up the most significant drug cartel, the
Sinaloa cartel in Mexico, has unlimited resources.
The other issue is we did pressure Mexico in terms of trying to get Chapo Guzman extradited to the United States. They refused to extradite
him because quite literally he was the crown jewel for Pena Nieto's counter drug efforts.
The big problem that we're having with the Mexican judiciary -- and I met with an attorney general just a few years ago and I'm not going to name
the attorney general, but the individual advised me that their conviction rate at the federal level was less than 5 percent. One of her deputies
actually put it at 3 percent.
They do manage to hang on to a lot of these drug lords. But the fact of the matter is that the judiciary, the prison system, there's a lot of
things that need to be revamped in Mexico and hopefully the escape of Chapo Guzman will act as the catalyst for Pena Nieto and the government to be
able to do something there.
The other issue that we have in Mexico is that when Pena Nieto came in, he designated a single point of contact for U.S. law enforcement
agencies to funnel information through.
In the past, we had access to all components of Mexico's security forces so if we have tactical information and that single point of contact
is not available, it hinders some of these operations. And hopefully they'll see fit to expand it the way it was with Calderon and so many other
presidents in Mexico.
PLEITGEN: We don't have much time left.
But, Ana Maria, I want to get to you one more time and ask you, what do you think are the immediate things that the government needs to do now?
SALAZAR: They're -- they need to revamp and do something about their intelligence community because the fact that all of this happened
regardless of the corruption aspects, clearly there's an intelligence aspect.
I mean, someone must -- should have picked up the fact that this was being planned, because this -- you know, it wasn't two or three people just
kind of digging in the ground. I mean, you know, there could have been hundreds of people involved in this at one point or another.
And a lot of money had to be moved around. So I think there's one issue there.
And the other issue is -- and I'm glad Michael brought it up. I mean, there is a need to probably figure out a more efficient and better way to
get information back and forth on all cases. I'm sure that, as on some of the more important cases, there's very efficient mechanisms of doing this.
But there is a huge issue in regards to administration of justice in Mexico, in trying to try these very, very dangerous individuals.
So who knows? Maybe this will be the catalyst, at least for some changes, but those changes are going to take decades. We saw that in
Colombia and it's probably going to happen here.
So it's just a matter of trying to figure out which one are your targets, make sure you have those resources, prosecute them and if
necessary, extradite them to the United States.
PLEITGEN: Michael Vigil and Ana Maria Salazar, thank you very much, both of you, for joining us today.
And as the Mexican authorities trail El Chapo, the Mexican people are beating them to the punch in a certain sense as pinatas of the fugitive
drug lord are in production in Mexico City.
You can see them right there.
And although El Chapo merchandise might be en vogue, Donald Trump pinatas will also take some beating -- and they are. His version of the
Mexican mainstay, peaking in popularity after his comments on the nation and its people.
And after a break, we imagine a world unaware of all of these problems, one hidden away in the depths of the rain forest. One tribe that
could be moving towards modern civilization after more than 600 years out of it. That's next.
[14:25:00]
to make sure he's extradited to the United States.
PLEITGEN: Well, exactly.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
PLEITGEN: And finally tonight, imagine a world locked in time. For the ancient tribes of Peru's rain forest, it was the only world they knew
since retreating from colonial forces, finding safe haven between the -- beneath a canopy of the Amazon six centuries ago.
But one of those tribes may soon be moving into the new world as the Peruvian government has announced and they will start taking steps to make
controlled contact with the Mashco-Piro people for the first time.
Any greater mixing could risk exposing them to the diseases they have little or no immunity to. Over the centuries, they have traditionally
fought back any interlopers, escaping slavery in the 19th century and pushing back missionaries ever since.
Most recently, some tribesmen have come into bloodier contact with loggers and poachers, even coming into towns and attacking Peruvians with
bows and arrows. That has triggered the government to step in and start planning for contact, something that could be a first step for the Mashco-
Piro into a brave new world.
That's it for our program tonight. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.
END
