Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief Mujib Mashal; Interview with Bangladeshi Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus; Interview with Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; Interview with "Autocracy, Inc." Author Anne Applebaum. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 05, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
The prime minister of Bangladesh resigns and flees after deadly protest. I get the latest with New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief Mujib Mashal.
And I talk to Bangladeshi Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.
Also --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TAMARA QIBLAWI, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIONS WRITER (voice-over): Hamas continues to recruit, to regroup, to regenerate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- is the Israeli goal of annihilating Hamas' military failing? We have a special report.
Then countries urge their citizens to flee Lebanon as tensions escalate with Israel. As fears of a wider war grow, I'm joined by former Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNE APPLEBAUM, AUTHOR, "AUTOCRACY, INC.": Any era of really rapid change. Tends to make people look for a single leader or an autocrat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- historian and journalist Anne Applebaum talks to Walter Isaacson about her new book, which uncovers the networks trying to destroy
the democratic world.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, today, after 15 years in power, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, has resigned from her post and fled the country. The
announcement from the country's army chief coming after these extraordinary scenes of people storming the prime minister's residence. It's an
incredible development and the culmination of deadly protests that have rocked the nation for weeks. At least 91 people dying just yesterday after
demonstrators clashed with police.
Now, this all started over new quotas for government jobs, but quickly evolved into a much wider antigovernment protest. Someone who's been
closely following the situation is Mujib Mashal, the New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief, and he joins us now from New Delhi.
Mujib, quite a historic day for a country, we should remind viewers the size of Illinois, but with a population of 170 million. Talk about the
significance of this development.
MUJIB MASHAL, SOUTH ASIA BUREAU CHIEF, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, on the one hand there is sort of jubilation on the streets of DACA because it is
the end of what was increasingly a very authoritarian rule. Prime Minister Hasina, in her early part of her career, she was sort of associated with
hope. She came from personal trauma because her family was massacred in the '70s, but then she was a symbol of how this country could turn things
around.
She offered economic upliftment to a lot of -- you know, a country that was deeply poor and she sort of tried to rein in the military that was long in
the practice of, you know, coups and counter coups. So, at one point in her career, she offered this promise of hope. But in recent years she was
deeply authoritarian. So, the end of her rule has created, you know, this jubilation on the streets of Dhaka.
But at the same time, there are deep concerns because the country -- as you mentioned, a huge country of 170 million people is leaderless right now.
The law enforcement that could contain what is deeply entrenched political animosities between parties, that law enforcement is very discredited. So,
on the streets, there are still reports of violence, but there's also fear that extremist elements could take advantage of this vacuum. So, right now,
it's a mix of jubilation, but also of deep concern.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, deep concern about what could come next and the issue of stability in the country. As we heard from the army chief telling citizens
there, keep your trust in the army, quote, we will restore peace in the country. Please cooperate.
As you noted earlier, there was a large level of distrust between the military and its citizens over the course of the last several decades. And
you mentioned a number of coups there. When you hear that type of messaging from the army chief now, how should it be interpreted?
MASHAL: Well, yes, the army has had a history of coups, bloody coups, including a coup that killed Prime Minister Hasina's family and her father.
[13:05:00]
But in recent years, it has been a more of a disciplined army, for a couple of reasons. One was that Prime Minister Hasina sort of stacked the
leadership with loyalists and made sure they don't stage a coup against her. But another reason is that the Bangladeshi army is a big contributor
to the U.N. peacekeeping. The U.N. peacekeeping missions abroad, and that's a very lucrative business for the senior leadership of the army, the
officers. So, that keeps them away from coups and sort of reigns in some of the abuses as well.
So, now, at this stage, it feels like although the army is controlling the situation, it has signaled that it wants to, you know, hand over power to
an interim government, a civilian government that could then oversee elections potentially. I mean, what is not clear is that the country's
parliament is not dissolved right now.
So, the prime minister has fled and maybe a lot of her MPs and ministers have fled, but the status of the country's parliament is unclear right now.
And the future of what kind of government formation it could be is unclear, but the army has not signaled that this is a coup or that they're taking
over.
GOLODRYGA: The arc of Sheikh Hasina's governance, as you noted earlier, is quite interesting because it's evolved from one where there was a sense of
optimism about the change in stability she could bring to the country, then obviously years of questions about the openness, right, of legal -- in
legality of elections in that country. And here you have her fleeing after being accused of corruption, authoritarianism, tactics.
She spoke with Christiane back in 2013 after what was a tragic building collapse. And just on the issue of transparency alone I think it's really
useful to get a sense of where she stood on that front. Here was part of their exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: I said, CNN and other international organizations have not been allowed to come to Bangladesh as
journalists to cover this story. They have put very draconian conditions on our --
SHEIKH HASINA, THEN-BANGLADESHI PRIME MINISTER: No, it is not true.
AMANPOUR: It is true.
HASINA: No, no, no.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Yes, it is true.
HASINA: No, no. Bangladesh is a free country.
AMANPOUR: We would hope that.
HASINA: Listen, in our country, we have private television. If -- no, tell me one thing. If it is prevented, then why I am talking to you?
AMANPOUR: No, because I'm not there, Prime Minister.
HASINA: I'm not supposed to talk to you.
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister, I'm not there.
HASINA: If we prevent you -- no, no. If we prevent CNN, then why I am talking to you?
AMANPOUR: Beats me.
HASINA: Then, OK, you stop it. You don't publish it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: You see her defiance there, at times really seemingly talking past Christiane, not addressing her concerns and questions head on. Now,
that was 11 years ago. When you look back at that now and see where things have turned today, what is your takeaway?
MASHAL: Well, I mean, it is -- I'm not surprised by that exchange. I met her last year for an interview and what tells -- what that tells me is that
there were two Sheikh Hasinas. One was sort of the image to the outside world, right, of this sort of chic secular Muslim woman who stood up
against Islamic militancy, who helped lift up her nation and brought economic improvement. That was one image of her. The other one was what she
was doing to her political opponents, the way she was concentrating power and turning the country into a one-party state.
For the longest time she had sort of juggled both. And she had figured out a formula where she could completely marginalize her organized political
opposition in a way where they were not a threat to her.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MASHAL: But what brought her down, what brought the end of her was not necessarily the organized political opposition, it was the wider public. It
was students, right?
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MASHAL: And it was mishandling -- her mishandling of what was actually a peaceful protest and it was sort of using the same playbook of crackdowns
of force that she had used with her organized opponents against the wider public and that's created a cycle of anger, especially the dead bodies,
right?
GOLODRYGA: The cycle. That's what I was going to say, over 300 believed to have been killed just in the past few weeks alone.
MASHAL: Over 300. Most of the young people.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
MASHAL: Most of them young people, most of them not affiliated with political parties, right?
GOLODRYGA: Right.
MASHAL: So, this was the general public. And containing that anger turned out difficult for her.
GOLODRYGA: Mujib Mashal, thank you so much for joining us. We'll continue to follow this very important story.
[13:10:00]
For more on this, earlier, I spoke with perhaps the most well-known Bangladeshi in the world. Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006
for pioneering the concept of micro financing with his Grameen Bank. He had a fractious relationship with the former prime minister, many western
officials saying he was the target of judicial harassment. I started by asking him his reaction to Sheikh Hasina's surprising resignation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MUHAMMAD YUNUS, BANGLADESHI NOBEL LAUREATE: Well, we feel relieved that she finally resigned and left the country. People are celebrating on the
street and millions and millions of people all over Bangladesh celebrating as if this is our liberation day.
We had our first liberation day on 16th of December 1971 when we are free from Pakistan. So, we are having similar or even better celebration now
that we got rid of someone who tortured us for so many years.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. We also know it's a very troubling time for your country right now. Student protests started last month after a job quota system now
obviously developed into a broader uprising against Sheikh Hasina. There have been as many as 300 if not more people killed. I know you're not in
the country right now. What is your message to the citizens there though?
YUNUS: The message is you have done a great job. You have got to the street and raised your voice. Children were killed. You still continued.
Young people came forward against the police, against the paramilitary, against the army who was shooting them and killing them every day. Even
yesterday, there was a killing of -- some 97 people were killed yesterday. It goes on before she finally decided to step down because that's what the
whole country was waiting for, demanding that she must quit. She must leave the country. Leave us alone.
Because she has tortured us. She has made this country unlivable for people and all the corruption she has done. And all the terrible things she have
done to people, denying the rights of people, denying the right to vote. We didn't have any election for the last three times, like 15 years that she
is (INAUDIBLE).
And these young people, these are one -- two-third of the total population of 170 million people. The young people are two-third of the population.
Never voted any single election, yet, in their life. Because that election was -- didn't happen. Election was just a fiction.
GOLODRYGA: So, now the question turns to what happens next. The military said it would begin talks with the president and representatives of
political parties on forming an interim government. The army chief said this, I give you my word that all killings, all injustice will be examined.
Please keep up your trust in the army. We will restore peace in the country. Please cooperate.
The army itself, as we know, though, has a history of staging coups. What do you think will happen? And how much faith do you have in those words
from the army chief?
YUNUS: You know, one thing that the army has done well and everybody appreciate that persuaded Hasina to step down. She was refusing step down
and let her leave the country. Also, the people are saying that she stayed in the country. She could be trapped in country, all the crimes she has
committed. Don't let her go, but army let her go. So, that's one good thing they have done.
And army rule as a kind of concept, it doesn't work well. It creates lots of other problems immediately. So, I hope the army now would be wise. They
will hand over all the responsibility to a civilian government. And I hear today that's the direction they're going. They'll create a civilian
government and hand over all the responsibilities.
Civilian government, that will be the real government, not run by the army from behind. So, this is that all the responsibility of running the
government will be there.
GOLODRYGA: We know that Sheikh Hasina was not a fan of yours, to put it lightly. She once called you a bloodsucker of the poor. She also said that
you were someone -- that someone ought to teach you a lesson. And many western officials said that you were the target of judicial harassment.
You're one of the most famous Bangladeshis in the world. Do you have any interest in turning to politics now?
YUNUS: I never was interested in politics because I thought that's not how I should spend my time because I don't know the way how politicians do
things and change things. I don't want to get involved with this kind of procedure. So, I wanted to concentrate in the work that I do.
I was offered to become the head of the government back, sorry, 2007. I thanked them and stayed away from them. So, that's how I will see myself as
a person who's divorced, which is time in doing the things dear to him about the creating a world of three zeros, zero net carbon emission, zero
well concentration, zero unemployment, and such thing, micro credit (ph), creativity of young people, turn them into entrepreneurs, take the
responsibility of the changing the world.
[13:15:00]
They are the one who can change the world. Older generation cannot do that because their minds are set. That things which -- took the planet in the
wrong way. So, you are the one who can do that. So, these are the things I've worked with and young people love it and will work with me. And that's
how they will continue with that.
GOLODRYGA: So, if you were asked, hypothetically, by one of the current political parties, you would refuse to serve?
YUNUS: I'll try to convince them. Yes. But I don't know what's the situation right now.
GOLODRYGA: We also mentioned that you were the target of the court. So, you were sentenced to six months for labor violations. Many world leaders
came to your defense. What is her stepping down now, fleeing the country, what impact, if any, does that have on your case that you're aware of?
YUNUS: Any good government who comes immediately see that these are fake cases and so on, dismiss all these cases, withdraw those cases, and I'm
sure I'll be a free person.
GOLODRYGA: Given Sheikh Hasina's personal attacks against you, does this development at all feel like a sort of vindication?
YUNUS: I wasn't directly connected with that. I don't think that was the reason (INAUDIBLE). But it is part of it. It's a misgovernment. It's part
of it. Failure of the government to protect people is part of it. Because when this began, I made a global appeal to everybody, please save our young
people. The government of the country is killing their own people just for demonstration, shooting them in the demonstration.
So, I made appeal to everybody that took this doesn't happen. These young people are just demonstrating for a cause. Very simple cause. And they
don't have any gun. Why should you -- anybody in the government kill them? And every day they were killing, every hour they were killing. So, that's
an appeal that I was making.
So, this is kind of a failure of the government, failure of democracy, because she doesn't believe in democracy. She created an autocracy. And her
voice is the only voice to be heard. And I said, you created a country with one country, one leader, one party, and one narrative, and nobody can
deviate from that. So, that's not the kind of world that we wanted to have in Bangladesh. Everybody has to have a chance if their country should be a
democracy. I said, give democracy a chance to solve all these problems.
GOLODRYGA: An analyst who was well versed on current politics in Bangladesh had this warning. He said that protesters' victory right now
could still be hijacked by someone. Quote, we are not sure about the coming days or months. Do you share those concerns about what lies ahead?
YUNUS: Yes, of course. Of course, of course. They will not take it lying, those who are eliminated from government, those enjoyed so much wealth,
because this wealth will be investigated now, they know that. So, they will be very scared and want to make sure this government cannot stay on.
So, they'll be doing everything in their power to discredit it or pull it down as quickly as they can before they can settle down.
GOLODRYGA: Do you have plans on returning to Bangladesh anytime soon now?
YUNUS: Yes, of course, I'm planning to go back and see.
GOLODRYGA: OK. Well, Muhammad Yunus, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today.
YUNUS: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: We really appreciate it.
YUNUS: Yes, thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well to Israel now where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces growing pressure to agree to a ceasefire and hostage release deal. He
has reportedly said that Israeli forces are nearing their stated goal of eliminating Hamas and destroying the group's military capabilities in Gaza.
But forensic analysis of Hamas' militant operation since it led its deadly attacks against Israel on October 7th cast doubts on his claims.
According to new research, nearly half of Hamas' battalions in northern and central Gaza have rebuilt some of their fighting capabilities. Tamara
Qiblawi reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TAMARA QIBLAWI, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIONS WRITER (voice-over): Israeli soldiers in Gaza, fighting street by street, house by house in Israel's
longest war in decades. The goal, they say, to destroy any semblance of Hamas.
Netanyahu's message is clear.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We are fighting. And we are winning. Goals including the elimination of Hamas. We
are going to win with all our force. Are you ready?
CROWD (through translator): Yes.
QIBLAWI (voice-over): The destruction of Hamas imminent. The objective within reach, but the data paints a very different picture. CNN, the
American Enterprise Institute, and the Institute for the Study of War, all combed through thousands of claims by the IDF and Hamas' military wing,
Qassam Brigades. What we found was evidence of a significant Hamas resurgence.
[13:20:00]
Have a look at the Gaza Strip. Israel believes there are 24 Hamas battalions spread throughout the territory. We analyzed 16 of these in
northern and central Gaza, the most targeted areas in Israel's nine-month offensive. Our research shows that out of these 16, only two have been
destroyed. Nine degraded, but still functional. Five are currently combat effective, able to carry out missions against Israeli forces.
Even as Israel uses its full military might, Hamas has been able to partially rebuild nearly half of these battalions. And, it says, it's
replenishing its ranks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We have been able, with God's help, to recruit thousands of new fighters.
QIBLAWI (voice-over): A high-ranking Israeli officer told CNN they agree.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Everywhere Hamas rears its head, we will enter. Can this ping pong stay forever? No. Our society is not
built for this, and neither is the International Community.
QIBLAWI (voice-over): Take a look at Jabalia, where Israel's problems are laid bare. Back in December, Israel declared the three battalions stationed
here destroyed. In May, less than six months later, Israeli forces faced fierce fighting by all three battalions. Now, as a guerrilla force,
emerging from the rubble.
We see this scenario play out across Gaza. The IDF says it has killed or captured more than 14,000 Hamas combatants, as well as half of the military
leadership, including its top commander, Mohammed Deif.
But Hamas continues to recruit, to regroup, to regenerate. Military experts we spoke to say Israel's heavy handed bombing campaign has accelerated
Hamas' recruitment from among the civilian population. Retired U.S. Colonel Peter Mansoor helped lead the 2007 surge in Iraq, considered one of the
most successful counter insurgencies in U.S. History.
COL. PETER MANSOOR, U.S. ARMY (RET.): The fact that they're still in Gaza, still trying to root out elements of the Hamas battalions shows me that
Prime Minister Netanyahu is wrong. The ability of Hamas to reconstitute its fighting forces is undiminished.
QIBLAWI: Is this an unwinnable war, would you say?
MANSOOR: This conflict will only end with a political solution. It won't end with a military victory.
QIBLAWI (voice-over): Netanyahu faces growing pressure over the spiraling humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and around 115 Israeli hostages who remain
there. More than 39,000 Palestinians have been killed according to health authorities. Gaza has been largely destroyed. Yet Hamas' hold over the
territory endures.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Now, responding to Tamara Qiblawi's report, after it was published, the Israeli military rejected the findings, arguing that the
majority of Hamas' brigades had been dismantled and that most battalions were, quote, at a low level of readiness, unable to function as a military
framework. But it's important to point out that the analysis in this report relied on U.S. military definitions, which differ from those used by the
IDF.
Meantime, fears of a wider war continue to grow as tensions between Israel, Lebanon and Iran escalate after twin assassinations by Israel of a senior
Hezbollah commander in Beirut and the Hamas political leader in Tehran multiple countries are now urging citizens in Lebanon to leave as quickly
as possible, and the U.S. has moved more troops to the region as they prepare for any possibility.
Meantime, Jordan's foreign minister visited Iran on Sunday in a desperate bid to reduce tensions. It is an extraordinary time in the region. And
joining me now to discuss is Ehud Barak. He served as Israel's prime minister as well as the IDF's chief of staff and defense minister as well.
Prime Minister Barak, so much for joining us. Before we get to this concern about what Iran's retaliatory strike may look like, I do want to get you to
respond to the report we just played about the ability for Hamas to still recruit fighters and where you think that lies in relation to what we've
heard from the prime minister and his statements that the IDF is on the verge of success in its mission to take out Hamas.
EHUD BARAK, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: You know, the reality is probably somewhere in between those two versions. It was clear to anyone
who have any military experience that from day one, some 10 months ago, that the right way to deal with Hamas, which is basically it's not an
orderly one army, it's kind of a terror organization that excels in guerrilla war, not in a full-scale kind of clash between armies, that the
right way was the following, Israel has a compelling imperative to put an end to reigning over Hamas. Reigning of Hamas over the Gaza Strip and to
make sure that Hamas cannot threaten Israel anymore.
[13:25:00]
But the way -- the practical way to achieve it was to attack the whole Gaza Strip simultaneously with our much superior power to cause the most damage
that we can and to take control of all the cities, all the camps, all the neighborhoods simultaneously. The Gaza Strip is a tiny piece of ground that
could easily be done within several weeks.
And then, to a handle the Gaza Strip into the hands of multinational Arab force backed by the Arab league and by the Americans who will take it from
us and will take it for a limited period, let's say, nine months or probably 18 months, during which they will bring back into the area the --
what President Biden called revised Palestinian Authority.
You cannot run the Gaza Strip with the Norwegians or French people, you need Palestinians. And the only legitimate internationally recognized body
is the Palestinian Authority. They are sort of perfect, but they are much better than the Hamas. And that was the right trajectory.
It was clear from day one that in the terms of guerrilla warfare, Hamas can drag it over years. And that's not our business to stay there for years.
So, this opportunity was missed once and again all along the last 10 months.
GOLODRYGA: And here you are, right.
BARAK: President Biden proposed it a few weeks after the opening of the war.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, here you are, as you noted, 10 months into what is Israel's now longest war since its war of independence. And in addition to
that, anticipating a response from Iran following two assassination strikes back-to-back, one against a Hezbollah commander, Fuad Shukr, in Beirut. And
obviously, that was followed by Ismail Haniyeh and his assassination, which the IDF and Israel did not take credit for, but is largely believed to be
behind.
I'm curious. Here we are again. We were facing a response from Iran, which Israel did get by an unprecedented 300 projectiles, missiles and drones
lobbed towards Israel, successfully shot down by Israel with the help of the United States and other regional partners. The concern here, as you
know, Mr. Prime Minister, is that Iran appears to have recruited other proxies, including Hezbollah and the Houthis, who are now expected to be
part of this attack. How large in scale do you think we could see this response?
BARAK: You can't -- you cannot predict it. I remember cases in the past where they responded immediately or within several days, and there were
other cases, quite prominent ones, when they responded only after six weeks. So, it could be anything in between.
Basically, we are prepared the -- we are thankful for the American deployment, very heavy deployment in the region, in the air and on the sea
and on the ground, in neighboring countries and the readiness to support Israel in this attempt to block this attack.
The -- what will follow after the attack will depend on its results. If more than few Israeli citizens will be killed, it might lead to another
response that will gradually drag us into a full-scale regional war. I don't think that we have interest to have it right now, and I would not
recommend it to the Iranians as well, but it's beyond our control. It can happen in the coming days or weeks.
GOLODRYGA: With the U.S., they're obviously sending battleships to the region. We have the CENTCOM commander who is there as we speak. The
president of the United States just spoke to King Abdullah of Jordan and there had been some speculation as to whether or not he would personally
ask, if need be, to use Jordanian air space. As I noted earlier, it wasn't just the U.S. that helped thwart some of those projectiles. It was regional
countries as well, including Jordan.
[13:30:00]
Do you expect the same response from them and other neighboring countries if in fact we do see Israel receiving from multiple fronts strikes similar
to what we saw in April?
BARAK: The attack might be more complicated. It might take place from several directions, which will need more force. Even the Iranians, they
were basically defeated in mid-April, and they might try to improve their performance to make it more similar to their success in Saudi Arabia
several years ago. But the American and the neighboring countries deployment really helps to try to defeat it as well. Only time will tell
how successful it will be. I hope to be successful.
GOLODRYGA: And it appears that the Haniyeh assassination itself is what caused more concern amongst Israel's allies, in particular the United
States, which says that it was not given a heads up in terms of what Israel may or may not do and be responsible for.
You as prime minister or as defense minister, as chief of staff, you ordered targeted assassinations as well. This happened during your watch
too. In your view, was that a smart calculated move to make it at this point, given the stage of the fighting in Gaza and whether or not Israel
may have indeed been on the precipice of a hostage and ceasefire deal?
BARAK: As you mentioned, Bianna, Israel did not admit or took responsibility for this attack. So, it's somewhat speculative what we were
discussing. But let me say the following, our former heads of Secret Service are claiming that they proposed to Netanyahu six times in the last
eight or 10 years to get rid of the whole Hamas leadership in one strike. And Netanyahu consistently rejected it based probably on his policy that
Hamas is an asset for unexplainable reasons, and the Palestinian Authority is liability rather than the other way around.
So, he could be killed by Israelis half a year ago, or three and a half years ago, quite easily. And he probably could have been killed by Israel
half a year or a year from now. When you think about it, I think that the most urgent challenge for Israel is to bring back the hostages. And in
regard to this objective, the fact that Haniyeh was killed did not help, to say the least.
GOLODRYGA: Well, as you know, that has increased the concern that in the prime minister's -- what many would assume his quest to stay in power, he
may be intentionally trying to sabotage the hostage deal. That -- it appears to be the takeaway from the frustrating conversation, as it was
described, a tough talk between President Biden and the Prime Minister Netanyahu last week, especially following the Haniyeh assassination, the
United States, obviously reiterating that it will defend Israel in the face of an Iranian attack.
But President Biden said this, that he raised his voice and that he wants a deal reached within a week to two weeks. That's reporting from Barak Ravid.
And then, now, you know, there is clear daylight between the prime minister and his own defense establishment. Just for example, over the weekend,
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in a readout with his call with Defense Minister Gallant, Gallant himself reiterated this. He said he emphasized
his commitment to ensuring the return of hostages held by Hamas and Gaza and highlighted the critical timing as it relates to achieving an
agreement.
Channel 12 in Israel published on Friday a really dramatic discussion that occurred last week between Netanyahu, Ronen Bar, the Shin Bet chief, the
head of the Mossad as well. And here's what Ronen Bar said. He said, it feels that the prime minister does not want the outline that is on the
table if this is indeed the meaning, tell us. Finally, Mossad chief Barnea saying this is -- there is a deal. If we hesitate, we may miss the
opportunity. We have to take it.
I'm saying all of this to you because it does appear to be unprecedented, this nature where you're seeing a real division publicly between the
defense apparatus in this government and the prime minister himself, specifically on the issue related to the hostages. Have you ever seen
something like this before?
BARAK: Yes. Let me say a few things. First to make a comment to clarify my position. The world is a better place without Haniyeh. But it's not clear
whether the fact that he was killed at the most critical point for the hostage deal --
[13:35:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the timing. Yes.
BARAK: -- that's -- that doesn't help. I think that you showed such a kind of a deep understanding of our situation. You hardly need me. I have much
worse English than yours, and you basically covered the whole story.
It's true. Everything that you have said is true. That's the case. There is a big debate in Israel. Basically, all our defense establishment, fully
agree with President Biden administration about what should been done -- what should have been done, all along the way in the last 10 months, what
should have been done in regard to the hostages.
What Israeli really needs is the hostage deal right now. If I would've known that the Iranian Hezbollah kind of attack will be executed only two
weeks or three weeks from now, I would recommend to activate the deal right now. If it's possible. Israel has a win-win situation in regard to this
deal. Israel has to agree. Even if the other side does not agree, at least we will know who is responsible for the deterioration towards regional war,
but what we really need is a deal on the hostages. We need immediately as a result of it, calming down the north through the deal cooked by Hochstein
and other Americans to bring back the refugees within Israel.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
BARAK: 130,000 Israels is not in the homes now, to have time for the IDF to replenish, to give some fresh air to the reservists and to deploy this
axis of moderate that President Biden proposed for almost a year right now to stand together, vis-a-vis, the other axis of rogue entities led by Iran
and backed by Russia.
GOLODRYGA: Prime Minister Ehud Barak, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. We are just out of time, but thank you so much for joining us. Really
appreciate it.
BARAK: No. You did a better job than I could in describing the situation and our leadership.
GOLODRYGA: I doubt it, but we will be watching and monitoring very closely as things develop there. Thank you so much.
BARAK: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, next, in a momentous deal struck between Moscow and several western nations, the biggest prisoner swap since the Cold War
happened last week. Twenty-four detainees were returned to their home soil, including American Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich. Many of
those released by Russia were opposition figures, captured for their criticism of the Kremlin.
In her new book, "Autocracy, Inc.," journalist Anne Applebaum argues that today's dictators, though fronted by one figure, are helped up by a series
of complex networks. And she joins Walter Isaacson to discuss this phenomenon.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Anne Applebaum, welcome back to the show.
ANNE APPLEBAUM, AUTHOR, "AUTOCRACY, INC.": Thanks for having me back.
ISAACSON: Your latest book is "Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World." The word inc. in the title suggests the relationship isn't
just a political one, there's sort of a business one. Explain that.
APPLEBAUM: So, the book describes a network. It's not an alliance and not really even an axis. It's a network of dictatorships who have no -- nothing
in common ideologically. They don't -- we're talking about nationalist Russia and communist China and Bolivarian socialist Venezuela and
theocratic Iran, but they do share interests.
And I was looking for a metaphor to describe their relationship. And the best one I could come up with is a kind of big international corporation
where they have their own -- you know, they each have their own policies at home, their own interests, but they do have an overall set of group
interest, and some of them are financial.
They do deals in one another's countries. They sell -- China sells surveillance equipment to the members of Autocracy, Inc. The Russians sell
weapons to the members of Autocracy, Inc., or sometimes supply mercenaries. But they also -- they cooperate in other ways, militarily in information
and in shared narratives, as well.
ISAACSON: So, you're talking about a particular group, attitudes towards us, part of an axis of resistance in some ways to western liberal
democracies, and autocratic, tend to be kleptocratic. Tell me who the five or six top countries in that camp are.
APPLEBAUM: Well, the three largest are Russia, China, and Iran, and they're the most important. They're the most aggressive and they have the
most -- you know, the most influence around the world. I would add to that Venezuela and Cuba in Latin America. Nicaragua, I mean, some of these are
less important countries.
You know, in Africa, there's a group of countries that are already very heavily influenced by Russia. So, Central African Republic or Mali. In my
book, I write a lot about Zimbabwe, which is a country that interests me partly because I know -- I've met some of the Venezuelan leaders. And I --
you know, they're really brave extraordinary people.
[13:40:00]
And so -- you know, and you begin to see how this group is working together when you look at how they come to one another's aid.
ISAACSON: You say they have not much ideologically in common. And indeed, a very left-wing socialist, Maduro in Venezuela is part of Autocracy, Inc.
and so, is Putin, who's a right-wing autocrat, nationalist. And yet, we're seeing Russia and Venezuela, or at least Maduro, coming together. Explain
what's happening there and how that fits into the theme of your book.
APPLEBAUM: So, they don't have the same ideology, they don't use the same language. And you're right, the Venezuelan regime describes itself as a
regime of the left, and Russia is aligned more with the right or the extreme right or far right. But they do have common enemies, and their
enemies are anybody who uses the language of rights, of transparency, of the rule of law. You know, those are their enemies.
And of course, that means their most important enemy is us, meaning all of us who live in the democratic world who use that language, but it also
means their own opposition. So, whether it's the Venezuelan democratic opposition, or whether it was the Navalny movement in Russia, they see them
as opponents.
And so, that's why you see, you know, in the last few days, stories of Putin sending mercenaries to Venezuela to help defend Maduro. Maduro has
just run an election. He lost very badly. It was actually a landslide for his opponent. The opposition was well prepared and they proved they have
the documents to show that it was a landslide. He's not accepting the electoral result.
And for Putin, the idea that -- and dictator like Maduro, who seeks to rule with absolute power, like he does, with no opposition and no media and no -
- and a tame judiciary, the idea that he would lose to an election is damaging to Putin. And so, Putin sees it is in his interest, maybe it's in
his financial interest as well, to try to help keep Maduro in power.
And particularly if we get to a moment when the Venezuelan army is no longer reliable, which apparently some parts of it aren't, you could see
Maduro relying on the troops or the mercenaries or the weapons of other countries. And that is how these regimes now work together. They actively
try to keep one another in power.
And again, it's not about sharing an ideology, it's about defending one another -- defending themselves against the language and the actions of the
democratic world.
ISAACSON: So, in the great sweep of history, which you've written about, including the "Twilight of Democracy," your last book, we've moved away
from a grand ideological cold war of communism versus free market capitalism, let's say, and now, left to right haven't become particularly
useful. But we saw both in your book, the "Twilight of Democracy," people who were anti-democratic aligning with each other. And now, in your book,
"Autocracy, Inc.," people who are autocratic aligning with each other. To what extent are those related phenomenon?
APPLEBAUM: They're related. I mean, I don't want to confuse everything. I mean, I think the world of genuine autocracy of dictatorship is different,
even from the illiberal world. I don't think, you know, what happens in the United States or in European countries is exactly the same as what happens
in Russia or China.
But I do think there is a kind of battle of ideas going on, and it is between people who believe there should be a powerful executive, you know,
a leader who has no checks and balances, you know, closed states against people who believe that there should be checks and balances. There should
be the rule of law. Citizens should have more influence over their governments.
You know, there's now a kind of contest between open societies and closed societies.
ISAACSON: Well, wait, wait, wait. I'm going to interrupt you here because I'm hearing you, what you're saying, and there's a little bit of echoes of
Trump in what you just said, which is above the rule of law and finding it. Do you feel that's infecting U.S. politics? And can you even pin it on the
Trump phenomenon?
APPLEBAUM: It is absolutely infecting U.S. politics. I don't want to connect it directly to the autocratic world. Although, I do think that the
narratives, the information operations that Putin has run in the United States and in Europe over the last few years have had an impact.
The idea that autocracy is stable and safe and democracy is divided and degenerate, all that language that you can hear coming out of Russia,
coming out of even some African states, you can hear it echoed in America very often, and not by people who are somehow paid by the Russians. It's
not like some kind of secret -- our secret operation, but by people who also believe it.
[13:45:00]
You now have a part of the American political spectrum, which I think is willing to accept a leader who has fewer checks and balances, an executive
who has no -- you know, whether it's a no neutral institutions who are able to stop him, whether it's a neutral judiciary or whether it's a neutral
civil service or whether it's other bodies in America, there's a tradition that the Justice Department doesn't -- you know, isn't there to go after
the president's enemies, which is what prosecutors would do in autocracies.
You have seen people around Trump talking about changing that. So, having the Justice Department be, you know, operate at the will of the president
or at the whim of the president to carry out, you know, operations and investigations according to his political needs. That's not how it operated
in the past. And we could -- you know, we see increasingly acceptance for those kinds of ideas in the United States. And it is one of the things that
is at stake in the November election.
ISAACSON: Let me ask you a question that sounds odd, because I know where you come from and you probably know where I come from and believing in
democracy and everything else. But why is it that the United States or we in the west have the right to say to other countries, this is the way you
should rule yourselves. You shouldn't have strong leaders. You should have the messiness of democracy. You should have checks and balances. Maybe they
look around and say, wait, why do we need that? We looked at what's happened to your societies. Are we morally on a high ground where we can
say they're wrong?
APPLEBAUM: So, first of all, yes, I do think we're morally on a high ground where we can say they're wrong. And I don't have any problem with
saying that. And I don't think most Americans should. But secondly, you know, the disintegration of Venezuela, the crisis that, that the autocratic
regime has created, you know, what was the wealthiest country in the -- in South America, now, it's the poorest. It creates millions of refugees, many
of whom show up at the southern border in the U.S.
You know, Venezuela is a destabilizing factor in our hemisphere and in our direct area. These countries are a problem for us. So, it's not just that,
you know, we -- this is some kind of moral or, you know, philosophical issue about how people should run their countries. I mean, these -- there
is a -- direct challenges are being presented to us, to our allies, you know, in South America, Europe, in the Middle East by this group of
countries.
And in addition to being a challenge, you know, kind of war of ideas, it's -- it is also a real geopolitical challenge. So, I -- you know, I don't
think we can be neutral in this argument or say, we don't care, you know, live and let live. And although, I should add that I do think there are
other monarchies or dictatorships who we can have a relationship who don't have the same focus on undermining us or destroying us.
ISAACSON: You're talking about like Saudi Arabia?
APPLEBAUM: Yes, like -- yes. Or, you know, Morocco. You know, even a country like Vietnam, which is a communist dictatorship doesn't seem to
have -- has not put at the center of its foreign policy, you know, the undermining of the United States or the undermining of other democracies in
its region. So, there are different kinds of dictatorships.
I'm not saying that this the Cold War, and there's some kind of Berlin Wall, and there are kind of good guys on one side and bad guys on the
other. I'm saying -- I'm talking about a very particular group who has a particular, you know, set of attitudes towards us, and I don't think we can
just ignore it.
ISAACSON: You use words like kleptocracy, which describe the type of governance in which people are stealing money and that sort of thing,
corruption. And also, autocracy. Is there some interrelation between autocracies and kleptocracies?
APPLEBAUM: Yes. I mean, it's not exactly the same word, you know. By kleptocracy, I mean, not just ordinary corruption, but grand scale
corruption. So, that you have a state, for example, like Russia or Zimbabwe, where a very small number of people become very rich only because
of their relationship to the state, and they're able to take money out of state coffers and privatize it and take it abroad and hide it sometimes in
western financial institutions. And that's what I mean by a kleptocracy.
Very often when you have that kind of corruption, it leads inexorably in the direction of greater and harsher authoritarianism or autocracy, because
once people have that kind of money then they need --
ISAACSON: Is that what happened in Russia?
APPLEBAUM: It is exactly what happened in Russia. And I tell that story in the book, you know, once you have that money, then you can't tolerate in
your society, people who want transparency or people who want the rule of law. You know, no, you need rule by law, meaning the laws, whatever you say
it is, because you can't risk some judge in a court saying that, you know, you're -- you broke the law.
[13:50:00]
And so, very often in many cases, not in all of them, but in many cases, these societies are -- you know, they're run by billionaires. You know, or
-- you know, by people who have enriched their families or a group of businessmen who are very close to them.
ISAACSON: And that includes Putin, right? I mean --
APPLEBAUM: Absolutely, includes Putin. That's how Putin came to power. He came to power as somebody who was part of this extraordinary process that
took place at the beginning of the 1990s, whereby money went out of Russia. It was laundered abroad. It was hidden in various places, and then
sometimes it was brought in, thereby enriching small groups of people. And Putin was one of the leaders of that shift. Essentially, they privatized
the money. I mean, they took taxpayers money and kept it for themselves.
So, you know -- so, that -- and very often, when you're in that kind of position, you know, as I said, you can't -- you don't want any opposition
because the opposition would reveal that you've broken the law or that you've -- or at least that what you've done is unjust and they don't want
to acknowledge that and they -- you know, therefore, they lock up their opponents.
I mean, actually Putin's most important political opponent in the last decade was Alexei Navalny, who was murdered in a Siberian prison camp. And
what was Navalny? Navalny was an anti-corruption campaigner. He didn't talk so much about democracy as he talked about theft, and that was at the end -
- first of all, that was what galvanized people and really moved people all across Russia. And that was also what really angered Putin and frightened
Putin and the people around him, because they know that how much money they've stolen, and they know how unfair their society is. And to have
someone like Navalny, someone as eloquent as Navalny talking about it, genuinely threatened them.
ISAACSON: Let me read you a sentence you wrote that struck me, which is everyone assumed that in a more open, interconnected world, democracy and
liberal ideas would spread to the autocratic state. But then you say the opposite happened. And in fact, a broad theme of your last two books is how
globalization we thought was going to make the world much more interconnected, and somehow we missed something big.
APPLEBAUM: So, we understood -- we believed that somehow our ideas would - - in some kind of free market of ideas, would flow from, as we used to say, west to east, and they would inevitably be adopted by other people. And
they would -- you know, somehow the world would be transformed through integration. And instead -- and I should say, it wasn't just naive
Americans who thought that there were Russians who thought that and there were Chinese who thought that in the 1990s. So, it wasn't just a western
idea.
But instead, what happened was, particularly in Russia and in the post- Soviet world, the way that so -- it wasn't really capitalism, but the way markets were changed and the economic system was changed, enriched a very
few people. And as I said, then they -- then it was in their interest to remain in power. And so, the flow of ideas didn't work the way that we
thought it were.
ISAACSON: But didn't that happen in the west as well, that somehow this globalization enriched a very few people, and a lot of people got left out,
and the powerful rich stayed in power?
APPLEBAUM: That is -- that's very true. And, again, that's part of the -- I don't think that's the only reason, that's not the only explanation for
the backlash that we're seeing. You know, and I think it's more cultural and economic. But -- and -- but there's -- the autocratic world plays a
role in that as well. The shift in the nature of the economy, the rapid demographic changes, the rapid social changes, all of that left a lot of
people feeling cast aside or left out.
You know, but also, any era of really rapid change tends to make people look for a single leader or an autocrat or someone who can guarantee their
security. When everything is changing, people become more open to autocratic narratives. And I think that's true as much in the western world
as it is in the autocratic world.
ISAACSON: What should we be doing to fight this big trend?
APPLEBAUM: I mean, first of all, we should recognize it and name it and understand it. Secondly, we should think about cleaning up our own act. You
know, you've asked several times about, you know, aren't we like that too? And the answer is yes. We should clean up our own internal -- the way our
financial institutions work. So, to stop the money laundering, stop the secrecy, we should make our own political -- the money in our political
system more transparent. Again, it's the lack of transparency, the opaqueness of our -- the financial world in the political world that I
think is very -- is dangerous.
Internationally, we should work on our alliances. We should reinforce them. And we can work -- you know, many of these problems can be worked on
together. You know, the United States is so much stronger when it works together with allies, whether it's in Ukraine or whether it's in the most
recent prisoner swap, which happened thanks to the cooperation of Germany, but also Poland and several other states.
[13:55:00]
Thinking about ourselves as a member of this global community that wants to protect this set of values, I think is a great guide for foreign policy. It
doesn't explain everything -- again, it's not the Cold War. It's not like we can identify immediately who our partners are, you know, just by the
kind of language that they use. But understanding that this is a global conflict is the beginning of change.
ISAACSON: Anne Applebaum, thank you for joining us. Appreciate it.
APPLEBAUM: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
