Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with French Minister Delegate for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad; Interview with "Vladimir" Actress Francesca Faridany; Interview with "Vladimir" Actor Norbert Leo Butz; Interview with Ukrainian Tennis Player Elina Svitolina; Interview with University of Chicago Professor of Political Science Robert Pape. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 01, 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 ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: To me, the most beautiful word, and I've said this for the last couple of
weeks, in the dictionary today and any -- is the word tariff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Europe faces the great unknown. Who will lead AmErika? And what will that mean for AmErika's allies? France's European Affairs Minister
Benjamin Haddad joins from Paris.
Then, actors Francesca Faridany and Norbert Leo Butz on "Vladimir." Their new play charts the fight for press freedom in Russia, in the shadow of
Putin's rise.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELINA SVITOLINA, UKRAINIAN TENNIS PLAYER: This is in a big danger for us, for Ukrainians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- tennis star Elina Svitolina on the horror unfolding in Ukraine. Thousands of children taken for adoption by Russian families.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT PAPE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Periods of social change and radical social change often correspond with
periods of high political violence in society.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Political violence expert Robert Pape warns Hari Sreenivasan There could be another January 6th type event.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Well, AmErika's pre-election jitters are being felt around the world. In Europe, there is talk of Trump proofing, buttressing alliances, on shoring
support for Ukraine, building up Europe's military and defense capabilities, as leaders anticipate a potential return by Donald Trump.
Debates about Trump's right-wing authoritarianism echo similar tensions in Europe, including in France, where this summer Marine Le Pen's National
Rally Party performed strongly in parliamentary elections.
Meanwhile, Russia is flexing its muscles. In October, Russia made its largest territorial gains in Ukraine since the summer of 2022, as the
Kremlin faces accusations of openly meddling in elections in Georgia and Moldova.
Benjamin Haddad joined France's new conservative leaning government after the strong showing by the far-right in the July election. He is the
minister delegate for European Affairs, and he joins us from Paris. Benjamin Haddad, welcome to the program.
So, a lot of the focus here, from the media, from voters has been obviously on our own election in just four days from now. From your perspective,
you've spent a lot of time working in the United States, in Washington, D.C. How is Europe viewing the stakes of this election on Tuesday?
BENJAMIN HADDAD, FRENCH MINISTER DELEGATE FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS: Look, you know, the truth is whoever is elected we have so many values in common with
the United States, we have so many interests in common, when you look at Russian aggression against Ukraine and our need to support Ukrainians
defend themselves. When you look at all global issues like tackling climate change, like China, so many economic challenges that we face together, we
have an interest in working together.
But at the end of the day, the truth, if you look at the writing on the wall over the last few administrations, is that we cannot just, you know,
depend on whoever gets elected every year or four years. Europeans need to take more ownership for their own security, for their own defense, be able
to defend their security interests on their own, especially as, we see once again, the war of Russian aggression at our border that engages our
security and stability, first and foremost.
And I would even add, a strong and autonomous Europe is in the interest of the United States as we contemplate the challenges that we face together
tomorrow.
GOLODRYGA: And let me get to the point that you just made about Europe needing to really take a hard look at itself and reinforce its own internal
strength and its investments and alliances. I mean, I just remember in 2019, it was President Macron in an interview with The Economist. He
labeled NATO brain dead and was worried about the direction that was going.
I mean, obviously, there was a lot of concern about how Trump viewed international alliances, NATO specifically, not really understanding how
NATO funding in his view worked. The 2 percent increase for defense budget spending into NATO notwithstanding, we did see a change in the direction
that Europeans were forced to make in the Trump administration. I'm wondering if you played a role in what you, yourself, said was a much-
needed reassessment.
[13:05:00]
HADDAD: You're absolutely right. Ever since 2017, in his first election, Emmanuel Macron has put the question of European sovereignty at the heart
of his agenda. And as we see the arc of crisis around us, as we see the war of Russian aggression against Ukraine, you've seen first an increase in
defense spending all across the board in Europe.
If you take the example of France, over the two terms of the Macron presidency, we'll have doubled Russian defense spending. But this needs to
continue in the long run. And we also need to increase our cooperation at the European level. We have so many duplications, redundancies. When you
look at our weapon system, when you look at our defense markets, we'd be much stronger if we can act together and especially if we face the
challenges.
And I will say, this is something that we've heard from the United States, from Democratic and Republican administration. It's a legitimate request
coming from AmErikans. And if we want to work together in a more balanced partnership to face the challenges that we face today, we need to be able
to increase our defense spending and it needs to go through European cooperation and a stronger European defense that will be at the heart of
the agenda also of the next European Commission that we'll be supporting.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, let me now turn to the devil's advocate point here, because however much you think that whatever Trump's threats or his
language or his actions strengthened the E.U. and NATO as a whole, a Trump 2.0 could look quite different. I mean, there were balances in place,
guardrails from some of his top advisers who had been supporters and advocates for international alliances, specifically NATO speaking strongly
against Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine and supporting Ukraine heavily.
Now, there is a lot of concern, some of it coming from Trump's own language about what the U.S.' role, if he wins in NATO would look like and what
U.S.' aid towards Ukraine could look like if he is re-elected. He said that this war is going to end on day one. Most people assume that means Ukraine
would have to acquiesce and agree to a much weaker deal with Vladimir Putin than they would like at this point. Does that worry you?
HADDAD: Look, I want to say, to react to your question, the question of Ukraine, the security of Ukraine today is our first and foremost concern.
If you look -- you know, abandoning Ukrainians to Russian aggression would be a historic mistake. And we Europeans need to be able to continue to
support Ukrainian, you know, whatever the decision made by the U.S. administration. It's on our border. It's the stability of the eastern flank
and --
GOLODRYGA: Can you do it? Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Can you do it without U.S. support, I guess, is my bottom-line question?
HADDAD: I hope that we can continue to do it together, because once again, it's the security interest of both the United States and Europeans. If you
look at what's just happened in the last few weeks, you see North Korean troops that are being sent to support Russian aggression, which is a
serious escalation in Ukraine. You see Iranian drones and missiles that are also used to fuel Russian aggression.
So, you see there's a global dimension to this that goes way beyond just the war on Ukrainians. It's European security that's at stake, and I would
say it's a global challenge against democracies that also is at the heart of the NATO alliance. This is why we support continuing to increase
military support to Ukraine. We'll be finalizing in the next few days, hopefully, a $50 billion loan funding on the windfall profits of Russian
frozen assets in Europe that will be -- that will lead to more support, military support to Ukraine.
We support -- France supports inviting Ukraine to a NATO. This will send a strong message to the morale of the Ukrainian population. This will also
send a message to the Kremlin that we're with Ukrainians in the long run, this is the only way, once again, to ensure long-term deterrence and
stability in this region. It's a common interest that we have.
But once again, you know, I would say as we look at this as Europeans, Ukrainians are fighting and dying for their freedom, for their sovereignty,
for their independence, but they're also defending the security of Europeans, this strategic and military security. But also, when you look at
food prices, when you look at energy prices, it's our interests that are at stake, and this is why we all need to be able to step forth together and
support them.
GOLODRYGA: Is it your government's view that a future Trump administration views those stakes just as high as you do and sees the current dynamic in
Europe the way you've just described? Because it's not just Former President Trump, it's his running mate J. D. Vance that has been criticized
for describing the war in Ukraine more or less as a territorial regional issue without a real threat to neighboring countries.
[13:10:00]
HADDAD: Look, as I said, I mean, it's our view that it would be a historic mistake to abandon Ukrainians. That, you know, the -- it's not only, once
again, our security but it's also the precedent that we would create for other theaters, for other aggressions down the road. And so, it involves
our interest, but also, the interest of the alliance in the United States, and I think we need to continue to work together on this.
But, once again, I mean, Europeans need to give themselves, this is why we need to step up on defense spending, we need to step up on defense and
security cooperation at the European level. Develop the financial instruments to be able to continue to support Ukrainians even off on our
own if needed, and this is the message that France is sending to its security partners in Europe.
And by the way, I want to add, if you look at the combined military, economic, humanitarian support that Europeans as a whole have provided
Ukraine since the beginning of the aggression on February 24, 2022, it's today higher than the one of the United States.
So, when you talk about burden sharing, when you talk about Europeans stepping up and taking their part and their responsibility for their own
security, Europeans are here with Ukrainians.
GOLODRYGA: No doubt. The Europeans definitely have stepped up, especially over the course of the last year and a half. I know you are being very
diplomatic, as you should be in representing your government, publicly stating that you are capable and willing to work with any administration
that the U.S. elects here in the United States.
But it is notable that at least one of your neighboring leaders, Viktor Orban, has gone out publicly and put his thumb on the scale saying that he
would like for Donald Trump to win, that he endorsed him. He's met with him in the United States recently. Here's what he tweeted on October 31st, just
got off the phone with President Donald Trump. I wished him the best of luck for next Tuesday. Only five days to go. Fingers crossed.
What do you make of that given the criticism? I know you've heard that he's received for being a strong man, an authoritarian, illiberal democracy
proponent. And also, one of the outliers in terms of providing aid for Ukraine. Ultimately, you know, he would agree, and he has for the most
part, but it has been an uphill battle to get him to sign off on where most of your neighboring countries have. Does that worry you when you hear
language like that?
HADDAD: Well, look --
GOLODRYGA: Is it appropriate?
HADDAD: -- if I want to react first to your latter point, if -- I will tell you. First, if you like -- look at the glass half full on this, the
truth is over the last two and a half years, we have managed to stay united. We have managed to impose sanctions on Russia and renew them on a
regular basis. We've managed to approve the different instruments like the European peace facility that's allowed us to fund the weapons deliveries
that we've sent to Ukraine. So, I don't want to exaggerate also the divisions when you actually have seen a united front from Europeans in the
support of Ukraine.
Now, I want to add to this, you know, when we have this dialogue when -- with the United States, we also have to defend our interests, when you
think about trade issues, when, you know, we want to have a robust Transatlantic, but a balanced Transatlantic partnership with our AmErikan
friends, we're much stronger if we're united.
I think it would be a grave mistake on our end to go for bilateral relations, to go for transactional relations when we actually need to stay
united and show united front in this Transatlantic relationship, because this is also where the ones that are trying to weaken and divide us like
Vladimir Putin will be clearly looking at. So, keeping a united front I think in this dialogue is more critical than ever.
GOLODRYGA: Well, let me ask you quickly in our final few moments here, in terms of what Donald Trump has said, this is one of his favorite words,
tariffs he's pledged to impose steep tariffs on imported goods, 60 percent surcharge on Chinese goods, about 10 percent surcharge on European made
goods. Are you concerned about a future trade war in a Trump administration?
HADDAD: We are each other's most important trading partner, you know? So, we have a strong economic interest on both sides of the Atlantic to
continue to trade, to continue to work together, and once again, to not divide because this would only fuel our adversaries and opponents around
the world.
When you look at what's happening in Georgia and Moldova today, this is really the European idea and aspiration that Vladimir Putin, with his
massive interference, is trying to go after. So, this would not be in our interest.
Now, with that being said, you know, Europeans defend themselves. They defend their interest. We've developed the tools at the European level in
the last few years not to be naive on trade issues anymore. I'll give you just one example. We've imposed in the last few days tariffs on Chinese
electric vehicles as a response to the disloyal trade practices by China that was heavily subsidizing its electric vehicle industry and Europeans
have got together to manage to impose tariff.
[13:15:00]
This is not something that we're capable of doing just a few years ago. This is also the kind of agenda of a European sovereignty that defended
itself, that President Macron has been pushing on the European level. And so, now we have this ability.
GOLODRYGA: Benjamin Haddad, we've covered a lot here. Thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate the time.
HADDAD: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, it's hard to beat Russian President Vladimir Putin for theatrics, which is why a play set during the early years of his regime
called "Vladimir" makes a bold, even surprising choice. Putin himself never appears in the play, but his looming presence is felt in everything that
transpires.
It's the story of a journalist covering Putin in the early days of his regime. When western leaders saw him as a new hope for Russia, ignoring
warning signs of a budding autocracy. Francesca Faridany plays Raya, the intrepid journalist, and Norbert Leo Butz plays her editor and friend,
Kostya.
Francesca, Norbert, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for joining us. I have to say, I really enjoyed this play. It hit a little too close to
home, given everything that's transpired and obviously all of the attention that we have focused on Russia over the last two and a half years with the
war in Ukraine. But your play sets us back at the very beginning, In 2000, beginning with Yeltsin, President Yeltsin signing off to the Russian public
on New Year's Eve with his message saying that they will wake up to a new president. And that president was an unknown for the majority of the
country, Vladimir Putin.
And here we are, Raya with your character, Francesca, really a fictional character, but one who was based a lot on Anna Politkovskaya, an intrepid
reporter who actually lost her life working on finding the truth on covering a war in Chechnya. How much did you know about the background of
this story here with Vladimir Putin and about Anna Politkovskaya before you took on this role?
FRANCESCA FARIDANY, ACTRESS, "VLADIMIR": I didn't know a huge amount of that -- about that particular part of Russian history, so I dived right
back in and read a lot of Masha Gessen's work and also watched a lot of documentaries to really -- because Russian history is so immense and so
extraordinary and so when -- you have to really go back quite a bit to really get a run up at it.
And for this specific part, which is really, you see that moment of Yeltsin sort of abdication speech, and then you jump to 2004. So, it's the first --
that's our first scene, which is the first scene of the play after the prologue. And you have -- you've seen him be in power for four years, and
it's his "first election," heavy quotes.
And so, yes, I had to go back in and really remind myself what exactly was going on and who all the people are, who the moving parts are, because it's
complicated. I found it complicated.
GOLODRYGA: It was complicated, yet it all happened so quickly and what you were able to deliver masterfully in this play is -- set a level of suspense
for a story that sadly had already been written. We knew how things would end, Norbert, but there was a sense of hope and optimism in freedom of the
press, in journalism, in storytelling, and as an editor of sorts, Raya's boss, the more level headed thinker of the two, as she was always running
after the next big story. What drew you to your character and to this play? And tell us about your experience in the run up to the show.
NORBERT LEO BUTZ, ACTOR, "VLADIMIR": Sure. I did a reading of the play for Erika Sheffer, the playwright, and Dan Sullivan, the director, about a year
and a half before we went into production. My knowledge of Russian history is probably even less than Frankie's.
But I could sense in the play right away a writer with a real voice. There was a righteousness to Erika's writing. As Erika says in the program notes,
the -- she wanted the play to feel like a cry of frustration, of disillusionment and I recognized that in the writing.
I was a political science minor in college, and I love the dialectic, like I love the argument. I love the language of political arguments, and Erika
just nails it. She is the daughter of two Russian emigres, so there's an authenticity about her writing and about her experience as a first
generation American.
[13:20:00]
And so, I just recognized a really potent play. And it wasn't lost on me that we would be performing the play during our general election here in
the United States. I found the -- that correlating Russian politics to our current political climate here in the U.S. illuminating, scary, and very
important to tell.
FARIDANY: Yes, it really is a cautionary tale.
BUTZ: Very much so.
FARIDANY: Especially as we head into this week, you know, the audience sit in there and they've bought their tickets. And I have a line near the
beginning where I say this -- about this election, I won't say what it is. About this election, and you could just feel it. I mean, you can feel it in
the energy, of course, this week anyway. But particularly, you can feel it from the beginning, yes.
BUTZ: You know --
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And -- go ahead, yes.
BUTZ: Neither leader -- obviously, this is before Trump's rise to -- onto the political scene, and, you know, Putin is -- as you said in your
introduction, he never appears in the play, and yet both of these, in my opinion, authoritarian leaning leaders infiltrate the play.
It's very exciting to do a play that feels that prescient. That feels that of the moment. It's a dialogue that we have with the audience every night.
That's quite thrilling.
GOLODRYGA: And I have to say at the core is really this idea of speaking truth to power, being courageous as opposed to falling in line and a
feeling of numbness that the Kremlin has really established and succeeded at taking hold of a country, which, you know, unlike the United States,
where we may be, one could argue, take for granted, our freedoms, freedom of the press, fair and free elections.
Russia, with all the corruption in those early days under Yeltsin, there had been real hope for reform, for the kind of freedoms that many here take
for granted. And there's a scene I'd like to show our viewers where the two of you have a conversation about what it is to deal with that moral dilemma
as a boss and his employee and amongst friends as well. Let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FARIDANY: You got the interview through the Kremlin's communications director. Tell me again how that's not state-run media.
BUTZ: Our boss is in and out of the country as it is.
FARIDANY: We're still getting paychecks. You still have editorial control. You think you'll have --
BUTZ: For how long? For how long? How long before he ends up in London and it's not worth the risk to publish?
FARIDANY: It could be years.
BUTZ: It could be. It could be months.
FARIDANY: You're worried we'll be shut down by the government, so you're going to work for them --
BUTZ: Getting shut down is the best-case scenario. The best. And don't make jokes. Stop it. Don't pretend you don't know that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: So, one of you -- Norbert, you're being the voice of reason here. And, Raya, you're being the voice seeking the truth. Walk us through
that dynamic and how you both experienced it. If I can start with you, Francesca.
FARIDANY: She -- well, so interesting to see that. First of all, it's so interesting --
GOLODRYGA: I keep calling you Raya too, because that's how I see you. So, apologies for that.
FARIDANY: That's totally fine. I love it. It's -- well, what I will say going in is that my -- what I've come to realize is that her journey ends
in this quest for empathy. Is a quest for how can you stay empathetic? How can you keep your heart open? She has a line near the end of the play, how
human can you be? How much will you let yourself feel? And that is like the antithesis of apathy of how you close down your heart so that you can't
take in this horrific information.
So, she is working against that all the time. And it's -- it really brings her to her knees by the end of the play in her -- she sort of has a huge
moment of unraveling because of events that happened to her in the play, but also because of the events of the regime she's trying to speak out
against.
So, in this scene, really what's happening is, as well as talking about continuing to face these horrors with truth is a friendship that starts to
blow apart, because they are very, very close. They're like best friends. They're like family to each other. And suddenly, he says he's going to take
a different route. And that's the beginning of this -- this rift where she finds herself, by the end of the play, extremely alone.
[13:25:00]
And that makes the decision harder, but also, in a way, easier for her to make because she feels like she is the only person left who's doing this.
And that -- for that reason alone, she has to do it. And she's a mother. She has a daughter who says, please stop, you know. And watching the
documentaries about Anna Politkovskaya, her children speak about that, and they speak about having had those conversations, and she considered it an
extreme -- at the end of the day, an extreme act of cowardice to drop that ball when you're holding it, and it's your turn, you've got to keep running
with it until you can't anymore.
So, she -- she's -- you know, it's hard to know what that decision is like because I don't live in a regime like that. But it's -- I -- you know, I
know what it's like to have a family and to say to them, this is what I might do and this might happen to me.
But in that particular scene, it's about two people making very different decisions about the place that they're in, that their country's in, their
work life is in, right?
BUTZ: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: And, Norbert, it's precisely because of your love for Raya, your character's love for Raya, and your connection, and your sympathy, you
agree with her pursuit of these stories and you know where the truth lies. But you also know that, as so many Russians who experienced more or less
decisions that your character had to, at a certain point, that their own safety, their family's welfare, their economic security, for many of them,
sadly, maybe --
BUTZ: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- that was more of an important factor.
BUTZ: Definitely. This is the most fascinating aspect of the play, I think, is how the political always becomes personal, right? A toxic leader,
authoritarianism trickles down. We're seeing it in America right now. This is Putin playbook 101. If he can sow division, if he can sow mistrust
between family members, between friends, between parents and children, that conspiracy laden fear-based type of governing, right, poisons everything.
It poisons civic life. It poisons interpersonal relationship. And that's really what that scene is about.
Putin's regime has made it so incredibly dangerous for a free press to exist. You have to choose a side. And it eventually destroys this very
loving relationship.
Erika said something really interesting about the Russian mind, about the general Russian psyche and kind of their political ideologies. She said
when you have a society that has been, disillusioned by government generation after generation after generation it creates a body politic that
is apathetic, mistrustful, mistrustful of government, of institutions, kind of a whole societal shrugging of the shoulders saying what can I do? And
that's very --
GOLODRYGA: A powerlessness?
BUTZ: A powerlessness. And that's --
GOLODRYGA: A powerlessness, yes.
BUTZ: -- what my character is feeling in that scene. We --
GOLODRYGA: Well, listen like Erika, I myself am a political refugee and immigrant from the former Soviet Union to the United States, so a lot of
this resonated a bit too close to home for me. You played it and portrayed it beautifully and masterfully. And unfortunately, we are out of time right
now, but it is a fascinating play. I suggest anyone who can go see it here in New York. Norbert Leo Butz and Francesca Faridany, thank you so much for
your time.
FARIDANY: Thank you so much.
BUTZ: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you. Well, there's a clear line from the assent authoritarian Vladimir Putin of the early 2000s to the totalitarian
dictator of today, flouting western sanctions as he rolls up territory in Ukraine.
Inside Ukraine, a real-life horror story is unfolding. Thousands of children in occupied parts of the country are reported to have been taken
by Russia for adoption by Russian families. These images are from a protest calling for their return in Belgium last year.
Renowned tennis player Elina Svitolina was herself a child in Ukraine. Now, she is ambassador for Bring Kids Back UA, working to repatriate children
taken by Russia. Christiane spoke with Elina about all of this and how it impacts her life on and off the court.
[13:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Elina Svitolina, welcome to the program.
ELINA SVITOLINA, UKRAINIAN TENNIS PLAYER: Hello.
CHATTERLEY: So, look, you have stood out, really, especially at this moment, being a Ukrainian player, a Ukrainian public person in the west,
always speaking up for your country. And you've been back and forth recently to visit family. And the country obviously is at war. How is it
different? What are you seeing now when you go back compared to when you left?
SVITOLINA: Yes, it's a very different country that I noticed over the years and the war been ongoing for almost three years. So, now, it's
extremely challenging times for my country. And half of my family is still there. I have my uncle. His family is there. Have my grandmother still in
Odessa. It's very tough on a daily basis because the rockets are coming every day. And on a daily basis, it's very tough mentally, I would say.
I've been there spending some time with my grandmother and I can tell you it's a very dangerous place to be and very sad to see that people are
getting used to it. It's very strange thing to say, but what I noticed is these people are used to the rockets landing two kilometers from their
homes and this is very sad to see that.
AMANPOUR: I mean, we saw you get quite emotional at Wimbledon this summer. You reached the quarterfinals the same day as there was an airstrike that
hit a children's hospital in Kyiv.
So, talking about the children, and we want to talk to you about an organization that you've become ambassador for, Bring Kids Back. Tell me
what is the level of the crisis? What's happened to these children? I mean, we know that some of them have been taken, kidnapped, abducted by Russia
into Russia, and your own country has made you an ambassador on this. Why did you want to do this and what is the extent of the problem?
SVITOLINA: Yes, this is the presidential initiative called Bring Kids Back UA, which takes care of the kids that's been kidnapped. There are more than
20,000 kids that are being stolen from Ukraine. And kids are our future. They are our hope. And this is in a big danger for us, for Ukrainians. So,
we need to do everything what is in our power to bring those kids back, to bring them back to life, because they've been taken away from their
families for the -- they mask it as the camps for their health, for their education but the reality is that they are there, they're not seeing their
families. And some of them, they've been stolen and changed their nationality, you know, their age and being educated as Russian people.
So, these crimes has to stop. This is very close topic to my heart and that's why there's no doubt that I wanted to become ambassador of this
initiative.
AMANPOUR: So, we know that about 400 have been returned, but usually only through sort of whistleblowers and people who've helped Ukraine get them
back. And last week, the first lady of Ukraine urged the International Community to do more. Olena Zelenska said, the taking of 19,000 children to
Russia is an act witnessed by the world that was met with inadequate action.
You're currently in Canada for a conference of foreign ministers. Some 40 nations have pledged, you know, cooperation and support for this
initiative. What do you want to come out of this conference in Canada?
SVITOLINA: I want to deliver the message one more time. I feel like there've been a lot of statement made by our first lady, by, you know, the
representatives, but I want more action. I want more people involved in this issue.
[13:35:00]
I feel like we've been asking, we've been getting a lot from our from our partners, a lot of weapons, but also I don't want that this issue goes
under the radar.
AMANPOUR: And finally, I want to ask you about the WTA finals, which this year are being held in Saudi Arabia, and this has caused some controversy.
Now, the great Billie Jean King has said, nothing changes unless you engage. Others like Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova were more outspoken
against going to Saudi Arabia. But I did speak to them both a few months ago and I asked Martina about this. This is what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, FORMER WORLD NUMBER 1 TENNIS PLAYER: We wanted to see more progress made before we go there. But, again, you know, the money was
needed and women were honest about it rather than saying we want to expand tennis into Saudi Arabia. They said we need the money, and we stand by
supporting the women that made that decision. And, you know, that's OK. This is where their line is, and Chris and I have a different line in the
sand. That's all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What do you make of that? Are you comfortable with the Saudi Arabia location?
SVITOLINA: I feel like they've been a lot said about this. For me, I feel like we have to promote tennis. It has to go all around the world. We have
to promote women's tennis, women's sport, and we have to do everything possible to introduce this sport to some countries that were not allowed to
do sport and -- or had a really small access to this.
So, I feel like we have to do everything possible for the sport to evolve and to get to get more girls, to get more women into it.
AMANPOUR: Do you think it's unfair that women get more criticism than the men? The men go to Saudi Arabia. And as Martina said, and as Billie Jean
has said, there needs to be more money in women's tennis. This is one way to get it.
SVITOLINA: Yes, I feel like we have to take care of women in general. You know, we are -- we have to promote women's sport. I feel like there's still
a huge gap between men's sport, women's sports. So, I feel like we have to make steps. We have to make mistakes and learn from them and try again and
try better. And we will eventually succeed, but we have to make some steps, and sometimes they can be wrong, but I feel like it's better to do
something and to try to find the right way for women's sport.
AMANPOUR: Elina Svitolina, thank you for joining us.
SVITOLINA: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, only a few days left until the U.S. election, as you know, and the extremely tight race between Harris and Trump is keeping
people on their toes, especially after January 6th. Many fear the outcome this time could lead to another seismic event of political violence.
University of Chicago professor Robert Pape is an expert on the topic, and he joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how future attacks could be prevented.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Professor Robert Pape, thanks so much for joining us again.
You have been studying political violence and you've been, you know, rolling out these surveys since 2021 about people on both sides of the
aisle who are, well, more open to the idea of political violence to get what they want.
I mean, what's the latest survey that you have and why do you think -- you've stated that there is a, quote, "serious risk that another January
6th could happen during this election cycle," why?
ROBERT PAPE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: So, our most recent survey is September, just about a month ago. September 16th
is when it came out of the field. And we found that 6 percent of American adults, that's the equivalent of 15 million American adults, support the
use of force to restore Donald Trump to the presidency. And 8 percent of American adults support the use of force to prevent Donald Trump from
becoming president.
Now, these numbers matter because support for political violence can nudge volatile actors who are, for their own psychosocial reasons, on the edge of
violence over that edge and take action. And this can happen because that support for political violence, I just identified, often shows up in social
media. It often shows up in social media posts.
And so, we shouldn't be -- and these numbers actually have been fairly stable over the last year. So, we shouldn't be surprised when we see
volatile actors attempt to assassinate Nancy Pelosi, as happened, attempt to assassinate Barack Obama. That is an assailant who tried to get into his
house with guns and weapons in his vehicle in June 2023, or to assassination attempts against Donald Trump.
[13:40:00]
In all of these cases -- although, there's lots of details about the individual attackers that are different, in all of those cases, they were
seeking to do what they believe would be popular for their audience.
SREENIVASAN: Professor, violence has been part of political systems. So, if you are able to look back at the line of longer arc of political
violence in American history, what is the moment that we're in today? Why is it so concerning?
PAPE: Well, you're quite right that the moment we're in today is not unprecedented in our history, but we are in a historically high period of
political violence. And those cases, I just discussed as a cluster, and there are more. You would have to go back to the 1960s and '70s, that is 50
years ago, to find other high points that look like this.
Now, why are we in this historically high period? Well, as in the 1960s, periods of social change and radical social change often correspond with
periods of high political violence in societies. That is that common pattern.
Well, what is the social change that we're going through today? Well, the big historic social change is we're going from a white majority democracy
to a white minority democracy truly multiracial democracy. In 1990, 77 percent of Americans were non-Hispanic white. Today, that number is 61
percent. In about 10, 12 years, that number will be 50, 49 percent.
We are going through the period, the transition period. It's about 20 years. It started about 10 years ago. And that corresponds with the rise of
Donald Trump and also the virulent opposition to Donald Trump. And that also corresponds with the rise of this period, I call the era of violent
populism in America. And that era of violent populism is unfortunately likely to be with us for a number of years because it -- yes, Donald Trump
is a cause, but he's also a symptom of this era that we're going through.
And it's not simply a matter of this one a lead or that one a lead or this election or that election, things have been getting worse steadily as we
are going through this historic transition to a genuinely multiracial democracy. And that is enormous social change, bigger social change than
the 1960s.
SREENIVASAN: If this demographic shift is playing out, and if it's one of the reasons that people are feeling so anxious. You know, I can understand
why it feeds into this racist idea of the Great Replacement Theory, right? And I'm wondering whether the subset of the population whose greatest
anxieties are about being replaced, if you will, are those people more likely to want political violence than people who might see the pattern but
don't subscribe to it as strictly.
PAPE: Inside of our body politic today, as I just told you, there are 6 percent of Americans that support the use of force to restore Donald Trump,
and they also heavily believe in that Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory, as you're -- as you just said.
However, the other 8 percent are also supporting violence against Trump. And the way to think about this is that you have a portion on the right who
wants to slow down or reverse this transition to a multiracial democracy, and you have a portion on the left that wants to continue and accelerate
that shift for fear it will never happen.
You see, the left is responding to the rise of Trump and it's responding and not just like, well, it's OK if he wins, we're just going to -- no,
it's responding in quite serious ways that we have not seen in our lifetimes. And the reason is because the fear is if Trump wins, this will
actually keep minorities as second-class citizens pretty much forever. And that is a daunting prospect for many people on the left.
Now, the risk is -- of violence is greater on the right, although we have seen violence on the left. The reason it's greater is because of Donald
Trump. He has demonstrated that he is willing and will stoke violence to egg on a mob to seize the Capitol to stop the certification of an election
that goes against him.
[13:45:00]
No other political leader in our history, nearly 250-year history, ever did that. So, it's not -- there is essentially combustible material. So, Hari,
you can think of political violence as like a wildfire. There -- you need combustible material, that's how we know we're in wildfire season. We can
measure the changing size of dry combustible material and measure it quite scientifically, but what we can't measure scientifically are the triggers
because those are unexpected lightning strikes or campfires left unattended or cigar butts thrown out of a window.
Well, in the case of political violence, those triggers are someone like Donald Trump, who's actually triggering and setting off and igniting that
combustible material. And the most extreme case, of course, was on January 6th, where he brought that combustible material to Washington, D.C., and
then he threw matches right into that crowd to ignite them against the Capitol. And then, once they were in the Capitol, he ignited them further
to attack his own vice president, Mike Pence.
So, that -- we're in a wildfire season. The most dangerous triggers are on the right, but we just need to recognize it is a wildfire season where
there are combustible material on both sides.
SREENIVASAN: To carry this analogy further, if I go to a national park, we have an infrastructure in place where there's a sign that says wildfire
season, wildfire risk, extreme, high, low, right? I mean, it's sort of out in the open. We understand it. But we don't necessarily seem to have that
sort of an infrastructure built into our conversation. What can we do in the political system to create a vehicle for not just these opinions to be
shared, but them to gather weight?
PAPE: We know that incendiary rhetoric can be a trigger on that combustible material. But calming rhetoric is the water that can help calm
down the fire. Well, where that calming rhetoric should come from is our senior political leaders. And what that would look like is with senior
leaders would say all political violence, not just violence by the other side, but all political violence is illegal, immoral, and anti-American.
And the leader who's been doing that the most is President Biden.
For several years, we have found in our data strong support for political violence to restore a woman's right to abortion. 10 percent of the public
supports that. That's a lot of people. That's 30 million people. Well, why aren't we seeing more violence in that regard? One of the big reasons is
President Biden.
What President Biden has been doing is, from the day of the Dobbs decision, June 22, 2022, what President Biden has been doing is condemning the Dobbs
decision, but also having big fat paragraphs that condemn political violence, even if it would come from the left.
And he then says, take that anger you all feel and redirect it away from violence and toward voting. So, he's not trying to tell people to not be
angry, he's trying to tell people to redirect that anger into voting and change the result in the democratic way.
Well, that is extremely valuable. And he's been saying that not just about the issue of abortion, but he also in his Oval Office address right after
the first Trump assassination attempt, said the very same thing for 15 minutes in front of the country as a whole where he condemned all political
violence.
SREENIVASAN: So, for our audience, this is not just a caution if President Trump wins, it seems what you're talking about and the underlying trend
that you've documented through your surveys is more structural in nature, that we need to prepare as a country for the prospect of almost an
increased season of political violence that may show itself in different ways.
PAPE: What we are seeing is the working out of what you would expect when there is significant support for political violence in the body politic,
these volatile actors are then going to be nudged over the edge and this is happening more and more and more, and we need to recognize that the roots
of this are actually located in this structural change in our country.
And it's one of the most dramatic social changes that any country has gone through, Hari, and this is not going to be -- this change to a multiracial
democracy, this doesn't happen in a year, it's -- we're going through the 20-year transition period now, we're about halfway through it, and this
corresponds -- it started about 10 years ago, it started to really see the cusp of the change, that's when Donald Trump's came on the on the scene,
meteoric rise. And also, the issue of immigration became meteoric.
[13:50:00]
Yes, there were people like Trump before in the '90s, Pat Buchanan, almost exactly the same rhetoric, by the way. And also, the issue of immigration,
yes, that's been around. But notice those issues have dominated our politics in the last 10 years, and that's happening not simply because of
social media or polarization, it's happening because of this structural change that we're going through as a country.
And so, we have to prepare for this. And we need our political leaders to step up and recognize that part of their leadership now is condemning
political violence wherever it comes from, even if it comes from their own constituents.
ROBERTSON: When you talk to these police chiefs and different authorities, what do you tell them? I mean, because right now we've got the FBI and
Department of Homeland Security have sent warnings saying that domestic terrorists want to sow violence and chaos throughout this election process.
Just this week, we've had ballot boxes in Washington and Oregon catch fire after incendiary devices. And I wonder, how do you tell them to prepare?
PAPE: The key elements I identified are what will determine the outcome of elections. And what will determine the outcome? Well, the leaders
themselves, obviously, and also the election officials. And this is absolutely crucial to understand. So, the threats against the election
officials, for example, these aren't disconnected, isolated events from all that -- those other acts of political violence, I just pointed out, they
are just another dimension of the political violence around the outcome of elections, and specifically around the outcomes related to Donald Trump.
Because Trump isn't just a political leader, he's representing for not only his people, but the folks who disagree with Trump, this return to and
keeping frozen in time, this white majority democracy. And as a result, then you can expect the violence will be very focused around what will
determine his success or failure, and that is resulting of the counts of the election the mail-in ballot boxes that are now being burned. It's not -
- there's not local. What's local is national.
And so, that is something I've been warning about in detail with many, hundreds of these officials. And the organizations themselves now are
reacting.
SREENIVASAN: The last election took several days to sort through before there were kind of calls made by media institutions and so forth. So, if
this election is just as close, what happens in that period where there is an uncertainty?
PAPE: The uncertainty, as you're explaining it, works against us and for more violence, because that uncertainty equates to the possibility and even
probability of more triggers. So, those triggers could come with more conspiracy theories on social media, for example.
Now, will there be conspiracy theories even if the election is completely clear and so forth? Very likely so. So, this is also why it's incredibly
important to have transparency as we go forward. And this is also incredibly important this time around, this election that we recognize that
the security of the central ballot tabulation centers after November 5th are itself. This itself is a serious problem. And I mean, the physical
security, not the cyber security.
So, we need to recognize that last time, in 2020, the main violence occurred on January 6. Well, precisely because it happened last time on
January 6th, we need to worry about what we might call a January 6th type event happening more at the state level or bad actors seeking to not just
harm election officials, but physically destroy ballots in states where the election is decided by a percentage or two. Because if you could destroy,
say, 2 or 3 percent of the physical ballots in a state, say Pennsylvania, and if Pennsylvania is dispositive of the election, well, see how you can
throw the whole election into chaos.
[13:55:00]
And so, that is something that this year is a particularly sensitive problem.
SREENIVASAN: Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, Robert Pape, thanks so much for joining us.
PAPE: Absolutely. Thank you, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
