Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly; Interview with Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk; Interview with A Land For All Co-Director May Pundak; Interview with A Land For All Co- Director Rula Hardal; Interview with GW School of Media and Public Affairs Professor Frank Sesno. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 06, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
When friends become foes. Canadians are fuming after being hit by Trump tariffs. I speak to Foreign Minister Melanie Joly. And Ukrainians are
worried about survival after Trump cuts them loose. Former Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk joins me from Kyiv.
Then, a partnership for peace. Activists Rula Hardal and May Pundak, bridge the divide and tell me why they believe in a different kind of two-state
solution for the Middle East.
Plus, MAGA and the media. Journalism professor Frank Sesno talks to Michel Martin about holding power to account in this second Trump term.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. There are no two ways about it. This is seen as the end of an era by top European
leaders who've been meeting today in Brussels with President Zelenskyy for a special summit on defense. They are all digging deep to replace the
United States, which has paused its backing for Kyiv's dramatic fight for survival. Here's Commission President Ursula von der Leyen bluntly laying
out the stakes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: This is a watershed moment for Europe and Ukraine as part of our European family. It's also
watershed moment for Ukraine. Europe faces a clear and present danger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: In a moment, I speak to Ukraine's former defense minister, but first to Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs with Canada and Mexico that
would hurt ordinary consumers in all countries as well as the economy.
The backlash is real. Canadian store owners are taking American products off shelves. Sports fans are even booing the American national anthem.
Canadians are also outraged by Trump's repeated taunt to make their country the 51st state. And there are even reports the U.S. might kick Canada out
of the Five Eyes security intelligence alliance.
If this is how Trump treats its allies, heaven help its adversaries. But wait. Actually, as Prime Minister Trudeau points out, Trump is treating
the, quote, "murderous dictator" Vladimir Putin very nicely. Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly joins us now from Toronto. Foreign Minister,
welcome to the program.
MELANIE JOLY, CANADIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Can I first start with what is directly hitting your country? It is -- I think your prime minister said a trade war. The U.S. has launched a
trade war. Can you tell me how this is affecting you and did you ever expect your closest you know, ally with a 5,000-mile border to get into
this kind of fight with you?
JOLY: Well, this is completely unjustified and unjustifiable coming from the Trump administration. Canada's the biggest trading partner to the U.S.
We're the biggest client. We buy more from American businesses than the U.K., France, China, and Japan combined.
So, when President Trump actually imposes 25 percent tariffs against our economy and starts a trade war, he is actually going after his own American
people, because this will cost more for them at the pump, at the grocery store, or when they buy a new house or they want to do renovations. So,
this will drive the cost of things and products and cost of living in the U.S. And it will actually also hurt a lot of jobs in the U.S. and a lot of
people will lose their job.
So, there's nobody that is winning out of this. But President Trump still is continuing to attack the Canadian economy. And therefore, also the
American people's cost of living.
AMANPOUR: So, he just announced a 30-day reprieve and also with Mexico. I think in Canada it's specifically on auto parts or the auto industry after
being lobbied, I believe, by the U.S. auto industry. And you have said, but hang on a second, we're not going to go through, quote, "this psycho drama
every 30 days." What is this on and off again thing? What does that do to a nation's economy?
[13:05:00]
JOLY: Well, of course, we can't go through that drama every single 30 days because this is creating too much uncertainty. And we know that business
investments is allergic to any form of uncertainty. And we know also that President Trump wants to attract more of the investments to his own country
going against a very trade agreement that has bound us for many, many years.
So, my point is this, we need to make sure that we are able to bring back certainty, but while doing that, and of course, being in the -- in charge
of the Canadian diplomacy, I'll be working on off ramps, we'll find a way to get through this, but we are standing strong in Canada.
Because, Christiane, what's important for viewers to understand right now is the Trump administration has not only put trade is an issue on the
table, they've been presenting many other things, including military cooperation, security and intelligence cooperation, water cooperation, and
I could go on and on and on. And that's enough.
Canadians have had enough. We are a strong country. We will defend our sovereignty, we'll defend our jobs, we'll defend our way of living, and we
will make sure that, at the same time, the very targets of this trade war, the American people, are very much aware and are putting pressure on the
president that is doing all of that to them and to us.
AMANPOUR: So, that was pretty straightforward what you just did. That's enough. Prime Minister Trudeau has also said the same and he's responded
and he says in the next few weeks, I believe, tariffs on a $100 billion of American goods coming in, and you've said it's an existential threat to
you.
Just a quick question. The Trump administration, the president says too much fentanyl, too many migrants coming across the border.
JOLY: But that's not true, because fundamentally, less than 1 percent of fentanyl actually comes from Canada through the U.S. We know that there's a
scourge of fentanyl in North America. We know that too many Canadians and American lives are being taken by this catastrophic drug. But
fundamentally, we have a very strong and secure border.
We have $1.3 billion worth of investment in our new border plan. We've invested in more boots on the ground, Blackhawk helicopters, a new fentanyl
strike force with the Americans. We also have a new fentanyl czar. We've done everything that was required under the executive order that President
Trump signed to legitimize, to give him the powers to impose these tariffs.
But clearly, this is not the issue right now. This is a pretext. This is not the right argument. Because fundamentally, the U.S. is a net exporter
of illegal migrants, of illegal guns, and illegal drugs to Canada. So, what is at stake is more than that. President Trump wants to put us into a state
where we are much more weakened economically in order eventually to annex us. He said that he's questioned our border as well.
So, while we've been working on the diplomatic level and working with many of his secretaries, working with him, and I've been involved in all of
this, of course, with the prime minister and the minister of finance, Dominic LeBlanc, here in Canada, it was important for Canadians and the
world to know what is exactly happening. And when the U.S. decided to launch this trade war, this week, well, we decided to make it public.
AMANPOUR: You know, I mean, even Prime Minister Trudeau was caught on a hot mic or whatever saying to people, this is real, this threat to annex
Canada and make it a 51st state. I mean, most people thought that was just a joke. It's a negotiating ploy. It's whatever it is. It's Trump being
Trump. Why do you think it's serious? Why would America want to do that? And how can you stop them?
JOLY: Well, first, we can definitely stop them because Canadians are united. They're united to defend our country. They're united to defend our
jobs. And as I was saying, also our way of life. We're not Americans, we're very proud of our country. And when you look back at our history, we
created Canada at the time, and we were part of the British Empire because we didn't want to be the United States.
And as you can hear from my accent, I'm a francophone from Canada, and there was also this grand bargain between francophones and anglophones to
make sure ultimately that we could create a strong country in North America. So, based on that, we want to make sure that we defend who we are
as a country. And we've shown -- we've been shown too much disrespect by the Trump administration at this point, calling us a 51st state, calling
our prime minister governor.
[13:10:00]
This is not only a personal issue between Prime Minister Trudeau and President Trump, it's way more than that. It is much more than just the
political rhetoric. It is a fundamental threat. So, what we're doing at home is we need to make sure that there's less internal barriers between
our provinces and territories because that's an issue. We think we can offset a lot of the impacts of the tariffs coming from the United States by
being much more aligned as a federation, economically speaking. We want to be closer to the U.K., like we did throughout our history. We want to be
closer to Europe, closer also to Japan and also South Korea, and we'll continue to work with Mexico. That's just a reality.
But fundamentally, if you ask me what President Trump wants, well, that's a question to ask to him, but we know that we have everything a country would
dream of to have in the world. Why? Because we have all the energy necessary. We have all the fertilizers and potash necessary. We have all
the land and also, we're, you know, an agricultural superpower. We have all the uranium necessary, the hydroelectricity, the oil and gas. We have all
the people, the critical minerals, the talent. I could go on and on and on.
That's why we believe we're one of the best countries on earth. And we're stable We're democratic. We look out for each other. We have very strong
social programs You know, so we're a very stable democracy.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I want to ask you one last --
JOLY: And so, we --
AMANPOUR: Yes. I have to tell you, it is really -- I'm like, my mouth is dropped. My jaw is dropped. Here is a major ally with a common border, and
you're talking about having to defend yourself against America and talking about separating yourself from America towards Mexico and Europe. It is --
we're -- it's just I can't barely internalize it. It's like the end of an era.
But I want to ask you also, you said there are more threats regarding military cooperation and the rest, and they've threatened, apparently, to
kick you out of Five Eyes. I want to know what that would do to you and what you think of their pause on intelligence sharing with Ukraine at this
existential moment for that country.
JOLY: So, we believe that we have to expand our security intelligence partnership with other countries as well. We -- you know, we never started
this. We're close to the American people. We're their neighbors. We're their best friends. We're their partners. So, we have many families and
friends on the other side of the border.
And we know that the American people don't agree with what President Trump says. We've heard it. So, many of them have been apologizing for all the
rhetoric that is coming out of the White House on this. But at the same time, it is important that our viewers, that the world know what's going
on.
And fundamentally, we will do the work to make sure that we have the partnerships that are necessary to protect ourselves, and at the same time,
to protect others.
If there's a country on Earth that understands the Americans, it's us. And so, we can explain to Europe what's going on. We can explain to our North
Pacific partners, our Mexican and Latin American partners, our African partners, and -- what's going on. And I could go on and on and on.
But what I can tell you, though, about intelligence sharing, I was with -- I was on a call with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, yesterday
regarding this very issue of intelligence sharing. I raised it with him because I thought it was really, really important because I'm very
concerned. We understand that Europe is a threat when Russia goes unchecked. We understand that. That's why we've been there --
AMANPOUR: What did he say?
JOLY: -- supporting NATO for 80 years. That's -- well, he didn't confirm that that was the case.
AMANPOUR: OK.
JOLY: He was referring to the fact that it is important to have a good deal on Ukraine. And indeed, it is important to have a good deal on
Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: All right.
JOLY: Because not only is it important for Europe's security, but I'll end on that, Christiane, it's important also for the security we have as
Pacific nations, the U.S. and Canada, when it comes to China, because China is looking at what's going on in Europe and what's going on in Ukraine. And
having a bad deal on Ukraine would send a message on Taiwan and actually to China. And that's dangerous for the world.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and it's just so interesting to hear you lay it out. And as we continue to follow this massive realignment that seems to be going on.
Foreign Minister, thank you for being with us.
Now, the United States, quote, "is destroying the current world order." That's Ukraine's ambassador to the U.K. saying that. After Trump suspended
that military aid and intelligence assistance for while refusing security guarantees and scoffing at pledges from European countries to step up. Now,
the U.S. says it's aiming for a meeting with Ukrainian officials as soon as next week. Take a listen.
[13:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST: President Zelenskyy sent a letter to the president. I think the president thought that it was a
really good, positive first step. And from that, we have now -- we're now in discussions to coordinate a meeting with the Ukrainians in Riyadh or
even potentially Jeddah. So, the city's moving around a little bit, but it will be Saudi Arabia. And I think the idea is to get down a framework for a
peace agreement and an initial ceasefire as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Andriy Zagorodnyuk was Ukraine's defense minister, and he still advises the government, and he's joining us from Kyiv tonight. Welcome back
to the program. You obviously heard what the special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said.
ANDRIY ZAGORODNYUK, FORMER UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Talking about a -- I think he said, a temporary ceasefire ahead of trying to get a proper peace deal. First of all, how do you react to
that from the United States?
ZAGORODNYUK: Well, our government suggested that we set up a stage approach to the ceasefire so that we can do some demonstration of readiness
for that. And they suggested the aerial domain and the maritime domain would be close to the hostilities. So, that would give the indication of
the will of both sides. And then we can work out the details later.
If that is accepted, that could be actually a good idea because we still have a chance to talk about the details, and we still have a chance to talk
about the security guarantees. But at the same time, there is something already happening to stop that.
AMANPOUR: So, your president also had said that and he said, if Russia agrees as well. Well, today, we have heard from the Kremlin and their
foreign ministry that, a temporary ceasefire is unacceptable, says the Russian foreign ministry, and there will be no acceptance, according to the
Russians, of any kind of security guarantees like European troops on Ukrainian soil.
So, where do you -- is -- where do you think this is going to lead to? Do you think this is just Russia talking before sitting down, or is it their
position?
ZAGORODNYUK: It's unclear until it's over. So, it can lead to literally anything. But the thing is that, that's what we've been telling all the way
through, that Russians don't want peace at the moment, at least, and in the current reality.
And what we're saying is that, clearly, they don't want to be deterred from the future recurrences of the -- of this war. And basically, of course,
we're talking about security guarantees, which would disable Russia from starting this again, or breaching ceasefire, or actually starting a new
campaign altogether.
The risks for that is extremely high -- are extremely high, because that's what they did before. I can remind the war, which we have a third year on
is actually the globe -- like, major escalation of the war which they started in 2014. So, they can return and they can start again, and clearly,
their strategic goals remain intact. They still don't like Ukraine, they still don't want us to exist, and so on and so on.
So, what we said is that, look the ceasefire is as good as it can be protected. And if it cannot be protected, then Russia can just treat it as
an operational pause, collect their troops and then, start again. And we definitely want peace, but we definitely don't want to expose ourselves to
that risk, because that risk will be enormous, and it can destroy the country, because that blow can be much harder.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Let --
ZAGORODNYUK: And so, we started to talk about the guarantees. And as you can see right now, they're not happy with them. So, here we are.
AMANPOUR: Yes, here we are. And that's what is, you know, the crux of the matter right now. But I want to ask you about this sudden pause, this
abrupt halt in aid that the United States, the Trump administration, has done. Stopping military aid to you, and stopping battlefield intelligence.
I just want to say, that apparently, the pause will halt the delivery of interceptor missiles, for Patriots, air defense systems, et cetera, which
have, as we know, saved a huge amount of lives on civilian and critical energy infrastructure.
I just want to ask you as a former defense minister, if you don't get this stuff and the battlefield intelligence, what is the result on the ground?
ZAGORODNYUK: Well, frankly speaking, it's quite clear to all Ukrainians because we live in this for three years. And we've been bombarded by
missiles and drones, literally here in Kyiv every night. And certainly, if we don't receive the information about their arrival or they're actually
their launches, which comes from understanding, like, movements of the troops, movements of the equipment around Russia, preparing in the
airfields, you know, launching the -- their planes which carry the missiles, et cetera, et cetera, or ships which also carry missiles.
[13:20:00]
So, if we don't see this information in advance, we wouldn't be able to transmit it to our citizens and they wouldn't have a time to go to the
shelters. A few times we had these breakthroughs when we actually heard the rockets flying above our heads, literally, and I was myself in that
situation, before the alarm. But these were very, very few times, it was probably like couple times only.
All the other times, we are warned in advance, and so we can plan our activities. Whoever is near shelter can get there and families, et cetera.
If we don't have that information, there is enormous amount of people will be exposed to these risks without any chance to save themselves. So,
obviously, that's very serious, to say at least.
AMANPOUR: You know, for us who've been covering this and myself amongst many of my colleagues who've been there covering it on the ground, it does
seem a very hard thing to internalize and compute that the U.S. has completely swapped its position. Why do you think it's doing it?
ZAGORODNYUK: Frankly speaking, I wouldn't guess. We clearly are in a very strange situation. Because we -- for like 30 years we had United States
government as our closest ally, as a major ally in the terms of the investments and, you know, military support for these 10 years of war when
it started in 2014, we are being supported by United States, by all governments, all parties, bipartisan support, et cetera.
I know for a fact that this same amount of people who supported us before they still support us now. Military, civilians, you know, we have a huge,
you know -- but the fact that the government, right now, decides to withhold things, it's, of course, it's very, very difficult to process.
I sincerely hope that the negotiations will go through and we will resume the military cooperation, because that's how we can save the stability.
There's no other way.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you to respond also to something that President Trump's Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, has said? He was asked about the
suspension of this aid and intelligence, and he said Ukraine brought it upon themselves. He, I think, meant President Zelenskyy and that bust up in
the White House, and he then said the -- you know, people asked, you know, why did you do it, the interlocutor, and he said, well, the best way I can
describe this pause is sort of like hitting a mule with a two by four across the nose. You get their attention. A mule with a big piece of wood
across the nose. How do you react to that?
ZAGORODNYUK: Well, how would you react to that? We respect General Kellogg. He's a very well-known military person. He's been supportive to
Ukraine all the way through. We know that he's a government employee. We know that he abides with the government line. And what we know is that he
knows exactly what's happening in the country.
And from what we understand that our government came to that meeting to sign the deal. I believe that that transaction is still in -- ready to be
accepted. So, I'm not sure exactly what attention is this about. More importantly, there are people here in this country civilians, military, a
lot of civilians, who are relying on this information as a lifesaver.
So, if that matters, I believe that that position should be reconsidered. Ukraine is certainly ready for peace. There's absolutely no doubt for that.
Ukraine certainly is ready for diplomacy. I don't think anybody doubted that. And I think that it's a time for a proper cooperation between U.S.
and Ukraine without the emotions and without the -- some analogies.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and actually, as we reported just before you came on, that the U.S. is now saying that they do plan to meet with Ukrainian
counterparts in Saudi Arabia sometime soon. So, maybe things are moving in a better direction. Very finally, and we just have 30 seconds, there was
also reports that the Trump administration had reached out to internal opposition characters like Yulia Tymoshenko and others. And now, today, all
of them have banded together and said no, we are not going to have elections until the end of the war.
Again, I mean, from outside it looks like this was some kind of interference against Zelenskyy's position as president. How do you read it?
And the fact that the opposition have all come out and said no, we're not going to be played?
[13:25:00]
ZAGORODNYUK: There is a -- Ukraine is a democratic country. We will expect elections to take place in the future. But the absolute majority of the
people, and that's personally -- a personal opinion as well, that elections during the military, a hot military time when there is active. you know,
bombardments of cities, for instance, and so on, it's just unsafe. So, we won't be able to do them correctly because, at any point of time, we can be
hit by rockets, drones, et cetera, et cetera.
So, that's a position of the absolute majority of people in all political parties. So, they just voiced what we all knew here. But the fact that they
stand together and they support government is actually a quite Ukrainian thing.
When we have some external pressure, we usually unite. I think people notice that. But that's a national character thing. And I don't think
that's going to change.
AMANPOUR: Andriy Zagorodnyuk, former defense minister, thank you for joining us from Kyiv. Now, the United States has rejected a plan proposed
by the Arab League for reconstruction and the future governance of Gaza.
The first phase of the ceasefire is over and Israel has suspended delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza, though so far fighting, active fighting,
hasn't resumed. And reports have now emerged that the United States has been negotiating directly with Hamas over remaining American hostages,
something it's never admitted to before.
So, where does this leave the once vibrant Israeli and Palestinian peace movements? May Pundak and Rula Hardal serve as co-directors at the NGO, A
Land for All, which argues for a two-state confederation. They join me here in London. It is so good to have you here. We've spoken down the line as we
say via satellite several times throughout these terrible past 16 months and always energized by your commitment to togetherness and to hope and a
vision.
So, you've also -- I have to say, you're also here to accept the Vivian Silver Award. She was the Canadian born resident of Kibbutz Be'eri. She was
a well-known peace activist and she was murdered in her home on October 7. What does that mean to both of you?
MAY PUNDAK, CO-DIRECTOR, A LAND FOR ALL: Well, first of all, thank you so much for having us. It's wonderful to be here. Receiving this award is a
reminder of the perseverance that we need to show right now in these very, very dark times. Vivian Silver was really such a trailblazer and such a
light for all of us in showing that the only way to ensure both our identities, our separate identities and our shared future and our shared
security and safety in this homeland for Israel's and Palestinians is through a shared vision. And the fact that we are so honored and humbled to
receive this award jointly in our work together is a true honor and a very rich --
AMANPOUR: And I was, you know, really touched by the fact -- first of all, we know it's the first time, but it's going to be awarded every year to two
women, Arab and Jewish. That's something amazing.
RULA HARDAL, CO-DIRECTOR, A LAND FOR ALL: Yes, exactly. It's something amazing. It's also an indicator that there is a need for, you know, woman
political leadership also, not only when it comes to solving the conflict or speaking about peace or leading peace organizations, but also, doing
politics and have impact on the political decisions and the political sphere.
I do feel honored to receive this award, but at the same time, I feel also sad because of two things. First of all, Vivian was trying to advocate for
a political solution and for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians for many years without real success. And the second point,
it's -- this award actually reminds us on what's going on on both sides since October 7, which is sad.
AMANPOUR: Which has been horrendous for everybody and all the world who's been watching, which is where you guys come in, because it is extraordinary
to find people, I know there are grassroots movements, but you've been so, you know, dedicated and you keep working. You're Israeli-Jewish, you are, I
believe, Palestinian with Israeli citizenship.
HARDAL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: That means you have a sort of a special status. You can come into Tel Aviv, you can work with May. But that also is a bit about how you
view the possible solution. Not a two-state solution as is already envisioned, but something different, a confederation.
PUNDAK: Correct.
AMANPOUR: Tell me.
PUNDAK: So, what we normally say is that we're a two-state solution, but with a twist, or a two-state solution that can work. And that means that we
call ourselves two states one homeland. And so, there are a few things that kind of differentiate us from the classic two states, which is, yes, we
advocate for a two-state solution, to sovereign, democratic, independent states in the 67 Green Line border, Israel and Palestine border, everything
we know about the two states.
[13:30:00]
And we recognize the shared homeland, meaning that, at this point of time, Israelis and Palestinians are interdependent and intertwined and share so
many challenges, but also share the future, shared natural resources, and that needs to be translated into the political vision, and that translates
both into the needs and aspirations and attachments to the two people -- of the two people to the homeland, but also on very practical levels.
And so, when you think about public health on combating things like COVID or like polio diseases, we have to do that jointly. If you think about
shared resources like water, the water and sewage of Gaza runs into the Mediterranean water that -- and then it gets to Tel Aviv a day after, you
have to share these institutions, shared institutions to tackle these things.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, is there a model? Is there -- has any other nation done this? I mean, is it a bit Switzerland or not? I mean, with
different federations? What's the model or are you making it all up from whole cloth?
HARDAL: Yes. We are aspired from different models, from several models in the history and in the world. But it's not the point. We are developing a
specific model for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Of course, there are different models of confederation and charted institutions. And even if you
-- well, we are sitting here in London and then the United Kingdom is not anymore part of the E.U., but the E.U. is a kind of -- another form of
having shared institutions and shared mechanisms in order to have much more integration between sovereign independent states.
But I would add to what May was saying about our model, is that we start from recognizing the reality on the ground that we have two people, two
national groups, and they have the right to claim their right for self- determination, and we start from this point of acknowledging that, and then we go to the practicalities of the solution. Because it's important to
emphasize that because there is an ongoing, long-term negation of the right of the Palestinian people for their right for self-determination.
AMANPOUR: And I actually find that part really interesting because you have said, the both of you, it's part of your mandate, that yes, there are
Palestinians who claim homes in areas that are in actual Israel proper. You don't -- none of this is intended to -- if they're refugees or whoever
comes, to move people out of homes and swap people into homes.
PUNDAK: Yes, I think --
AMANPOUR: So, how does that work?
PUNDAK: Right. So, I think that what we're offering is really a model that is keeping the two-state solution in regards to equality, collective and
individual equality, and the right for self-determination, and the attachment of both people to the entire homeland, meaning the shared
attachment, but also the shared reality and the interdependency.
And that means that what we're trying to do is change the reality on the ground, use the reality on the ground to get to a solution by reassuring
the principles of equality and a shared future. And that means that we're aspiring for -- for example, Jerusalem should be a shared capital. For
example --
AMANPOUR: It was envisioned as that, even under the last peace proposal.
PUNDAK: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
PUNDAK: And referring to your previous question, if we do learn from the E.U., if we do learn from Northern Ireland, if we do learn from other
conflicts that have been solved in a sustainable way, not perfect, but sustainable, where there's no more bloodshed, that goes to very tight
cooperation and an understanding of shared interests and shared challenges met together.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, one of the big shared challenges is that it doesn't seem anybody is ready for this now, not your extremist politicians and
certainly not traumatized populations on both sides.
PUNDAK: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And so, how do you get people, because it's going to be people who have to agree in the end, to do this?
HARDAL: Well, people need to agree. I fully agree with you, but at the same time, having or going toward a political solution and political
settlement is a political decision. And it should start from the high level of having a political decision that we are ending the situation of, you
know, having a military control on other people and having this ongoing violence without doing any symmetry between the both sides because, you
know, we cannot do this symmetry, but it's a political decision.
We can wait another 100 years until people, may be on both sides, can be ready or will be ready, but we don't have the luxury and the privilege to
wait another 100 years.
[13:35:00]
So, we are trying, yes, to work on this level, to encourage people to have this shift to believe that if they want to have a better future, they need
to act for it and to think differently. But we need also -- and we act actually on both political and diplomatic levels in the world and in Israel
and in Palestine because we need a political decision.
AMANPOUR: And what -- again, it seems far away because your current government and the extremist coalition that supports it. And in the
Palestine, I mean, there's no elections. There's no leadership everything is just collapsed basically at the moment and the United States has
rejected the Arab proposal for Gaza in any event.
When you guys work together in Israel on the Palestinian side as well, how are you received? Do people even engage? Are they --
PUNDAK: So, I'll say two things. Number one, we are right now in an historic moment. Both in the world entirely, when things are shifting
around. Also, in the Middle East and specifically in Israel Palestine. And this shift leads us in this crisis and catastrophe to an opportunity. And
we have to grab this opportunity. If we want to envision a future, a better future, a sustainable, prosperous future for Israel and Palestine and for
the Middle East entirely, the linchpin is the two-state solution, and a two-state solution that can work. That two -- the two people desire and
want a better future for our children and for our people. We agree on that.
And so, I think that needs to be the focus of even the fact that we're feeling the trauma, and the pain, and the suffering, and the anger, and the
revenge. People want peace. People want safety and security. And it's as simple as that. And even the polls show that as much as the two people are
leading towards more radicalization and hatred and racism, at the same time there's a growing and stable majority of people who understand that the
only way to ensure our safety, and I'm talking now about the Israeli society, is through a regional security framework together with a
Palestinian sovereign state as part of that.
AMANPOUR: Really?
PUNDAK: Yes.
AMANPOUR: They're (INAUDIBLE) moving in that direction.
HARDAL: Yes.
PUNDAK: And it's a solid pull.
AMANPOUR: And on your side?
HARDAL: On the Palestinian side?
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HARDAL: On the Palestinian side, we are witnessing also a much more shift and increasing percentage of people who are willing to go to the two-state
solution and for a political settlement.
AMANPOUR: OK. That is good news. That is good news. Thank you, ladies. Thank you, Mai, I know you go by both, and Rula, thank you so much indeed.
HARDAL: Thank you.
PUNDAK: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And congratulations on your award too.
PUNDAK: Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: So, with the Trump administration exerting huge pressure on the media, the New York Times editorial board accused it of, quote, "distorted
view," whereby it's banning words, phrases, and ideas in favor of its own version of free speech.
Former CNN Washington bureau chief and journalism professor Frank Sesno fears that unless news organizations hold all power to account, the end
result may very well be what he calls a propaganda service. And he's joining Michel Martin now to discuss this worrying trajectory.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Frank Sesno, thank you so much for joining us.
FRANK SESNO, PROFESSOR, GW SCHOOL OF MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: It's a pleasure.
MARTIN: You and I were actually at the White House together. So, if you wouldn't mind, explain to people what the White House Press Corps does.
SESNO: White House Press Corps covers the President of the United States, those who meet with him, where the president goes, changes in policy, and
the politics that surround the policy, and vice versa, that takes place there every single day.
There's a press briefing room, that's where the White House Press Corps sits when there's a briefing. Some have offices there, those who are there
on a regular basis. And then there's the pool, which you've heard so much about, smaller groups that come out of the larger White House Press Corps
to cover the president, to be present in smaller spaces, whether it's the Oval Office or Air Force One.
MARTIN: But the pool itself, could you just explain why there is a pool?
SESNO: There is a pool because there are so many times when the president is going someplace or holding an event in a smaller space where the White
House Press Corps, a hundred plus people, couldn't possibly fit. So, traditionally, the pool has represented members from the press corps, a
photographer, a videographer, somebody who's shooting video, a print reporter, somebody from the wire service, that was the Associated Press, to
capture those events and report back to the larger White House Press so that they can then take the details, the color, the particulars from that
event and report it to their communities, to their audiences.
The White House press pool is gigantically important. I did that many times when I was covering the White House, when I was on Air Force One, there
were a handful of us and you were there just in case something happened.
[13:40:00]
MARTIN: So, just to be clear, this is not a privilege, it's a responsibility.
SESNO: Oh, my gosh, yes.
MARTIN: I mean, it's a privilege in a sense that it's a privilege to your colleagues, but it's a responsibility. You're not just working for your
news organization in the pool, you're working for all news organizations, and you have a duty to all the news organizations to recount what has
transpired fairly accurately so that they can do their jobs.
So, why are we talking about this? We're talking about this because a couple of weeks ago, the Trump White House banned the Associated Press from
participating in the pool, the press pool, or even traveling on Air Force One, because they are angry that the A.P. continues to refer to the body of
water that has been known as the Gulf of Mexico, just south of the U.S., President Trump decided it should be called the Gulf of America.
The A.P. is an international organization. It has clients all over the world. It serves news organizations elsewhere. So, it said it would
continue to use the Gulf of Mexico. And also say, you know, in the United States, the Gulf of America is sort of also known as. The Trump
administration decided that they didn't like that and they're punishing them by restricting them as a result.
I do think it's worth noting that even conservative news outlets like Fox, Fox News, and Newsmax objected to this. What do you think of that? What do
you make of it?
SESNO: Well, I think it's very significant that Fox and Newsmax and some 40 news organizations have written to the White House saying the A.P.
should be allowed back in, and this is a serious infringement on a free press and the First Amendment freedom of speech.
I think it's important for people to understand, first and foremost, the Associated Press, and I work for the Associated Press, has a rigorous
program and policy of how it uses terminology and language. So, for example, the term terrorist, the term war, the term, you know, if you say a
politician is lying, the A.P. has standards and it's -- and they're very thoughtful standards.
Similarly, on renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, they had -- they applied their standards, their policy, and they decided that they
were going to stick with the Gulf of Mexico, although acknowledging that, you know, also known as, or however they were, characterizing Gulf of
America.
The idea that the White House would say, not only do we reject your language and your policy, but now, we will punish you and we will keep you
out of events that you have covered for decades and keep you out of the pool. And by the way, the Associated Press has been a pillar of the pool
because they're a wire service. They're not a newspaper or another publication that often is considered to have an editorial page or an
opinion or anything like that.
This is very serious. And it does raise serious questions about punishment for -- and censorship for language used or stories that the White House
simply doesn't like. And that's what's very concerning. Concerning both in terms of the punishment and concerning in terms of the chilling effect,
which is, I think, what the White House wants, actually, to send to every news organization that might publish a story that the White House doesn't
like.
MARTIN: The A.P. has since launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Soon after the ban on the Associated Press, the White House
announced its officials would determine which outlets could participate in the press pool. And the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said
that -- she framed the decision to take control of access to the press pool as saying that, quote, "a select group of D.C.-based journalists should no
longer have a monopoly over the privilege of press access at the White House." What do you say to that?
SESNO: Well, I definitely think that there can be more voices brought to the White House and to other beats. I have no particular problem with -- if
you're bringing some of those voices and they're influencers or opinion leaders or their podcasters, if they want to have that access, although
it's a very limited space. In the past, the standard has been, are you covering this place journalistically?
I think it's important to draw a distinction, and I'm doing this increasingly now, of understanding what is the difference between a
journalistic organization, a news organization, as we call it, and a media enterprise. A media enterprise can be anybody with a microphone or a
camera. They may or may not be obliged to tell the truth or to seek the truth or to represent multiple sides or to have sources that can be
identified whether by name or on background, as often it takes -- is the case, versus news organizations that have been traditionally those who had
that front seat at the White House, which are going to mainstream and major audiences. And that includes Fox News, NBC, you know, New York Times, the
Wall Street Journal, conservative and whatever on in their opinion sections. But fundamentally doing journalism in the way they present the
news.
[13:45:00]
Now, plenty of people will disagree with that, and there's a good place for an argument. But my concern is by bringing in news organizations that do --
or media organizations that are not news organizations, that are not there to seek truth, to cite sources, to hold all power to account that we then
end up with a propaganda service, and that's what I worry about.
MARTIN: This administration has been no -- they've made no secret of the fact that they are very aggressively going after news organizations that
they deem to be propaganda organizations for ideologies other than their own.
I mean, I don't know that they use the word propaganda, but that's the implication of it, that these news organizations, these legacy media
organizations are not in alignment with their views, and therefore, they are applying extra scrutiny to them. For example, the Department of Defense
has announced that The New York Times, NBC News, NPR, and Politico offices at the Pentagon are going to be replaced by conservative outlets like
Breitbart, OAN, The New York Post.
And then, Brendan Carr, the new chair of the FCC, has launched investigations into media companies that Trump has had disagreements with
ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and NPR. And Carr has also opened an inquiry into Comcast, the owner of NBC Universal.
And of course, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think it's not exactly a secret that I have a relationship with both NPR and PBS. We're speaking on
a PBS outlet now. And also, there was a congressional inquiry into what -- you know, what they consider to be sort of bias at these organizations. How
do you assess that?
SESNO: I find this very concerning. I mean, look, there are plenty of places where you can pick at the coverage that a particular news
organization has pursued on a story, and that it takes a point of view, or that it's over the top, or it's sensational, whatever. But across the
board, to paint with this big brush, to do what's being done is actually doing what many conservatives have said they've been suffering from all
along, which is, you know, a cancel culture. This is actually a cancel and prosecute culture. And I'm very worried about that.
I think, again, it's so important for people to understand that what a news organization is meant to do, and this is enshrined in ethical standards and
practices that most of them have, and it comes from the society of professional journalists and elsewhere, they seek the truth, they provide
context, they correct errors, and they hold power to account.
And what is essentially happening here is the Trump administration saying, if you do a story that we don't like, you're -- we're going to shove you on
the House. We're going to push you out of the press room, out of your traditional space. It's not about just a bias, I think, that could be
documented clearly, it's about stories that they don't like. And there are ample examples of this.
I think there's something else to recognize. This is not happening in a vacuum. Shortly after the terrible plane crash here in Washington, the NTSB
said, we're not going to do press conferences and issue press releases anymore. We're going to put out statements on X. The idea of taking
questions, of being accountable, of providing real-time information is not just about your relationship with the press, it's about the relationship
with the public, being accessible, being accountable, and taking tough questions at tough times. And that includes stories that are not
complimentary, because that's what happens. Reality happens.
You know, Michel, you and I were at the White House a long time ago, and I remember a press secretary under President Reagan who said, tell you what,
you don't tell me how to manage the news, I won't tell you how to report the news. And that was a recognition that there is an adversarial
relationship built in to this relationship between the press and the government, at any level.
When I was bureau chief at CNN, I had ample calls from the White House press secretary and others who screamed at me, who said, we don't like the
story, the way you've done it is unfair and we would have a dialogue, and sometimes we stood our ground and sometimes we made a change, but that is a
very different kind of relationship than the one we've got now where the government is using levers of power and threat to intimidate and to change
the editorial nature of the reporting coming from professional journalists.
MARTIN: Well, a couple questions about this. For one, you know, the president has achieved some successes in his personal legal battles against
news organizations. I mean, you know, in December, ABC agreed to pay $15 million to settle this defamation suit over one word uttered by anchor
George Stephanopoulos. CBS seems to be poised to settle a lawsuit over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his political opponent -- then
political opponent Kamala Harris, because they used a soundbite from one part of the interview to promote it on one platform and then a different
quote in another platform, both part of the same interview.
[13:50:00]
I mean, listen, you know, I'm hearing from my neighbors and who are saying, you know, what is this? You know, the media is rolling over. So, why should
we pay attention to you? Why should we listen to this? Why should we read your outlet? Why should we watch your news?
SESNO: Good questions. Look, I think that it's important to say at the outset that news organizations should also be held accountable for what
they do. I mean, if they're in the business of holding power to account, they should be held to account. And there are plenty of instances where the
media, news organizations, journalists have gotten the story wrong, have conveyed it in a lopsided way have done false equivalencies or whatever
else. So, call them out for it. And where it's really serious, go for it.
I served as the expert journalism witness in the Dominion Voting Systems versus Fox News lawsuit. It did not actually go to trial because Fox
settled for nearly -- for more than three quarters of a billion dollars. But there were standards there, right? Defamation in that particular case
was deliberate, a willful disregard for the truth. Could you have proven at trial that there was a willful disregard for the truth? And the answer is
yes, which is one of the reasons why they settled.
What's going on with CBS and ABC does not seem -- one word in a live interview or something like that, does that reach that level of a willful
disregard for the truth? And I think there are those who would say, well, yes, it does. And have that conversation. I think the threshold is
considerably lower in these cases. I don't think they reach that threshold. And so, these corporations have settled to make the issue go away. That's
what Fox did too, by the way. They settled to make it go away. So, it didn't go to trial.
We can have a conversation and should about the accountability of media and journalism and what they report, but there is a very important and fine
line between that defamation notion and free speech, and we need to be mindful of where that gets set, because if we go too far one way or the
other, then we endanger free speech. And that, I think, is what is happening.
MARTIN: But to that end, that whole question of trust, you know, trust in the media continues to decline. According to a Gallup poll in the fall,
only 31 percent of Americans expressed confidence in the media to report the news, quote, "fully, accurately, and fairly," unquote. So, why is that?
I mean, what's your take on that? Why is trust in the media falling as precipitously as it seems to be?
SESNO: Well, in many cases, the media have brought it on. They have come - - this is separate from what the Trump administration is doing, but let's talk about media, which is part of what's invited a lot of. Too many in the
media have gone for clicks and ratings rather than content. Too much, we see, opinion and fact mixed, so the audience becomes confused. Cable
television, where I come from, has become opinion central, where it's mostly combat, and there's not nearly enough real storytelling and
journalism. There's some, and it's and some of it is quite good, but there are also times when there's not.
So, the media need to do a hard look at themselves too, and they are, but they need to do more of it, and accept their share of responsibility for
why trust has declined and what they can do to address that and regain trust, which I think revolves largely around transparency. Why do we pick
the stories we do? Why do we cover them in the way we do? Who are the sources that we're talking about? Why are they anonymous?
There have been efforts in the media, in news organizations, to convey some of that to the public, but much more needs to be done.
MARTIN: So, given what you said, somebody's listening to this conversation and says, you know what, I have issues with the media. Why should they
care?
SESNO: Why should they care? Because for all the flaws that are out there, professional news organizations actually are accountable or should be
accountable and generally are for where they make mistakes. They correct errors or should. They are subject to public pressure because they're part
of a community. This is especially the case in local and regional news organizations where they are neighbors with the people they cover. Because
they do have rules, identifying sources, correcting errors, providing context, updating stories with new information. There actually are those
rules.
And here's the thing. OK. Let me give another example. We put media a lot in the political national context. You have a local news organization. The
reporter there gets wind that somebody down at the supermarket -- at the grocery store is coloring the meat so that the meat can be sold past its
sell by date and maybe it isn't good. Do you want that story reported if that story comes from somebody behind the meat counter who's leaking to the
media? Do you want to know about that? Of course, you do.
Now, if that news organization makes a mistake on the high school football score, that's a problem and that's an issue. But do you shut the news
organization down and then not have that story about what's happening at the local grocery store?
[13:55:00]
There are many, many things to consider here. I don't mean to muddy the waters, but life is complicated. And fundamentally, what professional
journalism is supposed to do is tell this story and seek the truth. That doesn't mean it's perfect. It doesn't mean it doesn't make mistakes, but to
throw that baby out with the bath water is going to deprive citizens of the vehicles that are supposed to bring them information about their
communities and their lives so they could be more engaged citizens, voters and neighbors.
MARTIN: Frank Sesno, thanks so much for talking with us.
SESNO: It's been a pleasure. I wish you well.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And Frank is absolutely right. That's it for now. Thank you for watching. Goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
