Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vincent Warren; Interview with "Who Is Government?" Editor Michael Lewis; Interview with "Who Is Government?" Contributor W. Kamau Bell; Interview with Johns Hopkins University Professor of China Studies and Institute for America, China and the Future of Global Affairs Director Jessica Chen Weiss. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 27, 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.
Trump said he would, and now he has. Another university student has been arrested and detained by ICE in this shocking footage. Then "Who Is
Government?" As the Trump-Musk purges continue, we look at the people affected and why their work matters with Michael Lewis and W. Kamau Bell.
And the Oscar winning Palestinian director, Hamdan Bilal, attacked in the occupied West Bank, recounts his story. Plus, what next for U.S.-China
relations in these unpredictable times.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
It's happened again. A couple of weeks ago after the arrest of a green card holding Columbia graduate, President Trump said it's the first arrest of
many to come, calling out students at Columbia and other universities who he says are engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.
Now, look at this video and listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It shows immigration officials detaining Rumeysa Ozturk in Somerville, Massachusetts. She's a Turkish graduate at Tufts University
with a valid student visa. She's arrested, screaming in fear by ICE agents in masks, hoodies, and unmarked cars. It's the kind of image you might see
in Iran, Russia, Belarus, or any number of authoritarian states.
Ozturk has been forcibly transported to detention in Louisiana. A DHS spokesperson accuses her of supporting Hamas. They did not provide any
evidence and no charges have been brought. Her brother says she's victim of a Trump-led witch hunt. Apart from expressing her opinion without engaging
in any provocative or aggressive action, she's done nothing else, he says. It is the same playbook used in Mahmoud Khalil's case at Columbia.
Serious questions about America and the Constitution as this administration ratches up its war on civil liberties while framing their action as part of
their foreign policy agenda.
Vincent Warren is executive director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and he's joining me from New York. Welcome to the program. This is
getting really serious and it's also following what Trump says is going to happen, and it's -- you know, it's happening. What do you make of this
latest? And when you saw the video, what was your reaction to it?
VINCENT WARREN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Well, thank you for having me. And I would encourage every one of your listeners
to rewatch that video. It is shocking. It is -- it tugs at the hearts of what it means to be a person in this country.
Here you have someone that is leaving -- walking down the street and she's accosted by people wearing hoods, people wearing masks that forcibly take
her phone, take her backpack. She screams. In another video, you can hear one of the people who is filming saying, what is this, a kidnapping? And
they're like, no, we're the police. And the person says, you don't look like the police. And they don't look like the police, and they're not
acting like the police.
This is the type of things that happens in authoritarian regimes all around the world. And in fact, it's the reason why for over a hundred years
immigrants have been coming to this country because they think this is the type of thing that doesn't happen here.
But I think anybody watching this, I actually -- just taking my lawyer hat off for a minute, I can't help but thinking about what would happen if this
was my daughter, if this was my niece. How can we treat people in this manner? She's shocked by what's happening.
And I think that when -- you know, when we take a look at it, we actually see that this is what the face of a -- of unfolding authoritarianism looks
like in the context of the United States.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it is truly dramatic and I just wanted to, you know, ask you, you said how could it happen, but why is it happening? The
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has said, the footage of the arrest, a student here legally, is disturbing. Based on what we now
know, it's alarming that the federal administration chose to ambush and detain her, apparently targeting a law-abiding individual because of her
political views. This isn't public safety, it's intimidation that will and should be closely scrutinized in court.
[13:05:00]
Do you anticipate it getting its fair hearing in court? She's been carted off to Louisiana, which we know -- and please, you know, correct me if I'm
wrong, may be easier to be deported from. What's the significance of her being in Louisiana?
WARREN: Well, that's exactly right. As soon as she's taken off the streets, the lawyers filed an emergency motion in court in Massachusetts
ordering that she not be transferred outside of Massachusetts. The court said, I make that order, and the federal government has to give everybody
48 hours' notice before it attends to do so, but they did it anyway.
And the reason why they send folks over a thousand miles away from where their families and where their homes are is because they're trying -- and
this is essentially a disappearance. That they're using the -- ICE is using the federal immigration detention regime to be able to move people around
precisely so that lawyers cannot stop them from doing their illegal activity.
It's -- the courts have been very, very clear. And in this case, and I think also in our case at the Center for Constitutional Rights is doing
with Mahmoud Khalil, this is precisely the playbook. They move them around and then they say, well, gosh, we didn't know. We didn't know that we
weren't allowed to do that, but it's already done. So, what are we going to do? So, that requires the lawyers now to be able to file additional motions
to have the person brought back so that they can have due process and get before a judge on the legality of their detention to begin with.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, Mahmoud Khalil was brought to New Jersey after his lawyers intervened. Do you think the intervening crackdown and intimidation
of actual lawyers by the Trump administration, Paul Weiss, et cetera, is going to reduce the number of lawyers who want to take this case, like
Ozturk's case, or do you believe that that will be petitioned and she will be brought back?
WARREN: Well, I think for all of these cases, the important -- and you asked the question not so much how can this happen in America, but why is
this happening in America right now? And with her case and with Mahmoud's case, these are people that are in the country legally. And the only reason
why the government is detaining them and frankly trying to disappear them and deport them is because of their defense of Palestinian rights and
calling out the genocide and killing that's happening in Gaza. That is the only reason.
And they're making claims that these are somehow connected to Hamas, which they're not. That these are connected to anti-Semitism, which they
certainly are not. This is core disagreement with government policy.
And relating to other lawyers, the attack on law firms that has been happening is also chilling because we know and you know, Christiane, from
covering so many regimes that out of the authoritarian playbook, you have to first kill all the lawyers, as Shakespeare said, you get the lawyers out
of the picture.
These law firms now are going to be less likely to want to jump in and challenge the administration on clearly illegal activity. And our hope is
that the law firms will actually stand up. This is one of those moments in authoritarian regimes where people say, well -- some people will say, well,
if we just keep our heads down, maybe it'll go away. But that actually doesn't happen in authoritarian regimes.
When the middle capitulates, it strengthens the government. And so, by not resisting, by not fighting back, including law firms, major law firms,
civil rights organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights, students and other protestors, if we don't continue to resist and push
back, we are allowing this country to turn into an authoritarian nightmare that we may never come out of.
AMANPOUR: Honestly, it beggar's belief. It just -- it's just really, really, really chilling. And clearly, there's a point to this in, you know,
chilling the state of affairs on academic campuses. So, look, Homeland Security basically said that Ozturk has, quote, "engaged in activities in
support of Hamas." So, of course it doesn't specify anything. There are no charges. We've just spoken about it. Her brother says she never did
anything or called for any kind of violence except for co-writing an op-ed challenging, I think, Tufts' response to what's happening in Gaza and doing
the whole, you know, asking for divestment and all the rest of it, which is -- it comes under nonviolent political action, according to the definitions
of that.
[13:10:00]
I know it's unpopular. I know Israel and certain Jewish organizations believe that's anti-Semitic, but they say it's not. In any event, they also
say, DHS, that they're using the same state department, you know, law or rule, very arcane that they're using in Mahmoud Khalil's case.
WARREN: Yes, they are. And you know, so the -- so just a little bit about that law. This is a law that comes from the Immigration and Naturalization
Act, it dates back to 1952. And it gives the secretary of state the power to deport people that have -- they have a reasonable belief their presence
or their actions will be damaging to U.S. foreign policy.
Now, this law was passed, particularly in response to looking at Soviet spies in the United States in 1952. It cannot and it should not be applied
to students or frankly anybody for a expressing an opinion that disagrees with the U.S. foreign policy.
So, for example, students -- and there are students around the country and people around the country that are really troubled and should be troubled
by the bombing of churches and schools in Gaza, period. Full stop. We can have a situation where only people who are born in the United States or
U.S. citizens can make that criticism, but people that are here for valid reasons or people that are here for -- you know, allowed to stay here
forever can't do that. They're weaponizing the vulnerability of immigration status in order to stop people from speaking about the violence and the war
in Gaza.
And as a practical matter, what does that really look like, if we are all going to be criminalized and deported or detained for speaking out against
this terrible, terrible war, how is it possible for us to voice our dissent against what the Israeli government is doing and what the U.S. government
is allowing them to do? This falls at the heart.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes, yes. I get it. I want to just broaden out quickly because it's -- there's this and then there's the whole mass deportation
piece of what the administration is doing. You know, the Homeland Security chief, Kristi Noem, toured this -- basically, this prison facility, right,
in El Salvador yesterday. We have pictures of her standing in front of a cage full of, you know, detained shirtless men who are wearing tattoos.
And apparently, according to report, let's say Mother Jones says that one of the detained men who was born in Venezuela told his boss that an ICE
agent said they focused on him and others because of their tattoos. One of them apparently was screaming that he was just a hairdresser, and the other
one said, you know, nobody -- this person has zero connection to gangs. And one of the tattoos, which we're showing, is for autism awareness to honor
his brother. He's one of the detained in El Salvador.
So, the question goes obviously to the competence of this, to the due diligence on who they're actually rounding up and deporting. Is there any
recourse?
WARREN: Yes, there's tremendous amounts of recourse because all of this activity is illegal, that people are marching into courts right now for
these men, for the students that are being arrested and they're saying that this type of mass deportation is illegal.
So, for example, the Center for Constitutional Rights did the stop and frisk case in New York City for 13 years. We won a tremendous ruling that
the Constitution just doesn't allow the government to round up people based on race, based on ethnicity, and based on these things and just massively
criminalize them. We learned this lesson also after 9/11, tragically and sadly, where Muslim and Arab communities were just rounded up and deported,
and communities were criminalized.
And the lesson that we should have learned is that you can't massively criminalized, detained, deport people based upon outward appearances.
There's not only the autism awareness tattoo, we've heard about a soccer coach who had a soccer tattoo on his neck, and that was mistaken or uses a
justification for saying that he was in a gang. Another report where someone, who's a musician and a construction worker, had a bird tattoo on
his neck, and that's being taken as a sign of gang activity.
This administration is basically trying to round up anybody that can think of for any reason that comes to mind, separate and apart from what the law
requires, and trying to deport them. Simply not allowed.
AMANPOUR: All right. I mean, just very, very briefly, I don't know whether you expect 200 Venezuelans to come back despite the court petitions. Do you
expect Khalil and Ozturk, the two students, to be deported? Very briefly.
[13:15:00]
WARREN: I do not. We have a hearing in Mahmoud's case tomorrow, and that there will be hearings on the other cases. We expect that the courts
reviewing the justification is not going to happen. It's not going to happen.
AMANPOUR: OK. Thank you so much indeed for joining us on this really important development. Thank you very much, Vince Warren.
WARREN: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Now, immigration crackdown is just one of many ways in which Donald Trump is trying to remake the United States. He's also completely
gutting the federal government, cutting thousands, tens of thousands of jobs, and America's view of government is complicated.
President John F. Kennedy once said, let public service be a proud and lively career. While Ronald Reagan, some 20 years later, proclaimed
government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
The fact is many Americans just don't know what 3 million people working for the federal government actually do.
Enter Michael Lewis, the journalist and author known for bestsellers like "Moneyball" and "The Big Short." His latest work is "Who Is Government?"
Looks at the unsung work of civil servants. And Comedian W. Kamau Bell is a contributor. They both are joining me now. And welcome to the program.
So, I mean, what -- I'm going to start with you, Michael, because this came -- this was an idea of yours from the Washington Post editor as well. What
made you think of this? Because you did it before this administration was inaugurated and started this current wave of purges.
MICHAEL LEWIS, EDITOR, "WHO IS GOVERNMENT?": So, what interested me in the first place was Trump's sort of neglect of the government his first time
around, which provoked me to go in and write a book about just kind of what the government did. And in the course of doing that, I was just shocked by
the quality of the character inside the government. That -- just these like mission driven experts who got nothing but grief from the society they were
serving and whose mission was sort of like unknown to the outside world.
And there was this -- so, I had this sense that like, OK, there's a stereotype of the civil servant that sort of infected the American mind,
and it's the thing that Elon Musk is paddling. It's the sort of, they're wasteful, they're fraudulent, they're abusive, or they're the deep state,
or they're bureaucrats. And the actual person was so different and actually such good material that I thought, let's like do this big, let's drop --
let's -- let me hire six writers who I love and I'll -- and along with me, we'll parachute into the place and we'll find stories and just tell them as
a way to kind of counteract the stereotype. And the goal was to explode the stereotype because it's dumb and increasingly -- it's deadly.
AMANPOUR: So, W. Kamau Bell, you are one of those writers and you've done a lot, and certainly, for CNN, in your travels around the country, and
you've met a lot of people, presumably also government workers. What did you find that maybe, you know, changed the stereotype when you explored the
civil servants?
W. KAMAU BELL, CONTRIBUTOR, "WHO IS GOVERNMENT?": I mean for me, when Michael approached me and said, do you want to write about the federal
government? I said yes, because it was exciting to collaborate with Michael. And I had this thought, I was like, wait, doesn't my goddaughter
work in the federal government?
So, one -- over Kwanzaa celebration at my house, I asked her about her job without talking about the book. She works in the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice, and she exploded with so much excitement about a thing that I had never thought of as being excitement, that I really was
like, oh, this is great. And I get to just talk to -- hang out with my goddaughter that I don't do often enough.
AMANPOUR: And just quickly, because the DOJ is shifting all sorts of -- I don't even know what to say right now. They're trying to purge quite a lot
of the independent prosecutors and things like that. Is she still committed? Is her life or rather her job secure because there are also
purges there?
BELL: Well, she is a paralegal. Her job was only going to be for a few years because it's a thing that law school students do before they apply to
law school. So, she knew that she was going to leave and she's applied to law school. But the interesting thing is that when I talked to her in the
summer about this before Trump was in office, she said, I don't know that I would come back basically because I may end up with so much law school debt
that I can't afford to be a government employee, which is another issue we need to talk about.
And -- but over the course of everything happened with Trump, she is more committed to coming back because she really feels like the government needs
people like me who are committed and who know that the government -- that we need committed employees here who are on the right side of history.
AMANPOUR: Oh, that's amazing. That's the altruism that Kennedy appealed to, right, Michael, in his inauguration speech? And it's the opposite of
what happened under Reagan who basically said, you know -- what did he said, something about the nine worst words in the English language was, I'm
the government and I'm coming to help you. I'm paraphrasing.
[13:20:00]
But why do you think, Michael, it was so easy to demonize federal workers, and that's lasted until now?
LEWIS: No, and it's obviously been amped up now. And it is a really interesting question, because it's been going on for 50 years. And they've
wound up in the same bucket as immigrants and trans people in the Trump mind, right? It's like people who you can say almost anything about and no
one will stand up and defend them.
And I think there are a couple things going on. One is, the nature of the institution, it's run -- although, there are 2.3 million civil servants who
aren't in the military, there's a top layer of political appointees who run the place. And the communications operation is run by the political people.
So, the civil servants don't really have much ability to tell their story or defend themselves. And there is also this reflective -- this reflexive
fear because, essentially, every time they're noticed, it's bad, you know, there's been no culture of sort of recognition except when something goes
wrong, someone gets hauled out and has their head whacked off. So, that they themselves have kind of learned the best thing to do is lay low.
And so, when you're not telling your story, and that's what's -- that's the problem, right? The stories just don't get told, and that's the reason for
the book. But when you're not telling your story, then some other story rushes into the back. And this simple story, which is very useful for -- at
least, for actually all politicians. When things go bad, you blame some civil servant. When things go well, you implicitly take credit. It has just
been -- has just kind of ruled the American mind for the last several decades.
AMANPOUR: Kamau Bell, I was fascinated to read amongst many of the little vignettes that it was a -- you know, a person in the IRS who came up with
the idea of, wow, let's have e-filing of our tax statements and wow, hasn't that become now just a matter of course, and it was just one person's idea.
But also, in the book an IRS commissioner, Daniel Werfel, is quoted. He's speaking to IRS workers and he says, "The quality of life we have, it's all
government. Government touches you a hundred times before breakfast and you don't even know it." Can you speak to that?
BELL: Yes. I mean, there's so many things that we have in our life and society that come from government doing its job. One of the stories that I
came across that I remember from when I was younger was the breakup of the monopoly of AT&T basically is what led to us all having cell phones that we
-- that are in our pockets now.
Because it used to be that the telecommunications of this country were controlled by one company and there was no innovation. You didn't even own
your phone. You had to rent your phone from the phone company, and you did not get any sort of great choice of your phones. And the breakup of an AT&T
by the federal government, by the Antitrust Division led to innovation in phones, which led to all of us being on our phones too much.
Now, we can argue about whether that's good or bad, but we have to understand that that comes from the government.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And, Michael, you profiled a coal miner. So, I think his name was Christopher Mark, tell me why he grabbed your attention.
LEWIS: He -- so, it was a coal miner who had left a coal mine and solved the problem of coal mine roofs falling in on the heads of coal miners,
which, you know, who knew it was a problem unless you were a coal miner. But it turns out it had killed 50,000 American coal miners over the
previous century, and he was -- I mean, he was a remarkable character in and of himself, and his motives were really -- you know, they had literary
dimensions to them.
But the fact that he had kind of done it more or less by himself, I mean, there was -- the infrastructure around him. And that the only mechanism for
him to do it was inside the federal government, that the coal mining industry didn't have a particular interest in solving the problem. I mean,
it just spoke volumes. And it's a broader thing. And the broader thing is, like all the problems, all the hard problems, all the problems that the
market doesn't want to solve, finds it -- find their way to government, along with a lot of interesting people who want to solve those problems.
And we've come to just sort of take it for granted and we're now in this situation where we've taken it for granted for so long that a president can
come along and try to destroy it and -- with minimum kind of blowback, with people not quite sure of what it is he's destroyed.
AMANPOUR: You know, you were just talking about this gentleman, this minor, of course, when you met him, he was in the Department of Labor,
hence a government employee. But to your point about billionaires and private sector versus government, Dave Eggers, another one of the writers,
he basically says -- he's talking about the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and he writes, the work being done at JPL is the most inspiring research and
exploration being done by any humans on our planet. And it's paid for by you. No billionaires will fund work like this because there's no money in
it.
[13:25:00]
That can be said of many of the government functions. I see you nodding. Kamau, tell me what your -- react to that.
BELL: Yes. We have to understand billionaires have confused us in thinking that profit over everything is the way to go because that works for them.
We have to understand that like many of the greatest things that have ever happened in this country were through people who just wanted to make the
world a better place. And one of the big problems is those people have small egos, and all of our billionaires and politicians have big egos.
So, we don't hear about the innovation the federal government does because those people, by nature of their positions, don't have giant egos. When in
reality that's the only way you're going to get to a better country is by people who aren't working for profit, they're working for a better day. And
federal government employees have to prove their worth. They have to prove that they are making America better. They don't just get to say it and put
it on a bumper sticker.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to play a soundbite -- go ahead, Michael.
LEWIS: Well, I was just going to add to that. The hypocrisy of what's going on now is just breathtaking. Tesla gets its start thanks to a loan
and loan guarantees from the Department of Energy, that without it, Elon Musk, back in the day acknowledged, like it never would've gotten off the
ground.
Like it's just breathtaking that this pose now by people who are sit -- happened to be sitting on top, that they were -- you know, that they would
just naturally have gotten there. And that, in fact -- when in fact the truth is the source of a lot of innovation and the foundation of the
economy is some partnership between the government and the private sector, for which the private sector then takes credit. And the government just
kind of fades away as part of the story.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, I'm going to -- it is extraordinary and it's really good to be reminded of this, and particularly in the light of that call,
that rallying call from Kennedy, and especially to young people who do actually perhaps still have some, you know, dreams of making the world a
better place.
So, I don't know what you make of Russell Vought, but as you all know, he's Trump's OMB, Office of Management and Budget director. And he taped a
speech or he had a speech that was taped and released by ProPublica. And I'm just going to play it and get you both to react to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSSELL VOUGHT, THEN-PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA: We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. We want -- when they wake up in
the morning, we want them to not want to go to work. Because they are so -- they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be
shut down so that the EPA can't do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to
put them in trauma.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Oh, my goodness. It's hard to listen to it actually. And it's hard to listen to those people laughing and tittering in the audience. I
see you shaking your head, Kamau.
BELL: Yes. I mean, I think about the DMV. We all think about the people who work in the DMV as not being nice people. And so, therefore, when we go
in there, we don't treat them like nice people, which means they don't act like nice people. And so, the idea being that like, if -- that we're going
to get what we get, if we don't treat these people like people. So, he is not afraid of his life getting worse because the government shuts down
because he's probably got a lot of money and he is got access to people with a lot of money.
But for the rest of us regular folks, if the government workers are traumatized and afraid to show up, our lives are going to get measurably
worse. And we can see it no further than the Social Security Administration that if old people can't get their Social Security because people are
fired, we don't all have a billionaire relative like Howard Lutnick (ph) to support us if we can't get our Social Security checks. I think that is --
he is preaching to a small group of rich people who aren't afraid of what happens if the government shuts down.
AMANPOUR: You know, this obviously started to raise its ugly head during the Tea Party movement. In other words, this real animus towards government
workers, if you remember. And then, if you remember, people would be asked in town halls or meetings, well, do you like your Medicaid, your Social
Security, your medic -- oh yes, yes, yes. We want all of that.
So, my question to you, Michael, is, do you think there is a strategy beyond tearing down? Because David Sanger of The New York Times basically
talks about this kind of Trump motivation. In his first two months, the new administration has been devastatingly efficient in tearing things down, but
painfully slow to explain how their strategy, how their actions fit into their broader strategy.
What do you see, Michael?
LEWIS: It -- you know, it's -- I think it's complicated because I think there's several things going on at once, but one simple explanation for
what they've done is they have -- they've disrupted anything and they've gone after anything that would prevent Donald Trump from turning the
federal government into his personal political weapon, and just an instrument of his own political desires.
[13:30:00]
And so, for example, you know, when you look at what Elon Musk is saying versus what he's doing, there's no connection. He says he wants to
eliminate waste, fraud, and corruption. The first thing they did was fire all the inspectors general at all the different agencies. And those
people's job -- and they were independent. Those people's job was to root out fraud and waste. And they were -- they could report it to Congress.
It's exactly who you'd want on the beat if you were actually interested in waste and corruption.
But they're not, they're interested in something else. And it does seem to be like reducing this thing to an instrument that is loyal to Donald Trump
and not to the Constitution. Of course, the civil servants, they take an oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump. And I think that's sort of
at the bottom of a lot of the hostility.
And I think the other thing is, I -- apropos of this clip you just played. It's astonishing that anybody thinks it's a good idea to manage a large
institution this way. Can you think of any successful large institution where the leaders, the people on top come in and treat the employees with
scorn and derision, it's just not a strategy that I don't think has ever worked. So, they're after something other than making it work well.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's an extraordinary book and it's really timely and it's so uplifting actually. So, "Who Is Government?" Thank you both, Michael
Lewis, W. Kamau Bell, for telling us some of these stories. Thanks so much.
Now, stay with us. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: With the resumed war on Gaza intensifying every day, Israelis continue to protest this as well as their government's attempts to control
the judiciary. And in Gaza, rare protests against Hamas. People there face a brutal crackdown for doing so.
Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, Palestinians are under constant assault. As we reported this week, Hamdan Bilal, the Oscar-winning director
of "No Other Land" was attacked and beaten by Israeli settlers and authorities. Jeremy Diamond has now been speaking to him. Here's their
conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just a few weeks ago, Hamdan Bilal was being celebrated in Hollywood after winning the Oscar
for best documentary. Today, he is back home in Masafer Yatta in the occupied West Bank. A bruise now underlining his left eye.
HAMDAN BILAL, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": Look, this is outposts (ph).
DIAMOND (voice-over): Bilal and other eyewitnesses say he was attacked by the very same Israeli settlers whose attacks on Masafer Yatta were the
subject of his Oscar-winning documentary.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Back to the car.
DIAMOND (voice-over): This video captured by an American peace activist documents a part of Monday's attack, as settlers pelted their car with
rocks. Alongside one of those damaged vehicles, Bilal says he arrived here that evening after he was alerted to the presence of settlers.
BILAL: The settlers started like, throw stones to the house. Destroyed the water tank.
DIAMOND (voice-over): As some Palestinians began throwing stones back at the settlers and more settlers and soldiers arrived, Bilal thought of his
family down the hill.
[13:35:00]
BILAL: If the settlers come down there and they start to attacking them, OK, what's happening with them? So, directly and quickly, I back to my
house and I stand there. I told my wife, if you see me die, don't open the door. I close it like here and stop here exactly. And they came from this
side.
DIAMOND (voice-over): He says an Israeli soldier then approached him, his rifle drawn, as one of the settlers began beating him from behind, hitting
him in his head.
BILAL: When I saw I'm bleeding, I felt I will -- this is the last moments in my life.
DIAMOND: In that moment, you thought you were going to die?
BILAL: Yes. Because that's -- that the attacks was so, so hard. And you know, my head like was like a football, between their legs and the wall
here. I was shouting, screaming, crying, but they don't care.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Bilal says the soldier pressed his rifle into his leg and threatened to shoot. He was then arrested. In custody, he says he
was blindfolded and forced to sit on the ground, hit by soldiers every time he tried to move, a claim the Israeli military denies.
DIAMOND: The Israeli military said they arrived here on the scene of what they described as a, quote, "violent confrontation" between Israelis and
Palestinians, according to the IDF, sparked by Palestinians throwing rocks at Israelis. Something that everyone here denies.
DIAMOND (voice-over): While their Oscar win is shining a light on settler violence in the West Bank, Bilal and his co-director, Basel Adra, knew they
would come back to the same reality or worse.
BASEL ADRA, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": We know that the settlers would be with the occupation army and police would be more angry and do revenge
and punishment mainly to silence us and to try to prevent us from transferring the message and the truth and the reality of what's happening.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Bilal believes he was targeted because of his Oscar win, and he says he won't be deterred.
DIAMOND: You are determined to stay. This attack won't change that.
BILAL: You see my blood is here, on the ground. This is my house, and here my blood. OK. So, I will stay here. The connection is become -- it's like
more and more. Now, the connection between me and the land, this is blood. So, I will never, never, never, OK, leave my home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Powerful stuff there. Jeremy Diamond reporting. We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, in Paris today, more signs of tension between Washington and Kyiv as Ukraine's president, Zelenskyy, says, America keeps changing
the terms of the extent of a potential minerals deal it wants. It's symptomatic of a wider trend as allies and adversaries alike face a
mercurial U.S. administration.
Beijing has accused the United States of violating World Trade Organization rules after Trump just announced 25 percent tariffs on all cars and auto
parts imported from anywhere in the world. In Beijing, the foreign ministry spokesman said, there are no winners in a trade war or a tariff war, and he
called this action unhelpful.
[13:40:00]
Jessica Chen Weiss is professor of China Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and she spoke with Hari Sreenivasan on how China is trying to
manage an unpredictable second Trump administration.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Professor Jessica Chen Weiss, thanks so much for joining us. Just recently,
we had the Chinese Development Forum where China gets to invite foreign companies from all over the world and say, we're open for business. And I
wonder, in light of what's been happening with the Trump administration in the past month or two, is it open for business as usual? What are the kind
of changes that the Chinese are trying to allure the world with?
JESSICA CHEN WEISS, PROFESSOR OF CHINA STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY AND DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR AMERICA, CHINA AND THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL
AFFAIRS: Well, thanks so much. It's great to be here. And then, the Chinese are nervous as well about all that's underway with the, you know,
on and off again tariffs and the changes in U.S. foreign policy, and they have a lot of economic challenges at home.
And so, the China Development Forum is their, you know, annual effort to signal again, you know, that China is, as you said, open for business. But
they have a long way to go in terms of reassuring foreign investors that China plans to kind of live up to its promises, to be the defender of
globalization, and not to follow the path of kind of unilateralism that they've, you know, criticized so much in U.S. policy recently.
I mean, certainly China sees, you know, some benefit from the U.S. making it itself seem like an unreliable partner, particularly in Europe. But
they're quite nervous as well. China has benefited a lot from globalization and to the extent that tariffs go up around the world. Now, this could come
at, you know, significant cost include -- you know, to Chinese growth, which, you know, remains very heavily dependent on exports especially in
light of the challenges at home.
SREENIVASAN: So, how much of this is an opportunity for China?
WEISS: Well, I certainly think that, you know, China has been trying to build external partnerships as a way to provide some insulation from what
it saw as kind of U.S.-led a containment, suppression and sanctions. And so, to the extent that the United States is no longer an attractive
economic partner, China's stands to benefit.
But at the same time, a loss for the United States isn't necessarily a win for China. I don't think that China is necessarily. It's going to fill the
void that the United States has left in many parts of the world, particularly in global health.
SREENIVASAN: So, in global health, if we stop vaccine distributions, China doesn't necessarily have the infrastructure to stand up, the equivalent of
USAID, right?
WEISS: Exactly. China is, I think, not capable and not particularly interested in making those kinds of investments, which is, you know, I
think a loss for the world. That -- and Americans too. Because I think the early detection and containment of infectious diseases, you know, like
Ebola, you know, has benefited many Americans.
And I think the greater risk here is not that some China steps up and fills the void, but in instead, kind of the disintegration of many of the
international efforts that had once, I think, kept many of these diseases at bay.
SREENIVASAN: Is there something different about Trump 1.0 versus 2.0 in terms of -- not just the posturing, but actually the policies that they're
laying out? Because we saw tariffs against China in the first administration. Is there something different now? Is it the just level of
uncertainty?
WEISS: I think there's a big difference already out of the gate between the two Trump administrations. I think that everybody expected that these
tariffs would be used as leverage against China potentially to extract better terms, maybe get them to live up to their end of the first, you
know, trade deal.
But instead, we're seeing much more priority actually on U.S. allies and partners, one of our closest ones, in Canada and Mexico. We're also seeing,
you know, new rhetoric about the desire, you know, to take Greenland one way or the other, calling into question, really, I think some of the most
fundamental principles of, you know, norms against, you know, territorial aggression and expansion that have really been, I think, important to
holding, you know, even authoritarian powers like China and Russia in check.
So, that's a really big departure. And I think that many American allies, especially in Europe and in Canada, are now looking to the United States
and wondering if their greatest threat is not at all China but the United States instead.
And so, you know, a big part of I think American strength has run through our alliances and partnerships. And those are very much, I think, being
called into question.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder what the lessons are that China takes as the United States posture much closer towards Russia in light of Ukraine. A lot of
people have been saying, you know, how the United States deals with Ukraine is going to be a signal for China on what it could do with Taiwan.
[13:45:00]
WEISS: I think China's quite nervous about the rapprochement between the United States and Russia, but I also don't think they think it can go that
far. And certainly the -- I think Xi and Putin have taken pains to reassure one another, that their partnership isn't driven by these external factors,
and it remains strong.
But I think China sees both benefits and risks. And I think on the one hand, the United States is, I think, undermining many of its key strengths,
not only the allies and partners, but also I think the domestic kind of basis of, you know, China's -- sorry, the domestic basis of American kind
of science and technology leadership.
And so, we're witnessing a kind of brain drain that China is benefiting from, Europe is benefiting from, France, others are luring American
scientists who see a dead end for their careers here now in the new climate.
But they also, I think in China, see risks. You know, that, again, China's in a really difficult domestic position now, and they've been trying over
the last couple years to stabilize their -- the kind of external environment, you know, not shying away from punching back, but nonetheless
not looking, I think, to provoke escalation or conflict.
And so, I don't see them necessarily crowing that loudly, although they're certainly happy to point out to American allies and partners just how
unreliable the United States has been of late, and that China, you know, continues to portray itself as a defender of the status quo in contrast to
the United States.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder if the work that China has been doing across what we would consider the Global South, you know, the partnerships with the Belt
and Road Initiative, the investments in -- you know, even in say, India, Pakistan, sort of different regions, are paying off now, if that's as good
of a hedge as you need?
WEISS: I think they've been pretty effective as a hedge. China has, since the first trade war, really tried to diversify away from the United States
toward what we call south relationships. And that trade has become increasingly important to China, and I think provides real kind of
insurance for the -- you know, for Chinese businesses seeking access to markets as well as, you know, raw inputs.
And it means that when the United States, you know, raises tariffs against China and China retaliates, and as the United States, you know, takes on
many of its, you know, top trading partners, you know, with greater tariffs and the risk of the United States actually isolates itself from the world.
And that China continues, you know, to, you know, court those who are I think wary of the element of chaos that the United States is introducing
into the global trading system.
SREENIVASAN: Is China using this opportunity to try to elevate its position the world stage from kind of just a foreign or a military might?
WEISS: So, China certainly, I think, wants to play, you know, a greater role in leading. But what that leadership looks like, I think, is very much
a work in progress. So, far, they've been pretty opportunistic and symbolic in the ways that they've hoped to lead, being willing to set the table for
diplomatic discussions, but not necessarily playing a driving role in kind of twisting arms to bring warring parties to the table.
I think that there are -- their aspirations for Taiwan really haven't changed, although, I think that many think that there's a greater ordeal of
impatience given China's growing capabilities. But also, I think, given trends on the island and in the U.S. relationship, unofficial relationship
with Taiwan, have also, I think, provoked a degree of concern and even pessimism about, you know, how that situation is unraveling.
And so, I don't see again, you know, kind of a precipitous move here. I think China's actually been kind of, you know, wanting to, again, establish
itself as a legitimate and central player on the world stage, not be kind of relegated to the margins. Certainly, the Chinese Communist Party doesn't
want democracy to be seen as the kind of the inevitable trajectory of countries around the world or that's very much threatening to the
continuation of their rule.
And so, as the kind of one of the remaining communist parties in the world that's in a position of leadership, you know, China's very concerned about
going that way. So, I think a lot of the effort that they've made to to step up on the world stage is to be seen as central rather than peripheral.
But again, how much have they been willing to invest in showing that China is a country that can be relied upon or turned to in times of crisis? I
think that's -- they've been much more selective and strategic and trying to advance their national interests and their objectives of taking,
quote/unquote, "reunifying" with Taiwan.
[13:50:00]
I don't see that being precipitously changed by changes in the United States so far -- so long as U.S. policy toward Taiwan and China remains on
a more or less even keel. So far, the president has, you know, declined to change U.S. policy toward Taiwan, which I think is wise. But we shall see
what happens in the days and months to come.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the stories in the past few weeks has been the United States deciding to cut off, you know, Radio Free, Liberty, Radio
Free Asia, Radio Free Europe and so forth, Voice of America and sort of other networks. Is that an opportunity for China?
WEISS: I certainly think that it reduces the set of views that, you know, people in Southeast Asia or other parts of the world here. I think that the
bigger, you know, effect though, you know, is to reduce the sense that the United States is, you know, championing sort of the cause of democracy
against China and the support that USAID and the National Endowment of Democracy had played in supporting groups that often were quite critical of
China holding it to account.
To some extent, this is, I think, reassuring to China. And some ways, I think, continues the trend of American, you know, leaders realizing that we
have a limited ability to shape the trajectory of China's domestic political system. But this is, you know, a really a sudden change, I think,
that many are still, you know, questioning, you know, how this will all play out.
I mean, I think Chinese propaganda has not necessarily been all that effective itself. And you know, we -- one has to wonder about all of these,
you know, state funded efforts. I think much more important would be a kind of robust and vibrant news media, the independent news media that is not
funded by governments. And so, we'll have to watch that space.
SREENIVASAN: You know, are there concerns about how the president creates this atmosphere, maybe it's hawkishness or aggression towards China and
what the ripple effects are in American democracy to civil liberties? I'm thinking particularly, you know, in the wake of the pandemic, statement
after statement that came out of the president's mouth, really, and then we saw a massive increase in anti-Asian hate crimes for a couple of years.
What are the ripple effects of the ways the president and the administration frames our relationship with China?
WEISS: I'm so glad that you raised the question of rhetoric and the attacks on, you know, Asian Americans, because I do think that that was a
really big sea change after the pandemic. And to some extent, I think we're still living in that world, even though the president himself has actually
pivoted in terms of his rhetoric, talking about, you know, wanting a constructive and positive relationship with Xi Jinping, saying a fair
number of nice things about him.
But I think that the tone that that earlier period set still remains very much alive on Capitol Hill. We have bills, you know, suggesting the, you
know, expulsion of Chinese students from the United States. We have a legislation that would really treat all, you know, Chinese investment or
commerce is potentially suspect, especially, academic exchange.
And I think that that is really damaging because, you know, the United States has really thrived on being a place where people of different
nationalities and from different countries can actively participate. And it's -- you know, we're an open economy and I think the more that we move
to a closed one the more that, you know, companies of all nationalities wonder about coming and investing in the United States.
And we -- it's not just that even I think affecting Asian Americans now, you know, we have tourism in the United States is down. We have, you know,
people being turned away at the border are harassed that aren't of Asian extraction. And so, I think this is all very much calling into question,
you know, the future of the United States as an open and welcoming society, which has really fueled, I think, our leadership for so many decades.
SREENIVASAN: Jessica Chen Weiss, the director of the Institute for America, China, and the Future of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins
University, thanks so much for joining us.
WEISS: My pleasure. Thanks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, a roaring success. Five lions who are rescued from Ukraine have found their pride and joy here in the United Kingdom. The Lion
Rescue Center in Kent officially opened this week and was built to welcome its new residents. They are Rori, Amani, Lira, Vanda and Yuna.
[13:55:00]
The severely neglected lions were rescued near the frontline in Ukraine. One of them had been confined to an apartment, another was so shellshocked
she could barely walk. But now, they finally have some peace.
That's 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 for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
