Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with "The Crisis of Canadian Democracy" Author, Canadian Journalist and The Global and Mail Columnist Andrew Coyne; Interview with Haaretz Military Analyst Amos Harel; Interview with PEN America Co-CEO Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf; Interview with Ethiopian American Novelist and Writer and Bard College Written Arts Program Director Dinaw Mengestu; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam and The Asia Group Partner Daniel Kritenbrink. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 29, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us. That will never ever happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Canada's prime minister directs his opening message at the U.S. What's next for the once friendly next-door neighbors? I asked Canadian
journalist Andrew Coyne.
Then, Israel's security chief resigns amid a feud with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Defense Analyst Amos Harel tells me what it means for the
country and the war in Gaza.
Plus, fears for free speech in the U.S. I speak to co-CEO of PEN America, Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, and novelist Dinaw Mengestu about this critical
moment.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL KRITENBRINK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO VIETNAM AND PARTNER, THE ASIA GROUP: Today, the United States of America is more popular in Vietnam than
any other country in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- 50 years since the fall of Saigon. Dormer U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Daniel Kritenbrink, reflects on changing relations between the
countries with Walter Isaacson.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in London, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
On the 100th day of his term, President Trump has lost an opportunity to have an ally north of the border. In a stunning turnaround, Canada's
Liberal Party, under the new leadership of economist Mark Carney has won re-election.
Just a few months ago, the conservative opposition were the favorite to win, but Trump's tariffs and threats to Canada's sovereignty reshaped the
race. As Prime Minister Carney made very clear in his victory speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. We are over the shock of the American
betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But you are going to take us forward.
CARNEY: We have to look out for ourselves. And above all, we have to take care of each other.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, what could Canada U.S. relations look like under Ottawa's new leader, a former governor of the Banks of Canada and England? My first
guest tonight is closely watching this, a longtime journalist at Canadian outlet, The Globe and Mail, and author of the new book, "The Crisis of
Canadian Democracy," Andrew Coyne. Welcome to the program.
Andrew, we can't overstate what a political earthquake the last six months have been really shaking up the dynamics in Canada. If you had told
somebody six months ago that the Liberal Party would win yet again, a fourth term, given the state of affairs domestically, the economy, the
affordability crisis, I think people would've laughed you off of the stage.
And yet, here you are right now squarely because of what has transpired with U.S.-Canadian relationships, specifically from President Trump. Just
talk about the significance of this moment for Canada.
ANDREW COYNE, AUTHOR, "THE CRISIS OF CANADIAN DEMOCRACY", CANADIAN JOURNALIST AND COLUMNIST, THE GLOBAL AND MAIL: Yes. I mean, even three
months ago, the Liberal -- the conservatives were ahead by 25 percentage points in Liberals. It was done. Nobody gave the Liberals any chance or
whatever.
Three things happened. One is Justin Trudeau resigned as prime minister. The second was Mr. Trump started ramping up these absurd threats against
the country. And thirdly, the Liberals elected Mark Carney as their replacement.
And so, you had this very odd election where the conservatives were running against the Liberals, understandably enough, in their record over the last
10 years, which had brought them to such a low point in the bulls. The Liberals ran against Donald Trump, and fairly, because this absolutely
scalded the public, has scared people, silly. And it became really about for -- at least for the first part of the election, became about which
leader, either Mr. Carney, for the Liberals or Pierre Poilievre for the conservatives, who could best stand up to Donald Trump? And the verdict of
a lot of the voters was very clearly in favor of Mr. Carney.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And what we heard from Mark Carney throughout the campaign was, if it's not a crisis, you wouldn't be seeing me. He went on to say,
I'm most useful in a crisis. I'm not that good at peace time. And we laid out his lengthy CV, both as the governor of the Bank of Canada and England
and finance minister and economist, as someone who says that he has managed through multiple financial crises. Is that how Canadians feel? They find
themselves in right now, in a moment of existential crisis?
COYNE: Absolutely. I mean, there's the immediate thing of the tariffs and what that will do to our economy, but nobody knows exactly what Mr. Trump
intends. And at first, of course, people laughed it off as just being a joke. But the more seriously he seemed to take it, the more he repeated it,
the more we started to wonder.
Obviously, I don't think anybody thinks he could pull off annexation even if you wanted to, but some kind of assault on our sovereignty. So, people -
- that tends to concentrate the mind, people sober it up in a hurry. I think it wasn't just Mr. Carney's resume that worked in his favor, but his
persona. He's very unflappable. He's, in some ways, an anti-politician, although I think we discovered he had certain native talents for it.
But when people were comparing him to Mr. Poilievre, who is much more of a conventional politician and very much of a sort of an attack dog
politician, and I think really what hurt him was a little too Trumpy for people's liking. He's not Mr. Trump. He's different in many important ways,
but some of the rhetoric, some of the constituencies that he would wink at, it made enough people wonder would he really be in for the fight the way
Mr. Carney seemed to be.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, it seemed to work before President Trump came into the picture or at least dominated the picture as much as he did. And you write,
the conservatives, the party of change, seemed to have been caught flatfooted by the series of seismic changes of the last few months. Not
only Mr. Trump turning his rhetorical and economic guns on Canada, but the resignation of Justin Trudeau, his replacement by Mr. Carney, as you noted,
their 25 percent lead in the poll, suddenly swing to 8 to 10 percent Liberal lead before the campaign even begun.
Would the conservatives have done better if there had been a different candidate other than Poilievre, who as you note, Canadians really took a
disliking to when they saw so many similarities between him and Donald Trump?
COYNE: I think it's certainly arguable. It's not a given that the Trump threat should have automatically (INAUDIBLE) to Liberal's benefit. You
could imagine the scenario where if you had a conservative leader that people felt reassured by, felt was a unifier. You can imagine them turning
to that leader in a crisis. They didn't for Mr. Poilievre.
Now, to give him his due, the conservatives actually held their vote pretty well in this thing. They got 42 percent of the vote. They haven't done that
well in the -- probably vote for 30 odd years. What really did them in was that all of these other small parties to the left of the Liberals,
basically collapsed in the face of this threat. They -- those voters all deserted them for the Liberals as they felt they were the stronger defender
of Canada.
You can say, well, Mr. Poilievre was just unlucky. But he -- it was because they were nervous about him. It was because they didn't trust him, that
they instead went for the Liberals. He didn't -- they might've stayed home. They might've stayed with their original party if they were more
comfortable with him, but it created this kind of crisis mentality of, we have to not just stop Mr. Trump, but we have to keep Mr. Poilievre out.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, the part of the campaign that predated the Trump factor, and that is the cost of living, housing, affordability, that all
still very much exists for Canadians. And now, you've got a situation where you have a party that won surprisingly, but not the majority.
So, how much leeway, how much time will Canadians afford Mark Carney to make the changes that he campaigned on?
COYNE: It's a very good question. I mean, we may be headed into a very bad economic situation, largely result -- as a result of Mr. Trump. We had some
difficulties even before Mr. Trump, long-term things, which were part of the reason Liberals were in such trouble. But if we get into a recession or
worse, nobody likes to be in power in those moments. Maybe people will say, well, he's doing his best because of Mr. Trump. He'll get some leeway in
the early going.
But look, the people are in no mood for games playing. I think any party leader, government or opposition, who seem to be playing politics as usual
in the face of this crisis, I think will pay the price. I thought the speeches on election night were very statesmanlike. I think everyone was
trying to look like they were trying to rise above the usual petty infighting. And we'll see how long that lasts.
But I think there'll be a premium to be paid for the parties that can work together, that can put the country first or at least appear to do so. So, I
wouldn't fancy anybody's chances in this. It's going to be a tough time to be in government, but you're better in government than in opposition.
You've got much more of a whip hand, much more agency to command your own fate.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Mark Carney said that he would talk to President Trump in the coming days about a new economic and security deal, but even listening to
his victory speech, the fact that he mentions time and time again this American betrayal, that we should never forget the lessons that Canadians
are learning from that, he's pledged to boost military spending, to allay some of the concerns that America has lined out.
But he also said that he's not going to go into the issue of sovereignty in some of the other more radical statements that the president and his
cabinet have been egging on. And I mentioned his cabinet because I'd like to place sound from the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, from just Sunday
morning, the day before the election when asked about the relationship between the two countries.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the president has stated repeatedly, he thinks Canada would be better off as a state. I mean he --
and he has said that based on what he was told by the previous prime minister who said, Canada can't survive unless it treats the U.S. unfairly
in trade.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, you can see where he sort of politically bought himself a little bit of wiggle room by blaming this solely on Justin Trudeau.
Nonetheless, to hear the secretary of state say that this is really not a country that can sustain itself with these unfair trade practices, as they
described them, how do you see this relationship between the prime minister and President Trump evolving?
COYNE: Well, first of all, we should say that there's no evidence the prime minister said anything of the kind. But leaving that aside, there's a
short-term problem and a long-term problem. The short-term problem is just warding off these tariffs. dealing with whatever Mr. Trump devises. And
you're sort of playing defense in that situation to the extent that you can.
But there's a longer-term issue, which is, and I don't want to put it too bluntly, but, you know, we just don't know whether we can trust our long-
term friends and allies anymore. Even if -- after Mr. Trump is gone, somebody else might replace him who had similar ambitions and similar
policies. So, I think there's a real consensus in the country that we've got to strike off in a more independent direction.
We have 75 percent of our trade with the United States right now. That's a great boon to us in many ways, but it also leaves us exposed and
vulnerable. So, to the extent that we can, I think that people are going to be trying to see to what extent we can diversify our trade. Certainly,
we've long needed to step up on -- in paying for our own defense. That's a true and valid criticism of Canadian policy going back decades. But that's
proceeding in phase as well that we're going to have to be looking not just to spend more on defense, but to be looking for other types of alliances,
other types of trade arrangements than just with the United States or just even with NATO.
So, this is a question, of course, that all of the democracies are now looking at is, to what extent can we treat this as business as usual? To
what extent is the United States still our ally, or if it is an ally, a responsible and reliable one, or do we need to be looking past America and
making alternate types of arrangements?
GOLODRYGA: Questions no one would've taken seriously just a few months ago. And yet, here we are. Andrew Coyne, thank you so much for joining us
from across the border up north. Thank you. Appreciate it. Actually, I'm in London. I forgot. So, I'm on a totally different continent, but you get my
point. Appreciate your time.
Well, later in the program, fears for free speech in America. We discuss what's at stake.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, after weeks of public drama, the head of Israel's security agency known as Shin Bet says he will step down. Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet voted to dismiss Ronen Bar from that post last month, but faced huge backlash for that move with the agency investigating
Netanyahu aids over alleged improper dealings with Qatar.
Israel's high court halted his firing. Ministers in Netanyahu's government accused Bar of politically motivated investigations. But in sworn
testimony, Bar says that the prime minister expected, quote, "personal loyalty."
Amos Harel has been covering the story for Hartz, and he joins me now from Tel Aviv. Amos, it is really good to see you. So, as we noted, there's no
love lost between the prime minister and Ronen Bar. But this specific scandal really erupted over this investigation that is being dubbed as
Qatar Gate. Walk us back to why that is an important story for us to know about.
AMOS HAREL, HAARETZ MILITARY ANALYST: First of all, the animosity between Bar and Netanyahu goes way back to October 7th. They've been playing a sort
of a complicated blame game between the two of them, and also the -- of course, the IDF chief of staff was also involved. And Netanyahu's policy
for a long time has been to blame his underlings, whether it was Bar or the former chief of staff, Herzi Halevi, for what has happened on October 7th,
for the fact that the -- our troops and our security agencies were not on high alert when Hamas struck.
On top of this, as you said, came the Qatari scandal. About three or four months ago, Shin Bet, the security -- internal security agency and Israeli
police began investigation -- investigating allegations that three of Netanyahu's media advisers were in fact in touch with the Qataris and
perhaps accepted money from Qatar for helping them improve their image abroad while they were working for Netanyahu.
Now, Qatar is not exactly defined as an enemy state by Israel. There's all kinds of relationships behind the scenes, and yet, Qatar is also funding
Hamas for many years. And of course, the general -- I'd say the general tendency among Israelis is to see Qatar as part of the forces in the region
who were involved or at least to blame for what happened on October 7th. So, this is extremely damaging for Netanya. On the one hand, while Shin Bet
keeps investigating the issue on the other.
GOLODRYGA: And the firing obviously led to the petition then to the Supreme Court. Both men have since submitted rather damning affidavits
accusing each other of quite scandalous things. Bar has accused the prime minister of pressuring him to act unlawfully for personal and political
reasons, essentially describing an autocrat in the making.
The prime minister describes him as unprofessional and accuses him of wanting to bring down the government. Is there evidence to support either
one of those claims? Because I do believe that at least one of Bar's predecessors has supported some of his claims.
HAREL: Much more than one of his predecessors. At least three of the last heads of Shin Bet came out publicly against Netanyahu's conduct and
behavior and his attitude towards Israeli democracy in recent years. The same goes for former chiefs of Mossad and former chiefs of the IDF. So, the
majority of the leaders of Israel security agencies in the last 15 months, and also people who worked with Netanyahu in the late '90s, most of these
people came out publicly against him in recent years, bringing all kinds of accusations against him.
So, Bar -- it's a new thing, and Bar took quite a few steps forward while describing what has happened, and yet, it's not a total surprise.
Netanyahu, of course, being a very experienced politician fights back. And now, he's in a better -- his situation has somewhat improved because Bar
has decided to resign under the pressure, because what you mentioned, the petitions to the Supreme Court, it's now not really clear whether the court
is about to deal with that. Since Bar is already announcing a resignation on June 15th, is there a point in discussing this, and making a statement
about it from the Supreme Court?
Netanyahu's opponents would very much like the court to intervene. I'm not sure this would happen under the new circumstances.
GOLODRYGA: And this leads to the question of who will replace Ronen Bar. Is this somebody who the prime minister himself can appoint? And what does
that do to the independence of the Shin Bet?
[13:20:00]
HAREL: So, the prime minister is in charge of this, and he's the man who would appoint the next chief of Shin Bet, according to Israeli laws. And
yet, the prime minister's situation is quite different from what we've experienced before. He is extremely unpopular and there's this whole
ongoing debate about the attempts to change the Israeli legal system. What the Netanyahu -- the opposition to Netanyahu, the protest movement,
describe as anti-democratic steps.
Bar has proposed to keep the tradition from the past, the two -- his two deputies, one serving and one former deputy, would be the candidates to
replace him. Netanyahu has not agreed to that. And there are all kinds of names being floated and discussed. It's not yet clear. But this is going to
be a big deal, again, because not so much because of our war with Hamas in Gaza, but because of the internal situation and because of those fears that
Netanyahu may be acting against the legal system and may be trying to change the Democratic character of the State of Israel.
Of course, his followers deny that. But many in the opposition and many, as I said, in the security agencies actually suspect that that is the case.
GOLODRYGA: Leaving the question of whether Israel is once again headed down the path towards a constitutional crisis. Important to note that there
is no constitution in Israel, which in part leads to this situation itself. And we should also note that Bar's resignation was inevitable, given what
he had already said, his failures surrounding the attacks of October 7th and not premeditating them and not stopping them ahead of time.
It appears that now Prime Minister Netanyahu is on an island by himself in terms of officials in the government who have yet to take responsibility or
resign. And instead, he has opted to renew military operations in Gaza. Reminder, there are still 59 hostages that remain there. And widespread
concern now about a continued aid blockade that's now entered its second month on humanitarian grounds. You're hearing a lot of oppositions from
around the world to that.
To what extent, in your view, is this renewed effort, in this renewed operation in Gaza driven by political calculations for Prime Minister
Netanyahu or once again to implement and finalize what he has long said their goal is, and that is the elimination of Hamas and the return of the
hostages?
HAREL: As usual in Israel, it's probably the combination of the two. And yet, Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival and fighting against
his legal troubles for quite a long time, and almost any decision he made since October 7th was tied deeply to his political fate.
So, even when he announces that the only reason is to reach a final victory against Hamas, that's not exactly the case. He has to fight for his own
political survival, and he's making political calculations as we speak. This doesn't mean that a military operation, a renewed military operation
in Gaza would not improve our position regarding a possible hostage deal. But for now, both the government and the army's top brass keep talking
about the possibility of increasing the military pressure and therefore, forcing Hamas to agree to a new deal.
We didn't see that materialize. It's true that Israel struck -- began striking in Gaza again since March 18th. It's true that many people on the
Palestinian side were killed. Some of them Hamas operatives, others Gaza residents. And yet, we haven't seen any kind of change or flexibility from
the Hamas side.
Hamas is actually still demanding that the war ends. We're not ready for all kinds of interim deals, this is, at least, what we're saying publicly,
they demand a full ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal in return for the release of all of the remaining hostages.
GOLODRYGA: And I believe the prime minister even today, we should note, on the eve of what is Israel's Memorial Day, a really solemn day followed by
Israel's Independence Day, there is reporting that the prime minister acknowledging their dedication to bringing the hostages home and also the
reality that there are fewer and fewer that are still alive of the 59 that are believed, that are still held there, confirmed to be. Amos Harel, thank
you so much for the time. Always good to see you.
HAREL: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we turn next to the warnings over freedom of speech. In 2024, the number of writers jailed around the world increased from sixth
year -- for the sixth year running, that's according to PEN America's annual Freedom to Write Index.
It's a worry that's even hitting home in the United States after multiple arrests of foreign students on campuses and a rise in book banning across
the country.
[13:25:00]
In its report, PEN notes that, quote, "Throughout history, the targeting of writers has served as both a canary in the coal mine, the primary
characteristic of authoritarian state censorship."
Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf is co-CEO of PEN America, and Dinaw Mengestu is a novelist and director of the Written Arts Program at Bard College. Thank
you both so much for joining us.
And let me start with you, Clarisse. Let's go back to what we just heard, that the writers are the canary in the coal mine. Why do authoritarian
states tend to come after authors, historically?
CLARISSE ROSAZ SHARIYF, CO-CEO, PEN AMERICA: Yes. Thank you, Bianna, first for having us on the show. Thank you for welcoming myself, but also Dinaw
Mengestu, who is one of the most extraordinary voices of contemporary literature, but who has a lot to say about this topic as well. And we talk
about it all the time in the context of our work at PEN America.
So, to your question, writers are truthtellers. Writers are the ones we turn to, to understand our past, to understand our present, but also know
how we meet the moment and how we prepare for the future. So, through fiction and nonfiction we know that through -- you know, through history,
writers are the ones who are able to actually crack open very complex issues and challenges and questions.
And authoritarians know that when the truth is their enemy, they are relying on fear, on misinformation. And in our work that we just published
today, around the 100 days of the Trump administration, we -- it's very clear the attacks on free expression on writers are at all times high.
Writing -- words are being attacked, words are being banned. We're tracking 350 words that are being banned, like women or so many common words that we
would want to use, diversity, black.
So, I think that this is why I think that the writers are always the first on the frontline and the first to be silence or censored in moments like
these.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Among that list, the website of words that are being scrubbed from government websites that you mentioned. It's grown from about
250 words to now 350. And given what the president campaigned on and really going after DEI initiatives, maybe it's not a surprise that -- and there
you see it on your screen, maybe it's not a surprise that words like transgender and abortion are on the list, but so are words like water
management or birth. Clarisse, how do you explain that?
SHARIYF: Well, I'm not sure if I can explain it because it doesn't make sense, right? But I do think that -- you know, to your question, I think
there's this question of erasure, right? Erasure of words means also that the information is no longer accessible. And in order to empower citizens,
but also people, individuals, readers, our writers at PEN America, in order to empower them to make decision about who to vote for or decisions about
what -- how to campaign and what to advocate for, if you remove the words, you remove language, you remove this power that we've all have to speak up,
to speak truth to power, and to fight for our freedoms, including free expression, the freedom to write, the freedom to speak, the freedom to
think and imagine, and the freedom to read whatever we want.
Also, it's no surprise that during these past few years you have a rise or continuous rise of -- in book bans. You take away the books, you take away
the information and the knowledge.
GOLODRYGA: Dinaw, let me bring you into this conversation because your story is such a fascinating one, and one that really made America, for so
many years, throughout its history, a unique country among others, and that is it was a home for refugees, for people escaping persecution to find a
new life here.
Your family came from Ethiopia, also escaping persecution. You came as a young child. I'm curious to get your reaction to what we're seeing right
now from the perspective of what your family experienced.
DINAW MENGESTU, ETHIOPIAN AMERICAN NOVELIST AND WRITER AND DIRECTOR, WRITTEN ARTS PROGRAM, BARD COLLEGE: Yes. Thank you so much for having us
and it's a pleasure to be here with you as well, Clarisse. You know, I remember when we first came to America, my father telling me that, you
know, he never imagined actually ever leaving Ethiopia. That was never part of their plans.
[13:30:00]
They always thought that they would grow old, raise their family in the country that they were born and raised in. But then, of course, there was a
revolution and the government fell. And it was -- you know, the country had remained stable for roughly 2,000 years. And my father used to tell me, you
know, you would never expect that could happen here in America. But believe me, it can. I saw it happen in my country and there's no reason why to
think a similar type of event couldn't occur somewhere else.
So, I mean, we came to America somewhat sort of reluctantly, but we also came and found that we had a country that was more than willing to, you
know, and able to welcome us. And that ability to welcome us and give us the space and the freedom to build homes, to build new lives couldn't have
been more transformative, not only for ourselves, but of course now for my children who are also here and that are American citizens.
So, watching this transformation happen where not only are immigrants seen as something that are hostile, but that are actively being persecuted by
the government where we're watching these freedoms and these rights that we imagined to be equally shared stripped from us, not only because immigrants
are the easiest target, but also because it's a precursor to what will certainly come for, you know, U.S. citizens next.
So, you know, I watch it kind of obviously alarmed and stunned that something my father said could happen here is beginning to happen.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, less than one generation later also, we should note. Christiane spoke with a number of writers specifically about this topic and
the current environment in their views on it. Let me play some excerpts. I want you to hear from Colum McCann and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Here's
what they said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLUM MCCANN, AUTHOR, "TWIST": We are all scared. Writers are scared. Students are scared. We're -- it's almost as if we have been concussed. We
got a punch to the back of the brain.
CHIMAMANDA NGOZI ADICHIE, AUTHOR, "DREAM COUNT": I think that what is happening is frightening. It's strange. I've gone back to read -- I'm
reading about 1930s Germany because I think that I want to learn from history to better understand this present time. Because I -- in some ways,
I'm just unprepared for this happening in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Clarisse, are these sort of outlier concerns that you're hearing some more extremist views and trepidation or do you think this is
actually representative of how the majority of writers who you've spoken to on this issue feel at this point?
SHARIYF: I would say that it's only part of a story. So, yes, we live in a climate of fear. But I would say that writers also are ready to push back.
And there are many ways that they have. I mean, there are many tools that they have at their disposal to actually push back and to be part of this
resistance movement against fear, this moment where we need solidarity, we need community.
So, I love that Chimamanda is actually saying that she's going back and read about the past, about historical events so that we can learn how we
are moving forward. So, I think we are not outliers, but it's part of a story. And I just want to say that the way writers are able to inspire us
is when we're able to bring them together. Like during the PEN World Voices Festival that we are about to start tomorrow, we'll have more than 80
writers, including Chimamanda, that you just heard from. She'll be participating in an event on opening night that I will be moderating.
And we'll be talking about this moment, the role of novelists, the role of writers in a moment of political crisis, and a moment of global crisis, and
how we wrestle with that tension between the role of a writer and advocacy. How do we reconcile maybe the tension and maybe there's no tension between
writing and activism?
I think that this is a moment where I've heard from many writers who are really interested in taking actions, speaking up, gathering in communities
and just inspiring people to just weather this moment and to not lose hope.
GOLODRYGA: And among those communities where action and speaking out and freedom of expression have long been championed, especially in this
country, are college campuses. Dinaw, you're a teacher, as we noted, at Bard College. I'm wondering how you are adjusting to this new reality. Are
you finding that some of those around you are consciously or subconsciously self-censoring?
[13:35:00]
I mean, what are the concerns that you yourself are feeling and you're hearing from colleagues and students?
MENGESTU: Yes. You know, I think it's very easy to portray college campuses as somehow this elite sort of privileged spaces outside or
divorced from the rest of the country. But of course, we're just microcosms of what's happening in every -- in communities all over America. And so,
certainly, there is anxiety. There is tension. There's a lot of concern about what can and can't be said.
But at the same time, you know, I think as Clarisse noted, there's also a resilience. There's also a sense that what matters most on a college
community are the very things that are under attack right now, right, which is not only our freedom of expression, but I think even more critically,
our freedom to think. College campuses are places that thrive and are dependent upon this exchange of ideas, upon the ability to actually engage
with language.
So, even as we understand feel the tension, as we feel, perhaps maybe now is not the time to say something, I think we also know that if we begin to
silence ourselves in these spaces, then there's very little to look forward to, right? These are the places in which ideas have to continue to survive
and which ideas can -- are -- must be shared, even though we know that will come with a risk perhaps.
And so, you know, our freedom of expression isn't -- should be free. But it doesn't mean it's going to be easy. And I think what we see on college
campuses right now are faculty and students and administrators sort of aligning and standing together and making sure that they can represent like
these values of expression, of complexity, of ideas that deserve to be considered and debated, even though they're -- you know, there's an
administration that's trying very hard to make sure that doesn't happen.
GOLODRYGA: Clarisse, we should note that PEN America has a hundred writers from dozens of countries gathering in the U.S. for the World Voices
Festival. What are you hearing from these writers that are traveling here? I mean, what are some of their concerns, even just from a logistical
standpoint about getting visas, about what they've said on social media, about whether they're on anyone's radar, what they've said in the past? I
mean, this is a really different era.
SHARIYF: It is a different era. I also want to note that for some writers, depending on their identity or whether we're already persecuted, they are
very used to having to care and be very careful about how they move across borders. This year, as you said, it's true, it feels a little bit more
dire.
So, we have worked really hard on with our team to prepare everyone who's traveling from outside the U.S. but also within our borders. So,
international writers who are at particularly risk because of different reasons, we've managed to equip them with information that they need --
needed. And we are fortunate enough that, actually, the writers that we really wanted to have here this year with us are able to travel to the U.S.
and we are so happy to be able to welcome them in New York City and in Los Angeles.
We have a couple of writers who will be joining us virtually because of these concerns. So, I'm not trying to gloss over the facts and the reality
that some writers have to be a little more careful about, you know, just je jeopardizing their ability to travel across borders.
GOLODRYGA: And you're trying to accommodate them, as you noted. Dinaw Mengestu and Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, thank you so much for joining us.
MENGESTU: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Really appreciate the conversation.
SHARIYF: Thank you. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up after the break, 50 years since the end of the Vietnam War, where have your relations with the U.S. stand now. Stay with
CNN for more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, this week marks 50 years since the fall of Saigon, which ended two decades of brutal war in Vietnam. It's also the 30th anniversary
of normalization between the U.S. and Vietnam. And now, trade talks between the two are ongoing after the Trump administration imposed one of its
highest reciprocal tariffs on Vietnam.
Daniel Kritenbrink was the U.S. ambassador there during Trump's first term. He joins Walter Isaacson to reflect on where this complex relationship
might be headed next.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Ambassador Dan Kritenbrink, welcome to the show.
DANIEL KRITENBRINK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO VIETNAM AND PARTNER, THE ASIA GROUP: Thank you, Walter. What an honor to be here.
ISAACSON: So, we're now at the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, and I think they've invited some U.S. officials and representatives to
be part of the honoring of that event in Vietnam. It's complicated. Should U.S. officials be there? And as a former ambassador, what would you have
done?
KRITENBRINK: Well, Walter, before I address that very important question squarely, I think it's important to take a step back as well and reflect on
just how extraordinary it is that the United States and Vietnam have built this amazing partnership 50 years after the end of the war. And I like to
start there.
And it really is extraordinary after the pain and suffering and the brutality of that war, that today the United States of America is more
popular in Vietnam than any other country in the world. And we become partners and friends cooperating in a broad range of issues. But achieving
that certainly wasn't easy.
And I think a key part of building this extraordinary achievement over the last 50 years has been the work that we've done on legacy of war work and
humanitarian issues. You know, accounting for missing on both sides, dealing with Agent Orange and disabilities, and cleaning up unexploded
ordinance. And of course, there's been a lot of work as well on addressing our sensitive history in respectful ways. So, that's the framework that I
bring to this current debate over whether the United States should participate in this April 30th commemoration.
I think it's also important to understand, Walter, as well. To my knowledge, a U.S. ambassador has never participated in these April 30
commemorations before, and I'm not aware that a U.S. ambassador has ever been invited before either. Because, again, the April 30 commemoration, of
course, is Vietnam's own celebration of its victory in the war and its victory over, not just the United States, but South Vietnam as well. And of
course, that hasn't been the focus for the United States for the last 50 years. We've always focused on the July 11 anniversary of the normalization
of relations.
So, I think when I look at this, I think it's important to understand even with the extraordinary progress we've made, these issues related to our
history remain exceptionally sensitive, even 50 years on, and especially when you're doing something for the first time.
So, I don't know exactly what the final decision may or may not be regarding America's participation in this event. I think it's a great sign
that we were invited. But I can also understand that these issues are sensitive, especially as I've outlined here, because it would be the first
time for us to ever attend Vietnam's own ceremonies.
We're celebrating many anniversaries this year. It's not just the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, it's the 30th anniversary of the
normalization of U.S.-Vietnam ties. It's the 80th anniversary of the cooperation between the United States and the Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh in
Northern Vietnam in 1945 during World War II.
I'm confident that we'll have a tremendous celebration of the 30th anniversary of our relationship at a minimum. I hope we can find a way
perhaps to respectfully and carefully participate in these April 30th commemorations. But if we don't this year, I don't think it will have a
tremendous impact on the relationship, and I'm confident we'll get there someday.
ISAACSON: During the presidency of George W. Bush I was asked to be co- chair of the U.S.-Vietnam dialogue on cleaning up the dioxin at the air base, as you've talked about. Susan Berresford of the Ford Foundation
helped fund it. Ambassador Noah Joan was my counterpart there.
[13:45:00]
And we felt that that was a way to reduce the tensions from the war. Has that -- is that going to continue, the cleanup of the Agent Orange and
dioxin?
KRITENBRINK: I was told that it will, and I certainly hope that that is the case. My understanding is that it will be the case. And again, I think
it's vitally important that that work continue. I used to ask, Walter, many Vietnamese friends and thinkers and strategists and officials, how is it
that we've achieved this extraordinary accomplishment of becoming friends and partners after this brutal war?
And I heard many, interesting answers to that question, including the fact that Vietnamese friends would say that they live in a rough neighborhood,
and after millennia of struggles, including against their big northern neighbor, they don't have the luxury of holding grudges and other factors.
But almost to a person, they would say that America's legacy of war work was vital to that as well.
And, you know, in this place, I think it's important to really recognize -- I'm very grateful for the work and the leadership that you and many other
American citizens have contributed in this space. Think about the amazing work that Senator Patrick Leahy and others did to lead this effort.
And it's important to note that I think it was very cleverly done that this assistance, for example, focused on remediation both at Da Nang and now the
Bien Hoa Air Bases outside of Ho Chi Minh City. But there's also work done to treat Vietnamese with disabilities irrespective of cause, but in the
provinces that had been most heavily sprayed by Agent Orange during the war. And I thought that was quite a reasonable and elegant way to find a
way to move forward.
And of course, Walter, if you focus on this, it's also -- it was really inspiring to me to see that, really on both sides, it was our warriors who
led us back to peace.
ISAACSON: The big issue right now in relations with Vietnam is tariffs and President Trump has put almost 50 percent tariff or announced it on
Vietnam, and Vietnam has a very large trade deficit with the United States. How would you see your way out of this issue?
KRITENBRINK: It's a fantastic question. And you're right, this is the question of the day that both sides are seized with as we speak. It is not
an overstatement to say that Hanoi was shocked by the level of tariffs that were placed on them on April 2nd, namely 46 percent.
But I think in classic Vietnamese fashion, they've responded in a productive, in a very practical way. I think our Vietnamese counterparts
are amongst the most strategic and practical and sometimes transactional people that I've ever met. I think after the initial shock and bewilderment
and even some anger that was felt in private in Hanoi, our Vietnamese friends quickly regrouped and came back to the table, I think in classic
Vietnamese fashion.
And now, Vietnam is one of the priority countries for the Trump administration with whom we're trying to negotiate a trade deal. I'm told
there'll be a -- there will be a Vietnamese trade delegation in Washington this week, and I think our Vietnamese friends are trying to think through,
in practical ways, how can they address the concerns of the U.S. side?
So, they're considering things like increasing commercial purchases, addressing market access challenges, thinking about investments in the
United States. And I think that that is the way to approach this in a practical way.
ISAACSON: But don't you think there'll always be a trade deficit in that inherent in our relationship with Vietnam?
KRITENBRINK: Without a doubt, Walter. A trade -- I think, first of all, most trade deficits, and it's certainly not one of that size, can be
somehow quickly reduced. And of course, there's debate among economists whether that should be the objective anyway. But what I think our
Vietnamese friends learned from the first Trump administration is that if they can demonstrate that they're doing what they can to reduce the deficit
by increasing purchases of American aircraft and LNG and grain and the like, if they're fixing their existing market access barriers, they also
suppress some of the trade. And if they invest in the United States, I think they can make progress.
And look, my bottom line, Walter, is I think if the Trump administration wants a trade deal with Vietnam, then a deal can be had. Because Vietnam is
ready to negotiate and cut that deal.
One final really important question here too is the U.S. side is obviously going to push very aggressively to reduce any trans-shipment of Chinese
goods via Vietnam. So, it'll be important for Vietnam to crack down on that as well, because if there's going to be a trade deal with Vietnam, it can't
serve as a backdoor for Chinese goods looking to evade U.S. tariff levies.
[13:50:00]
ISAACSON: Vietnam's largest trade partner is China. And one of the things that I'm wondering is whether these tariffs being threatened by the United
States will push Vietnam closer to China, or whether Vietnam doesn't really want that. It's friendly with the United States. And whether the U.S. can
make a deal to wean Vietnam from being in China's orbit. What do you think?
KRITENBRINK: Just the way that I see it, Walter. I see Vietnam as amongst the most skilled balancers on the international stage that I've ever
encountered. And again, it comes from this, I think, strong strategic sense and great focus on practicality.
I do think that Vietnam, over the millennia, has really struggled to maintain its identity and its independence. Certainly, if you look at
Vietnamese history, much of that struggle was against China and its northern neighbor. But the Vietnamese are also very practical. They know
that China's an important counterpart.
So, again, Vietnam is always striving for balance. China may be its largest trade partner, but the U.S. is by far its largest export market. Vietnam
upgraded its partnership with the United States in 2023 to a comprehensive strategic partnership. Its top tier that it has with China and Russia, but
it's also done so with other key partners like Japan and Australia and India as well.
So, I don't see the strategic game, so to speak, as being tried -- trying to peel Vietnam away from China. I see it as we believe that it's in
America's interest to have strong, successful, sovereign partners. And it's important that we provide Vietnam, I think, with the ability, which is in
both of our interests, for it to maintain its balance and its sovereignty and independence, and not be overly influenced or dominated by any country,
whether that's China or anyone else.
ISAACSON: China's leader, Xi Jinping, just visited Hanoi. What happened in those meetings?
KRITENBRINK: Walter, I thought it was quite natural for President Xi to go there. I think, again, as we've discussed here for Vietnam, I'm sure
Vietnam was motivated to host China because it's looking always to balance with China and all the other partners that we talked about. I think China
was motivated to travel, not just to Hanoi, but to other countries in Southeast Asia, because I'm sure China is trying to present itself as the
responsible actor in international affairs, as the defender of the rules- based international order. And I'm sure that the Chinese probably sent some opportunity to advance their strategic interests across the region as
there's some concern over U.S. tariffs.
But again, reflecting on Vietnamese history and Vietnamese strategic thinking, I think the Vietnamese are seeking balance not to tip too much to
one side or the other. But I'll also close here on the Xi Jinping visit, Walter, by noting that I think Xi Jinping came not just with carrots, but
with some sticks as well.
You may have seen he issued a public warning that no country should cut a deal with the United States that disadvantages China's interest, and I'm
sure that was part of the conversation as well.
ISAACSON: You were an ambassador to Vietnam during the first Trump administration. How has President Trump's -- how have -- has his priorities
changed now to the second administration?
KRITENBRINK: Well, Walter, when I was ambassador in Vietnam during almost the entire first Trump administration, I was there for his two visits to
Vietnam, in some ways the priorities were quite similar, I thought. We made very clear to our Vietnamese friends that trade issues were at the
forefront of our relationship. We worked very aggressively to increase Vietnamese purchases of U.S. goods, and perhaps more importantly to reduce
market access and non-tariff trade barriers that inhibited the ability of U.S. companies to compete fairly.
I think what's probably the biggest difference for me and I know for our Vietnamese friends is that I think this second Trump administration, we've
seen the administration being much more organized and systematic and aggressive in implementing a range of measures including tariffs. And I
think unlike the first Trump administration, there's been very much -- there's been very little dialogue in advance. There's been announcements of
these measures, and then the concern was on the part of the Vietnamese and others, would there be any dialogue and/or negotiations to try to deal with
U.S. concerns?
I think the good news for all of the shock caused by the April 2 announcements, I think the Vietnamese are now cautiously optimistic that
they have channels with Washington. Again, I mentioned there'll be a trade team from Vietnam here in Washington this week. I would expect that the
Vietnamese trade team and the U.S. trade team, led by USTR, and I'm sure others from treasury and commerce will be there. I think they'll get down
to brass tacks quite quickly.
[13:55:00]
But again, it's that organization probably that aggressiveness that's the biggest surprise to our Vietnamese friends and the biggest difference from
the first administration.
ISAACSON: Ambassador Dan Kritenbrink, thank you so much for joining us.
KRITENBRINK: Thank you. What an honor to be here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, for man's best friend to comrade on the battlefield. This Belgian Shepherd Mey is one of the dogs training to
detect mines near Ukraine's frontlines. Here on this grassy field near Sarajevo, they're taught to snip out explosives ahead of their crucial
mission. Russia's invasion has left almost a third of Ukraine hazardous because of mines. And some of Mey's canine colleagues are already there,
providing lifesaving assistance. As Mae's trainer says, one mine found, one family saved. And we are so grateful for those brave canines.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
