Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Oleksandr Merezhko; Interview with U.S. Surgeon Recently in Gaza and Palestinian American Bridge Dr. Samer Attar; Interview with "My Name is Emilia del Valle" Author Isabel Allende; Interview with The Wall Street Journal Higher Education Reporter Douglas Belkin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 01, 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.
Will a Ukraine minerals deal mark a new phase in relations between Kyiv and Washington? I ask the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Ukraine's
parliament.
Then an American doctor just back from Gaza shares his eyewitness accounts of the accelerating humanitarian catastrophe and slow starvation under
siege.
And Isabel Allende's newest novel blends history and fiction in the story of love in the time of war.
Also, elite universities reckon with the Trump White House and free speech minefields on campus. Hari Sreenivasan speaks with the Wall Street Journal
education reporter.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Could today's critical minerals deal be a win-win for the U.S. and Ukraine? The U.S. treasury secretary and Ukraine's economy minister signed the deal
in Washington after controversial, long and contentious negotiations.
And now, today's reported departure of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz prompts new questions about White House Ukraine policy. Waltz had espoused
a hardline and more sanctions on Russia. Details of the minerals agreement called the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Fund have not yet been made
public. But a release from Kyiv says the agreement will benefit both nations. highlighting that, quote, "full ownership and control of the
resources" stay with Ukraine.
Speaking for the U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, he says, the deal positions our two countries to work collaboratively and invest together.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Today's agreement signals clearly to Russian leadership that the Trump administration is committed to a peace
process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long-term. It's time for this cruel and senseless war to end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that view from Washington is a hard turn from the bitter Oval Office meeting between presidents Trump and Zelenskyy in February, but
maybe not so much of a turn from the intense, more private conversation at the pope's funeral, which President Zelenskyy has just said led to the deal
being signed.
Next, it must be ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament, where Oleksandr Merezhko chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he's joining me from
Kyiv. Mr. Merezhko, welcome to the program. Good evening to you.
So, could I just ask you from your perspective, are you going to ratify this? Do you think it'll get through parliament?
OLEKSANDR MEREZHKO, CHAIR, UKRAINIAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Well, first of all, we need to consider this agreement in the Committee of
Foreign Affairs as well as other committees. For example, one of the committees which will be dealing with this agreement is a committee on
European integration, and it also needs to -- sort of to make sure that there is nothing like a hurdle on our path to join the European Union.
And after that, our committee will vote in a democratic way and we will recommend or not recommend our parliament to support this ratification.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you're being very democratic about this and we have not seen the full deal. But I just want to ask you then. Do you see this as
certainly a lot more in Ukraine's favor than the one that was originally, you know, proposed? Zelenskyy describes the previous one as the U.S. asking
him to, quote, "sell my country". Do you see this as an equal partnership?
MEREZHKO: Well, under the circumstances when we are fighting for our survival, I think it's quite fair deal. And compared with what we have in
the beginning, the first variant, the first version of the draft of this deal, which was totally unacceptable to us. But luckily, we have something
more balanced. More balanced also in favor of Ukraine, and I see it as a win-win, as a sort of compromise.
AMANPOUR: Again, as I said, introducing you, it says, apparently, according to what's leaked from your side or the Ukraine side, that your
country will return -- retain exclusive ownership of its national resources. And the deal gives the U.S. preferential but not exclusive
rights to mineral extraction.
[13:05:00]
I mean, where are these minerals and do you think they can even be accessed anytime soon?
MEREZHKO: Well, first of all, some of these minerals we know where they are. They can be found also on the map. We have special state agency
dealing with these. At the same time, we know that we still need to find other kinds of minerals, especially rare earth minerals.
But the point here is that they can be developed only when Russian aggression against Ukraine stops. Because in the state of war, it's
extremely difficult to develop mineral resources of Ukraine. And also, partly at least, these mineral resources, strategic natural resources,
they're located in the temporarily occupied territories.
So, what we can see that this mineral deal might serve as a sort of incentive for the United States to help us to de-occupy our territory and
to support us, to help us to survive.
AMANPOUR: So, you mean also to keep providing weapons and all the other assistance that the U.S. has been providing?
MEREZHKO: Yes, absolutely. Well, especially, for example, air defense systems. Because for us, we need to protect our civilian population in the
cities. We need American air defense systems like Patriot systems and American missiles. And we already have a good sign. President Trump has
agreed to sell to Ukraine weaponry for the amount of $50 million.
AMANPOUR: You said sell to Ukraine. What's also interesting is, obviously, previously they weren't sold to Ukraine, I don't think. But what appears to
have happened is that this deal no longer talks about repaying the United States to a massive sum that's not even accurate, that Trump keeps banding
around. But it's about -- you know, it's about future investments, right? It's not about repaying the United States.
MEREZHKO: Exactly. And for us, it's a big victory. Because, initially, President Trump was talking about turning the aid, which was provided
before by Biden administration to turn it into loans or debts for Ukraine. We managed to find another solution to turn these into investments. So,
these profits will go to support our economy and to develop our economy. For us, it's definitely upside.
AMANPOUR: So, of course, President Zelenskyy had initially said, well, why would I sign this? There's not even -- apart from the extortion nature of
the first version, there's not even a security guarantee and there still isn't a security guarantee, although, we see some sort of wobbles, it looks
like, well, maybe there'd be a, I'll think about a security guarantee once this deal is signed, as the latest we heard from Trump. What do you know
more about that?
MEREZHKO: What I see in terms of security guarantees, of course, for us, the best security guarantees is our membership in NATO. But under the
circumstances of the stance of President Trump, I hope that by making this deal with President Trump, with the United States, we can count on more of
his support. He will be more supportive. And for us, it's a sort of, I would even say, political or psychological security guarantee.
Additionally, the best kind of economic guarantee, best stimulus to help, to contribute, to support of Ukraine are economic interests of American
companies, which will be developing Ukrainian mineral and strategic resources.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Merezhko, you know, we know that the popularity of the United States in Ukraine has plummeted. I mean, just like rock bottom after
that horrendous situation in the Oval Office a couple of months ago. And now, President Zelenskyy says that what happened in the Vatican, a
completely different atmosphere, different kind of conversation with President Trump, is largely responsible for this deal being signed. What
more can you tell us about that?
MEREZHKO: I don't know much, but I know that the whole conversation between both the presidents was about 15 minutes, but it was a truly
historic moment because it was the first -- their direct dialogue, direct face-to-face meeting after the situation in the Oval Office. And I hope
that it'll pave the way for further meetings between both presidents because there is nothing like direct contacts.
[13:10:00]
I understand that President Trump, he views international relations in terms of interpersonal relations, and that's why it's so crucially
important to have direct dialogue between our presidents.
AMANPOUR: And lastly, you might have heard the reports that Mike Waltz, the national security advisor in the wake of the Signal gate catastrophe
scandal, is potentially going to be leaving his position. Now, he is more of a traditional Republican who apparently tried to persuade the Trump
administration to exert more pressure on Russia, including sanctions pending Russia agreeing to a ceasefire, which it hasn't yet.
What's your analysis or your reaction to the fact that he won't -- that he might not be there anymore?
MEREZHKO: I have personally tremendous respect for Michael Waltz and I believe that he made excellent national security adviser for the president,
because I know his previous statements before he joined a team of -- an entourage of President Trump, he has always been considered as a friend of
Ukraine, as a person who understands strategic importance of Ukraine for the United States.
And of course, I personally will regret if he leaves his position, his office. But I don't know, maybe who will be the next national security
adviser for the president, it's also important for Ukraine. But I remain hopeful.
AMANPOUR: Just one very short question. You can see some pressure and a change of tone emanating from Russia against -- sorry, from the U.S.
against Russia. Do you think it'll cause President Putin to think more clearly and more positively about a ceasefire now?
MEREZHKO: The only way to deal with Putin is to exert maximum pressure by imposing sanctions, for example, secondary sanctions, by providing Ukraine
with more military assistance. Because Putin is not a person with whom anyone can make a deal.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MEREZHKO: And unfortunately, even President Trump, despite his genius of deal making. The only way to deal with Putin is just to exert pressure.
That's all.
AMANPOUR: Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Ukrainian Parliament, thank you very much for joining us.
Now, Israel's siege on Gaza is nearing two months, driving the enclave towards another entirely man-made famine. The World Food Programme says its
supplies are depleted, and the World Health Organization says hospitals are beyond description. Israel insists their blockade on aid is to pressure
Hamas into releasing hostages, but international organizations say they are violating international law.
Dr. Samer Attar is an American surgeon who risked his life this past month to treat patients in Gaza, and he's joining the program now back in his
hospital in Chicago. Dr. Attar, welcome back to the program.
DR. SAMER ATTAR, U.S. SURGEON RECENTLY IN GAZA AND PALESTINIAN AMERICAN BRIDGE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: It has to be said, no rest for the weary, because you have come back from all of that, you know, heavy work in Gaza immediately into
working at the hospital. And I think you're joining us on your lunch break.
DR. ATTAR: Yes. But it's all good. I had a day of rest. I ate a lot. I slept a lot. Spent some time outside and I'm recalibrated. So, --
AMANPOUR: All right. This was not your first trip to Gaza, and we've spoken about, you know, what's -- what you've encountered before. Just tell
me, because it's been two months of a total siege and constant bombardment. And we hear so many reports, international correspondents can't get in.
What is it like for you trying to treat the civilians?
DR. ATTAR: Yes. This was my sixth time and it gets worse every time. And I mean, I don't know where to start. My first night they had bombing where 60
civilians were killed and they had about 200 wounded. And the emergency room is just overflowing with patients. There's patients on the floor.
There was an eight-year-old boy who was gasping with blood, foaming nose and the mouth. And then to next to him was a six-year-old girl. Her head
was open with her brains exposed, her intestines were falling out of her belly. And those are what they call hopeless cases. They're just put on the
floor. And all I could do is tell their family members, just hold their hands because they're not going to make it. They're going to die.
But when you have 50 more people who are being assessed in triaged, you have to prioritize and move on. And the local doctors that I worked with,
for them, this is how they've been living for the past 18 months. And they're really good at it. They really know how to save lives. But the
psychological torment of just seeing, like, I remember a 10-year-old girl, her leg was hanging on by just threads of spaghetti and she underwent an
amputation of her leg. So, it never gets easy.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: No, no. I'm sure it really doesn't. We have seen the pictures that you're sending and we're going to show another one now. Because I
wonder if you are noticing different kinds of injuries and, you know, people come to you trying to, I mean, practically with various different
bits of their blown-up family members.
We have a picture, which I'm going to actually ask you to explain. It's a man carrying the partial remains of his daughter in a bag. And we do have
the sound as he was describing it, and then we'll talk to you about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Yesterday, we were baking and children were around me beside the toilet. Two missiles fell on the
building beside. Today. I went to look and found her under the rubble, marred, and torn into pieces. Dogs torn her apart. I found the head, hand,
and foot. May God have mercy on her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Dr. Attar, I just -- I mean, how did you respond? He was -- you know, he came to you and it's just physically incredible to watch a father
hold a discarded aid bag full of his child.
DR. ATTAR: Yes, that was a tough night. The night before we had about 30 people killed and about a hundred wounded, and they said there were many
more still buried under the rubble and he worked for 24 hours straight and it happened more than once, and you can barely stand. But that was the
morning. And we were just hoping things were quiet, and things were quiet.
But he just showed up and he looked so numb. I thought he just needed help, needed some directions. But he said that he was at home and a bomb landed.
His daughter was in the bathroom and he went back to find her remains and he just found her head and bits and pieces of her arm and leg and put them
in a burlap bag and brought her to the hospital to be buried, and he was just looking for directions to the morgue.
And I was just horrified. I was aghast by what I was seeing, but for the locals, they -- their attitude was this is Gaza. This is what we see every
day. This is really not a big deal. And for me, the fact that that sort of -- those sorts of scenes are normalized. I don't think a horror movie could
fictionalize how these scenes are any more sick, twisted, and disturbing.
AMANPOUR: You know, of course, the Israelis continue to insist that they're just looking for Hamas. And we now hear from The Washington Post
reporting that they are saying that Israel is dramatically altering Gaza's map, declaring about 70 percent of the enclave either a military zone or
under evacuation orders, pushing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into what appears to be ever dwindling territory.
Have you -- were you able to see any of that and how did it impact, you know, the conditions people are under?
DR. ATTAR: Yes, you see people living in tents. You see people living in the rubble of their homes and they've moved six, seven, eight times. And
many of them are just living out of bags. They have very little. There's not a lot of food. There's not a lot of water. Every day is a scramble for
food and for water.
The hospitals are these little oases, almost like, I guess you could call palaces in the middle of an apocalyptic wasteland of dust and rubble
because they run on generators sometimes, but even they're running out of supplies.
AMANPOUR: And what about a day in the life of the hospital you were in, the Al-Ahli Hospital? It was struck in the middle of April. And various
reports say it was the last fully functioning hospital. Just tell me about, you know, what you had to do after that strike, and what is the amount of
aid and hospital care that still exists in Gaza?
DR. ATTAR: Well, Al-Ahli Hospital at the time was the main trauma hospital for Gaza City. So, that's where I was based. I was working with local
surgeons. So, that was the hospital that saved lives. If you got injured, you were about to brought to Al-Ahli, the emergency doctors there knew how
to triage. They knew how to perform lifesaving procedures and they knew how to get people to the operating room quickly, and they knew who wasn't going
to make it.
But the night I was there, I just -- I got woken up by one of the nurses screaming at me to go -- to run. And I didn't really know what was going
on. There was misinformation that the army was invading, that they were going to bomb the hospital. But when I came downstairs, there were about --
still about 40 to 50 patients. And these are -- a lot of them little kids. They have amputations, broken bones. They're with their family. So, about a
hundred people left in the building.
And so, me and just a handful of nurses, we decided we didn't really know what was happening, but we just decided we were going to stay with them
because if the hospital was going to get bombed, we decided we were going to die with our patients, taking care of them, not running away from them.
[13:20:00]
And then the hospital did get hit and portions of the ceiling collapsed on us. We thought -- we all thought we were going to get buried alive in the
building, but all we felt were the reverberations and shockwaves from the building that was hit next to us.
And when that happened, for about seven hours, we were sort of cut off, trying to figure out what was going on. And then, the morning came,
daylight came we saw staff trickling back into the hospital, and the hospital was out of service in the sense that we could no longer take care
of anybody injured. So, they were bringing in people injured off the streets, but because we had no emergency room, no emergency department
people that could have been saved were packed into ambulances and driven to another hospital about two to three miles away.
And as of now, Al-Ahli is still trying to pick up the pieces. All they're doing are -- they're just taking care of the patients that are currently
there. But the hospital has no capacity to take care of acute and injured.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And we've got actually pictures of you there, you know, doing -- you know, drilling a pin into a gentleman's arm. And then, there's
a picture of you placing a pediatric chest tube. You say, of course, that's not in the wheelhouse of an orthopedic surgeon, which you are, but in Gaza,
anything goes.
And so, I just wonder also, they say that no medicine is coming in, no food, no water. What is the actual conditions, as the international aid
agencies, the U.N.-based agencies are saying they're running out of everything?
DR. ATTAR: Well, yes. They're rationing. They're running out. So, that video of me putting in the pin, yes, I'm not wearing a surgical gown. They
are no surgical drapes. I'm just wearing gloves and I'm putting -- drilling a pin into a man's bone. And that's not ideal, but they're running out of
that stuff and they have to preserve it when they think they actually need it. And they -- their concern is that they're going to get to zero and they
won't have any more of it.
And the way we see it, we're just -- as a doctor, an American doctor, I'm just -- I'm not -- we're not the main characters, we're just supporting
actors and we're just there to help and assist the locals. But the locals are just saying they're -- that they don't have enough and they're running
-- they're pretty much running on fumes and using what little they have. But it's not ideal to do, for example, an orthopedic surgery with no gowns
and no surgical drapes. It's always not ideal when you have an orthopedic surgeon putting in a pediatric chest tube, but when you have 50 people and
you're trying to help as many as you can, people just chip in wherever they can.
AMANPOUR: I wonder what, after all these trips, you know, the emotional toll is for you and whether you come back and you bring these stories and
your pictures to your elected representatives, you know, your Congress people and your senators and, I don't know, what sort of an answer do you
get or even to Israeli authorities on your way out?
DR. ATTAR: I mean, all I can do is say what I'm seeing. So, it's a small, small world and none of us stand alone. And there are just -- there are a
lot of people and a lot of pain. And if all it means for me is to show up and be a doctor and bear witness to suffering and then tell people what I'm
seeing, if that lays one small brick towards the foundation of peace and healing, then to me that's where the -- but that's pretty much all I can
say is what I'm witnessing.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- and it's important, do you intend to go back?
DR. ATTAR: I hope so. I hope so. Like I said, if given the opportunity and the privilege to help and make a difference I think anyone would do it.
AMANPOUR: Well, maybe not anybody, but there are a lot of phenomenally dedicated doctors and humanitarians like yourself. And thank God for that.
Dr. Attar, thank you very much indeed for joining us from your hospital in Chicago, where I guess you're going back on shift again any minute now.
DR. ATTAR: Yes. I'm at Northwestern. And I'm going to get back to clinic.
AMANPOUR: All right.
DR. ATTAR: Thank you for making time.
AMANPOUR: Thank you for making time. And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, the beloved novelist, Isabel Allende, has a new book out, it's called, "My Name Is Emilia del Valle," and it tells the story of Civil
War in Chile in the 19th century from the perspective of a female war correspondent forced to write under a male pen name. Allende herself cut
her teeth as a journalist in Chile before fleeing after the 1973 coup. She brings the soul of a novelist and the clear eyes of a reporter to her
latest story. And, Isabel Allende, welcome back to our program.
ISABEL ALLENDE, AUTHOR, "MY NAME IS EMILIA DEL VALLE": Thank you so much for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, this one is making, you know, waves again. It's your 28th book. We have to say that you have written and sold -- well,
you've sold more than 80 million books around the world. This one follows, as I've said, Emilia del Valle and her journey from sort of, you know, pulp
fiction novelist to war correspondent. So, what inspired this latest work?
ALLENDE: The Civil War in Chile in 1991, that I was always interested in that event because it has echoes with what happened in Chile in 1973. In
both cases, there was a progressive visionary president who wanted to make really important changes in the country and faced brutal opposition from
the conservatives and the armed forces intervened.
In the first case, they split. The Navy, went with the opposition and the Army with the president, and we had a bloody, horrible civil war in which
more Chileans died in four months than in the four years of the war against Peru and Bolivia.
And then, in 1973, we also had a progressive president, Allende, in this case, that wanted to make changes, face the opposition, and then we had the
military coup. The armed forces, in this case, did not split. So, they were all united force against the government. And in both instances, the
president committed suicide.
AMANPOUR: It's really dramatic. And of course, Allende of 1973 was a relative of yours, a cousin of your father, I believe. And -- just to point
that out. Why did you make your main character -- I guess it might be an obvious question because you're a journalist, but why feature a war
correspondent in this novel? And also, she had to write as a man?
ALLENDE: Well, at the beginning she did. Because women didn't have a place in the press then at that time. There were very few women journalists.
Mostly they would write pieces of opinion, chronicle, and social events.
But she -- I wanted a neutral voice. Someone who would -- was not in either side of the conflict. And because the Americans were involved in the war,
because they had interest in the mines in the north, as it happened in 1973 as well, they -- I want -- I thought, well, it will be an American
journalist, a war correspondent. But I love to write about women. And so, I thought, why would they send a woman to cover the war? I said, OK, she
speaks Spanish. She has Chilean roots.
And so, one thing after the other it allowed me to build up this character that is unusual, but not the unique case at that time.
AMANPOUR: So, you've chosen an extract to read. It's from the opening of the book. So, if you wouldn't mind reading it.
ALLENDE: Yes. This is between -- this is when Emilia is a child. She's seven years old. While we are here, let's go see the head of Joaquin
Murrieta, my mother said. We paid the entrance fee and walked a long hallway to the rear of the locale. We entered a lugubrious room lit with
alter candles like some ghastly church.
On a table shrouded in black cloth sat two large glass jars. I was paralyzed by fright. The first jar held a human hand floating in a
yellowish liquid. Second, a man's decapitated head with the eyelids sewn shut, lips pulled back, and hair standing on end.
[13:30:00]
Joaquin Murrieta was a Chilean bandit, a reprobate, like your father. This is how bandits usually end up, my mother explained.
AMANPOUR: Isabel, there's so many layers there that I want to ask you about. Firstly, why open like that? It's pretty scary and grotesque.
ALLENDE: Well, because this sets the tone for the rest of the book. Emilia is the illegitimate daughter of a Chilean aristocrat that was passing by
San Francisco. So, she has a biological father that she has never met that lives in Chile. And when she goes to Chile to cover the war, part of her
mission for her family is to find this man and reconnect with him.
AMANPOUR: So, there's some layers of personal experience between you and your father. I'm going to get to that in a moment. But I just want to know,
because, you know, some of my team was saying, it's almost a dark twist, this opening, and how you describe this tour through these, you know, body
parts on the opening of "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabrielle Garcia Marquez. The Sun is taken by his father to see ice.
You know, did that occur to you? Is that a tribute to Gabo?
ALLENDE: No, not at all. Not at all. It's a link to another book that I wrote years ago called "Daughter of Fortune," in which the protagonist is
looking for her lover, who is called Joaquin, and she ends up staring at the head of Joaquin Murrieta in a jar.
AMANPOUR: OK.
ALLENDE: So, it's a connection to that.
AMANPOUR: OK. Now, we've put away that sort of inspiration or non- inspiration. So, let's talk a little bit more, obviously, about the novel. It's written in the first person. It's -- you know, it spans your current -
- you know, where you currently live in California all the way to Chile and it's got layers of parental relationship that quite mirror your own. How
personal was it for you?
ALLENDE: Many people who have read the book -- well, the few people who have read it, have known -- have pointed out that Emilia is my alter ego.
She's not. I wasn't thinking about that at all. But, you know, we authors, we draw from memory, from experience, from the things we care about. So, no
wonder that between the lines, the author is always there.
AMANPOUR: But I mean, you have a pretty dramatic relationship or non- relationship with your own father. In real-life, you know, Thomas, it was his name, he left your family when you were just a toddler. And honestly,
it is an extraordinary thing to ask you how you first came upon him. It was after he had died.
ALLENDE: Yes. He died in the street of a heart attack, and they called me to identify the body. But because he was called Allende and I had a TV
program and people sort of knew me then. And I couldn't identify this body because I had never seen a picture of my father. My mother destroyed all
the wedding photographs, everything that was related to him. But then, my stepfather came and he said, that's your father. Take a look at him.
And to tell you the truth, I didn't feel any particular emotion or connection, nothing, just the surprise of seeing a dead person for the
first time.
AMANPOUR: It's an amazing story there. But just to pick up, and we've talked about this before, you focus very, very much on women, women who
don't necessarily follow conventional laws. Women who are always ahead of their time. Tell me about how you chose to portray the women in this book
and how -- you know, do you feel you still have to keep doing that given women's place in the world today?
ALLENDE: Of course, but it's not an intentional wish to deliver a message. Not at all. When I write fiction, I just want to tell a story and engage my
reader in that story. There's no message, no preaching. But I write about what I like, what I care, what interests me, and those -- that's women's
lives.
I'm surrounded by strong women. I have a foundation that works mostly with women. Many of them are refugees, women that have lost everything, that
have gone through hell, and they're not victims. They get up on their feet and they take hold of their own destinies. And that is so fascinating to
me. That's what I tend to write about.
AMANPOUR: And just to bring it back to today, you live in the United States, California, not far from the Mexico border. You see what's
happening in terms of immigrants who you usually like to --
ALLENDE: Yes, my (INAUDIBLE).
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. So, how are you thinking?
ALLENDE: My foundation works there.
AMANPOUR: And so, what can you tell us.
[13:35:00]
ALLENDE: I'm horrified with what's going on. I'm horrified with what is going on, but this is nothing new. This has been happening for several
administrations already. And I wrote a book called, "The Wind Knows My Name," which is the case of a little blind girl that was separated from her
mother at the border during the first Trump administration when there was this policy of separating families. And I met her through my foundation.
And so, it was just natural to tell her story because I see these stories all the time and it's very hard. I mean, it's hard for people to understand
what it means to leave everything behind, including sometimes your family, and go to another place where you will not be welcome to try to find safety
in another life. And there are 117 million refugees in the world. 80 percent of them are women and children, and they're looking for safety,
just that.
Look at what you -- we just heard about Gaza. Any parent would like to get out of there and save their children at least. So, it's very hard to
understand for people who have not been displaced. And it's hard to have compassion.
AMANPOUR: Yes. It's, it is tragic what we're seeing all over the world. I want to take you back to your initial professional career where you were a
journalist. Is it true that you went to meet the great Chilean poet and Nobel Prize winner Pablo Neruda, who told you to change careers?
ALLENDE: Yes, it's true unfortunately. I didn't pay attention. I should have. That was in 1973, a couple of months before the military coup. And
then Neruda died 11 days after the coup. And I didn't remember his words until many years later when I finally wrote my first novel, "Living in
Exile in Venezuela."
AMANPOUR: And how did he tell you, what was the epiphany?
ALLENDE: He told me that I was a lousy journalist. That I would put myself in the middle of everything. I couldn't be objective. And if I didn't have
a story, I probably made it up. So, he said, switch to literature where all these defects are virtues.
AMANPOUR: So, that's a really good advice. But were you crushed? Were you wounded?
ALLENDE: At the time, of course. But then I forgot about it because life took over, you know, we had the coup and everything changed.
AMANPOUR: Isabel Allende, thank you so much for joining us.
ALLENDE: Thank you very much.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: We turn now to academia in the United States where elite colleges are standing up to pressure from the White House, some of them
anyway. It comes as President Trump suggests he may stop giving grants to Harvard University as they resist his administration's escalating demands.
But what are the implications of their pushback? In an exclusive for the Wall Street Journal, Douglas Belkin discusses exactly that. And he joins
Hari Sreenivasan to explain more.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Doug Belkin, thanks so much for joining us. You wrote a piece in The
Journal this week, it was titled "Elite Universities Form Private Collective to Resist Trump Administration." I guess the basics, who, what,
where, when, why? I mean, who are the universities? How many are there?
DOUGLAS BELKIN, HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: There's about 10 universities, most of them are private schools in blue
states that have been tapped by the Trump administration's task force to combat antisemitism or fear that they're going to be communicated with and
investigated shortly.
SREENIVASAN: So, what is their goal in this private network?
BELKIN: Their hope is to coordinate responses so that they don't kind of get picked off the way the law firms did. There's a couple of things that
they're very protective of, and their hope is to be able to maintain integrity along those specific points so that they don't negotiate them
away one at a time.
SREENIVASAN: Well, did they learn anything or is this a response to what happened at Columbia?
BELKIN: It is. I mean, Columbia, as far as a lot of the schools are concerned, is a blueprint for how not to handle the situation and that a
lot of schools feel like they have compromised themselves by negotiating with the task force. It should be noted they're under tremendous pressure
at Columbia internally and externally, and because they had such significant protests there. So, they're in kind of a different category in
some ways.
SREENIVASAN: So, why do you think there's such a different direction that Columbia took from what Harvard is doing now?
BELKIN: Well, a couple things. First of all, they were first. Second of all, you know, ground zero for the protests and the encampments for
Columbia. And the internal conflicts, internal politics with faculty -- between faculty and trustees is probably more intense there than anywhere.
So, they have a number of issues to deal with.
There's also a significant number of folks, faculty and trustees and administrators who believe that the school needs a course correction and
that the Trump administration is offering things or suggesting that they move in a direction that they wanted to go in anyway.
SREENIVASAN: When it comes to the type of control that the Trump administration wants to exercise and what might be happening at Columbia or
what might be agreed to, what is the thing that the universities that are in this new sort of consortium are really most afraid of?
BELKIN: They're concerned of giving away their independence, their academic independence. What they don't want if for the Trump administration
or anyone else to dictate who they hire, who they admit, what they research, how they teach. These are the red lines that they're sort of
congealing around.
SREENIVASAN: This week, Harvard released a report following their internal probe into how the university dealt with antisemitism. What did they find?
BELKIN: Well, it was a really expansive report. And sort of the headline finding is that they found there was a lot of both antisemitism and the
culture that produced it. So, they took the long view, they looked at the Jewish community at Harvard over time, they looked at the boycott, divest
and sanction movement over the past 20 years and how that's influenced the campus.
They looked at the curriculum of some schools, the Divinity School, the public health school, and some of the classes there they found to be sort
of offering the point of view of the Palestinians and not the Israelis, not the Zionists. And so, they found that there were some level of
indoctrination in some of the classes.
SREENIVASAN: Has there been a response from the Trump administration to Harvard's report?
BELKIN: They essentially are saying that Harvard needs to hold themselves to higher standards. They need to do better, they need to protect Jewish
students, and that they're going to be the recipient of billions of dollars in federal funds, they need to make sure that all students are treated with
respect and don't have to feel harassed on campus.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you look at these institutions, they have the advantage in that they have massive endowments, that they are -- they're
certainly going to lose significant sums of money if the Trump administration does what it says it's going to do and withdraw some of the
grant funding, et cetera. But they have the ability to absorb this shock way better than certainly public universities, smaller colleges, right?
BELKIN: I mean, they have $53 billion endowment. So, if anybody can endure what the Trump administration is threatening and moving on, it is Harvard
University. What Harvard would say is that their endowment is essentially spoken for, not all of it, but huge chunks of it. You know, when you give
money to the university, (INAUDIBLE) endowing a chair, of endowing a sports program, and that money is legally bound in that direction.
[13:45:00]
They do, however, have billions of dollars at their discretion that they use for the operating budget. So, they have more latitude than almost any
other university in the country.
SREENIVASAN: Now, what are some of the points of leverage the Trump administration still has left? I mean, I've heard that the tax exempt
status, for example, that universities and nonprofit colleges enjoy, that's one thing that they're looking at.
BELKIN: There are a number of things. They've asked for reports from something called 117s, when a university gets $250,000 or more from
overseas, they need to file paperwork. Essentially, the Trump administration said they didn't do that, they haven't done it correctly. As
a result, they're sort of out of step with the paperwork that the federal government demands when they get any kind of research grant. And so, that
puts those grants at risk.
They've also -- they also have the ability potentially to turn off a veil for international students from coming on campus and potentially faculty.
So, you know, there's upwards of 10,000 people at Harvard who come in from other countries. They provide a lot of money, but even more importantly,
they provide -- these are brilliant people who are coming in from around the world to study and to do research. So, it really cuts Harvard off the
knees if they were to shut that off.
SREENIVASAN: So, what are the ripple effects here? I mean, not that they have been able to do those things at Harvard yet, but really, even the
threat of the potential that those things can happen, does that have a chilling effect on researchers who are thinking about taking a job at
Harvard or another university that might be in the crosshairs?
BELKIN: Yes, this affects the university at every level. From what you just mentioned, research is taking it on the chin right now in a couple of
ways. You know, there are major grants that are, in some cases, global or certainly link schools around the country that have just been shut off or
are threatened to be closed.
So, careers are at stake in terms of the researchers and how they'll continue to move forward if that money doesn't happen. Some of them will
try eventually to move to different universities, potentially in different countries. One of the more longstanding potential impacts could be the
graduate students, these research fund, these grants funded research. And they -- and that money is used to hire PhDs, post-grads who do a lot of the
work in the laboratories. If they don't have the money to pay for them, then they can't enter into the research, potentially squelching their
careers in the United States before they really get started.
SREENIVASAN: You kind of point out in this article too that this issue of the White House versus Harvard, it might be coming to a head now, but it's
a long time in the making. Explain.
BELKIN: Yes. The reason this is such an interesting issue and such a politically powerful issue for Trump is because the university's lost
public support over the past 15 years. Faith in higher education plummeted by something like 25 points, according to Gallup, between like 2015 and
2023.
A lot of things -- when -- because these universities have lost the public, there's anger toward them. There's frustration. Folks feel like, you know,
there's a contract that universities -- an implicit contract the universities have with the public in exchange for significant funding and
freedom, they need to graduate students who are both prepared for the labor market and prepared to be good citizens.
And there's -- a large swath of this country believes that they failed on both those counts, and they're angry about it and they want to see them
punished.
SREENIVASAN: Is there a next move here between where this group of universities want to get to, whether they think that they have any kind of
negotiating power or leverage or ability to talk to the administration?
BELKIN: So, this -- first of all, there's a court case happening right now. Harvard sued the Trump administration, and that's being heard in
federal court in Boston. That's going to play out over time. The negotiations are happening between universities. These universities are
major employers. So, Congress people, senators, governors, business leaders are all invested in some kind of settlement, some kind of way forward.
The entire economy of Massachusetts, to some extent, is contingent on the success of Harvard. You can multiply that by pretty much every major
research institution in the country and every city -- in every state rather. So, the stakes are enormous. The stakes for the American economy
are tremendous. The research that comes out of these universities is the foundation for a lot of the businesses that power our economy and keep the
country, you know, the hegemon that we are. So, there's a lot playing.
[13:50:00]
SREENIVASAN: Is there a sense at these universities that this is a blip, this is something they can weather, they can negotiate through, or that
this is a watershed moment, that there's going to be a before and an after where they will have to structurally and tactically think differently?
BELKIN: I don't know anybody who doesn't think that this is not a watershed moment. There has been some pushback from the federal government
with regards to issues around Title IX, but it just didn't go to this extreme. The relationship between universities, research universities and
the government has been so tight for so many generations that the shot that Trump is calling now is from a playbook that had not been written before.
SREENIVASAN: Are the presidents and the boards concerned about brand damage and how future classes of applicants or students, or professors or
research assistants are going to measure them in what seems like a politically unwinnable situation?
BELKIN: Trump isn't -- there's a reason that this task force exists with regard to antisemitism on campus. And the report yesterday found
significant antisemitism. They found Islamophobia. They released two reports. Behind that was a decline in standards of curriculum and teaching,
which is very damaging to Harvard's brand.
This is the greatest institution of the western civilization. If you ask folks at Harvard yard. And so, if they're compromised on the integrity of
their teaching, then their brand is absolutely tarnished as a result. So, it's half the equation.
SREENIVASAN: What's the other half?
BELKIN: If the universities are seen by folks on the left as compromising too easily or quickly, then they will consider universities to be sellouts,
they'll say, you know, you have this tremendous wealth and privilege and power, and if you're not willing to leverage it, to stick your necks out
collectively against what a lot of folks would consider to be a sort of creeping fascism, then it'll look like cowards and that will damage the
brand from the other direction.
SREENIVASAN: Doug Belkin, reporter from The Wall Street Journal, thanks so much.
BELKIN: Thanks very much for inviting me on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And of course, it is such a fascinating discussion and a really critical issue because it's said, and certainly here in Europe one can see,
that as soon as the universities start getting pressured, in fact all over the world, that does herald a move towards authoritarianism. So, of course,
this is very, very critical, this debate on academic freedom in the United States.
Now, in Ukraine, they are taught to save lives and work in the world's most dangerous conflict zones, but not until they've been through some pretty
rigorous training. Isabel Rosales takes a look inside the canine training center in Bosnia that's preparing some remarkable dogs for the Ukrainian
frontlines. Here's the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sit, sit, stay, search.
ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At this Bosnian facility, a dog's training can meet the difference between life and death. Tail
wagging as she springs for a red ball. Mae isn't just learning to fetch. She's learning to sniff out landmines.
KENAN MUFTIC, HEAD OF GLOBAL TRAINING CENTER, NORWEGIAN PEOPLE'S AID (through translator): Since the establishment of the center, more than 500
demining dogs and hundreds of dogs for other purposes have been trained.
ROSALES (voice-over): Norwegian People's Aid runs this Sarajevo training center, sending dogs to conflict zones around the world, countries like
Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Iraq, and now, Ukraine. Landmines and unexploded ordinance litter Ukrainian land. After more than three years of war, the
country is the most mined in the world, the U.N. says. It's a deadly mess, also a blow to exports and tax revenue as undetonated explosives in
agricultural fields keep farmers away.
26 specially trained dogs have been sent to some of the most embattled regions of Ukraine so far. And more will soon join them. Agents like Mae,
whose keen canine senses are vital to the safety of civilians and soldiers alike.
MUFTIC (through translator): We have this expression, this parallel, which says, one mine found, one family saved.
ROSALES (voice-over): And it all starts here, paws scurrying, tails wagging, heroes in the making.
Isabel Rosales, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And indeed, those dogs would've been incredibly useful during that terrible Bosnia War that took up so much of the 1990s.
[13:55:00]
And finally, a day to celebrate the best and the brightest on Broadway. The nominations for this year's Tony Awards have been announced. Among those
leading the charge are "Death Becomes Her," "Maybe Happy Ending" and "Buena Vista Social Club" and nods for plays whose cast and crew have been on our
show, "Eureka Day," "Our Town," "English," and "Operation Mince Meet." Congratulations to all of them.
Plus, on top of that, recognition for "Good Night, and Good Luck," which is based on the 2005 film of the same name. The timely play is about truth in
a time of creeping authoritarianism. George Clooney plays our patron saint to broadcast journalism, Edward R. Murrow, who stared down McCarthyism.
He's won a nomination for his performance as Murrow.
That is it for now. Thank you for watching. Goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
