Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel; Interview with Catholic Theological Union Professor of Public Theology Steven Millies; Interview with Undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops Nathalie Becquart; Interview with The New York Times Reporter Ana Swanson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 07, 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.
Strike and counterstrike between India and Pakistan and fears mount in one of the world's most volatile neighborhoods. I get a report from Islamabad.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): There is no food, no water, and no aid reaching us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Netanyahu's new and much wider plan to displace the population of Gaza. I ask Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel
what is the goal.
Then, choosing the next pope. Sister Natalie Behar and theologian Steven Millies joined me as cardinals begin their secret conclave.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANA SWANSON, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: There's a bit of a whack-a-mole effect with global trade.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- business. Reporter Ana Swanson tells Hari Sreenivasan, a tidal wave of change is coming at American consumers.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
India and Pakistan's long simmering tensions burst out into the open today when India struck Punjab province and Pakistan's side of Kashmir, killing
nearly 30 people. Pakistan's prime minister called it an act of war and said his military is now authorized to undertake corresponding actions.
The military action comes on the heels of a militant attack in April that killed 26 people on the Indian side of Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan.
Pakistan denied it. The two countries have a long and complicated history. Partitioned nearly 80 years ago, the territory Kashmir still unsettled.
They both are U.S. allies and they are both nuclear powers.
Correspondent Nic Robertson has been following this story closely recently. He traveled to the Pakistani control side of Kashmir to find out how people
there are being affected by these rising tensions.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): Just after midnight, Pakistan's peace shattered, a wave of Indian missiles
lighting up the sky, rocking the nation, pushing two bitter nuclear arm neighbors to the brink of all-out war.
Local resident Wakas Achmed (ph) saying fear and terror spread in the people. India says its attack hit nine sites as Pakistan's military mounted
its defense.
LT. GENERAL AHMED SHARIF CHAUDHRY, PAKISTANI MILITARY SPOKEPERSON: So far, I can confirm you that five Indian aircraft, including three Rafale air,
one Su-30 and one MiG-29 have been shot down and one Heron Drone has also been shot down.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): According to India, the strikes were in response to last month's killing of 26 civilians in Kashmir by militants India says
are from Pakistan, which Islamabad denies.
VIKRAM MISRI, INDIAN FOREIGN SECRETARY: These actions were measured, non- escalatory, proportionate, and responsible. They focused on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and disabling terrorists likely to be sent across
to India.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): While India says it was preempting planned terror attacks, although provided no evidence of that claim. Among the more than
two dozen killed in Tuesday night's air raid were children. Mosques were damaged and angered Pakistan has already vowed to respond.
CHAUDHRY: Pakistan reserves the right and will respond to this aggression at a time, place, and means of our own choice.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Deadly artillery shelling continues across the de facto border in disputed Kashmir. India warned Pakistan not to take it
further.
COL. SOFIYA QURESHI, INDIAN ARMY: It must be said that the Indian Armed Forces are fully prepared to respond to Pakistani misadventures, if any,
that will escalate the situation.
[13:05:00]
ROBERTSON (voice-over): The country's leader, Narendra Modi, gathered his top officials on Wednesday in the wake of the strikes, which hit deeper
inside Pakistan than any Indian attack for 50 years, long before either nation acquired the nuclear bomb.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Nic Robertson reporting they're from Pakistan. Very worrying situation. A note though that we have not been able to independently verify
Pakistan's claim to have shot down five Indian aircraft.
Now, to Gaza, where 48 people were killed Tuesday, including at least seven children in Israeli airstrikes on school compounds sheltering thousands of
displaced Palestinians, this according to hospital officials. This also just as Israel has announced a new military operation in Gaza, which one
minister has described as a plan to, quote, "conquer" the territory.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that Gaza's population will be displaced to the south. He says it's to protect them. Distribution of aid
is planned for there with permanent occupation of parts of Gaza as a security buffer zone. The plan called Operation Gideon's Chariots would be
implemented after President Trump's visit to the region next week.
Palestinians in Gaza are already enduring a nine-week long blockade of all humanitarian aid. It is the longest siege ever on the enclave. Humanitarian
organizations are warning that mass starvation is imminent. Listen to this woman in Gaza City.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): There is no food, no water, and no aid reaching us. What I'm doing now is trying to separate rice from
bulgur and stones. As you can see, we're forced to eat stones because there is no flour, no food, no water, nothing reaches us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Israel accuses Hamas of stealing aid, which Hamas denies. It says it's executed Palestinians for alleged looting. Sharren Haskel is
Israel's deputy foreign minister, and she's joining us live from Jerusalem. Deputy Foreign Minister, welcome to the program.
SHARREN HASKEL, ISRAELI DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: Hello, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: There is a lot to basically uncover here or talk about, because we've got the orders from your government. We've got the humanitarian
crisis. Let's first start with the humanitarian crisis. Since the 2nd of March, Israel has prevented all humanitarian supplies from entering, not
one piece of bread, not a glass of water, not a single bit of medicine. As I said, it's the longest siege. 2 million Palestinians in Gaza, nearly half
of them children, are now surviving on a single meal every two or three days, that's according to the U.N. Why is Israel doing this? It goes
against all its agreements with U.S., with the International Community, everything.
HASKEL: Well, so the first thing I have to mention is that CogAT is monitoring closely and adequately on the situation in Gaza and is reporting
back. And, you know, the situation is in Gaza is very far from what the reports are actually saying. This is not the first time. You know, a year
ago it was the same reports, the same saying, talking about starvation and it proved to be a lie. This is the same situation right now.
The fact is that during 42 days of ceasefire, 25,000 trucks entered Gaza, and you know who profited from that, Hamas. They amount -- they took an
amount of millions of dollars and claim it through that aid. They sold that aid. They stole it as well. They profited it from it. And you know what
they did with the money that they profit from aid? They re-armed. They recruit new terrorists. This was the first time where Hamas was capable of
paying 100 percent of the salaries to its terrorists.
And so, I want to take you back to what Biden said. He said that if aid will enter Hamas' hand, if it will reach Hamas, the aid will be stopped.
And that's what we're doing now. And we are looking into a new operation that will provide aid, but it will not be given to a terrorist
organization.
AMANPOUR: Deputy Foreign Minister, are you denying that people have died of starvation in Gaza? Are you denying that there was a famine, that famine
is imminent now? Because this is categorized and reported by international doctors, international humanitarians. Are you denying that, seriously?
HASKEL: These are complete lies. And I'll tell you what, we heard it a year ago. You heard about the starvation and you saw that it was a lie. And
this is the situation --
AMANPOUR: No, but we didn't. That's why I'm asking you as well.
[13:10:00]
HASKEL: Absolutely. And I want to say that, look, I know that there's a lot of reporters who prefer their information and their data coming from a
terrorist organization like Hamas, who is using it as a tool to try and stop us from -- you know, from fighting this terrorist organization. But
the fact is that almost all of these reports are based on the lies of a terrorist organization. And when we as a democratic state with checks and
balances and judicial system, give the information and give data through experts, through their legal systems through CogAT, then you take it with a
grain of salt.
I think you should really take any information that come from Gaza through Hamas with not a grain of salt, but with a shovel of salt.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I understand that you are putting the Israeli government view. You know that this stands in total contrast, I mean total 360, 180-
degree contrast with what the rest of the International Community has seen, has proven with its own eyes and has urged you on pain of all sorts of
issues to allow food, medicine, and water into people.
I want to know for you -- to you, how do you answer, for instance, an American humanitarian organization, basically the American Near East
Refugee Aid says, Israel's blockade and the deliberate delays -- no, listen for a second. You've had your speech, the deliberate delays, denials, and
excessive security procedures that surround it is not just a failure of logistics, it's an engineered system of deprivation.
And you've got all sorts of allied governments telling you to let aid in. I simply don't understand what it gains you to allow women and children to
starve. I don't understand. Even in war.
HASKEL: So, a couple of things. Look, the first thing, it's a lie. OK? This is not Israel's goals and this is not what Israel is doing. It's far
from the truth. The truth is there is no shortage of water at all when we're monitoring out closely on the food supplies. I have to tell you with
a testimony also of Liri Alba who came back, who was in those warehouse, in those tunnels, in those shelters, bases of Hamas, she test -- her testimony
was that they are stockpiling aid. OK.
Now, let me tell you this. This is exactly what we're working on right now. We are working on a humanitarian plan that will distribute humanitarian aid
to the people, not to a terrorist organization. And I think that's really what you should want as well, because if Hamas is expanding its operation,
arming itself again, recruiting new terrorists through that aid that's being distributed, that's actually prolonging the war.
If we are able to distribute humanitarian aid to the people and disconnect Hamas from it, we'll be able to actually shorten our operation and our
fight against Hamas. So, I think any kind of logic, you should be, you know, supporting it.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's ask you about the logic. And this is really important now because your government has taken a very big and expansive
new step. First of all, on expanding the war, as some of your ministers have said to conquer all of Gaza, some of them have said, you know, to
eventually displace all the Palestinians. What do you expect to change after 18 months of trying to do the very same? You are the most powerful
military in the region, and you have an enclave with at best rudimentary, but yes, lethal weapons against you, what do you expect to change in a
further expansion of this war that you have not been able to achieve in 18 months? I mean, I just want to know militarily.
HASKEL: Look, Christiane, I want to put everything here on the table, OK. The fact is Israel never wanted this war tried.
AMANPOUR: I just want to know what you expect to change. I know what happened.
HASKEL: -- in order prevent it. This war was forced on us.
AMANPOUR: I know.
HASKEL: Our goal -- and we have two goals only. The first one is to bring back our family members who are being hold in the dungeons of torture of a
death cult. I think every nation would've do anything to bring them back home. And the other one is to bring back our safety and security to our
country and eliminate, disarm a terrorist organization.
AMANPOUR: OK.
HASKEL: I mean, they vouched to murder and obliterate our country, my children over and over again. And so, we have to be able to dismantle this
violent terrorist.
AMANPOUR: I understand. I fully understand. But I want to ask you this --
HASKEL: Hold on.
AMANPOUR: No, because it's really important.
[13:15:00]
HASKEL: I want to go into the --
AMANPOUR: Last week --
HASKEL: No, but --
AMANPOUR: -- Prime Minister Netanyahu said --
HASKEL: -- differently and I really want to answer that.
AMANPOUR: OK. I will let you. But you just said we need to get our hostages back. That is what the majority of Israel says.
HASKEL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You're absolutely correct. But your prime minister last week said victory over Hamas, not the return of the hostages was the supreme
objective of the war. One of your ministers, Smotrich, the hostages are not the most important thing. Please explain to me this --
HASKEL: This is not true. We have --
AMANPOUR: That's what they said.
HASKEL: -- two objectives of the war. One of them is to eliminate Hamas, and the other one is to bring back our hostages.
AMANPOUR: OK.
HASKEL: And the fact is --
AMANPOUR: Which is the most important.
HASKEL: -- Christiane, that only military pressure brought the last two deals. Hamas has refused to negotiate. The fact is -- and the
administration and the -- your government will tell you that, that time after time -- and including now, we agreed to Witkoff's proposal, not one,
two, and to a few others in order to try and extend the ceasefire, but Hamas refused. So, what other option do we have beside of going and
actually finishing this war by eliminating Hamas and bringing back our hostages ourself?
If you have any other proposition, I'm sure we'll be willing to hear, but this is our reality. And when we are putting military pressure, that is the
only reason why the last two ceasefires deals were signed and brought our people alive.
AMANPOUR: OK.
HASKEL: And so, when you when you understand the reality and we -- who we are facing, you know, the fact that we went into small operations, so we
had a presence, and every time there was a unit that went there or an operation there, we are going now, yes, with all of our forces in two
goals, eliminating Hamas and bringing back our hostages. And you know what? If within a few weeks -- because of this military pressure, we'll be able
to sign another ceasefire that will bring back our family members back home, our brothers and our cousins, and our grandparents, back to the
loving arms of their family, I think that you should be happy with that as well.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you something --
HASKEL: And it's not just Israelis that will be liberated from Hamas, but it's also the Palestinians because Hamas is actually holding hostage also
the entire Gazan population.
AMANPOUR: I want --
HASKEL: They are abusing them. And torturing them as well.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you a question because this is super important. As you know, there's been a huge amount of controversy over what you just
stated, that they violated the second ceasefire. You know that there's plenty of reports, including from within your own national security
establishment that, in fact, there were reports that Israel was not interested in implementing stage two of the ceasefire because that called
for the complete withdrawal of the IDF. The Witkoff plan that you mentioned was actually proposed by Israel itself. They would've liked to have had a
50-day extension, as you mentioned.
So, my question is you know that both times that there were hostage releases came during the negotiated phase, it was a negotiation. You gave
prisoners. They gave hostages.
HASKEL: Christiane --
AMANPOUR: It's the only time.
HASKEL: Christiane, our agreement with a ceasefire ended on the 1st of March. We continued for three more weeks in good faith. Prime Minister
Netanyahu came to Washington and discussed Donald Trump in order to try and discuss and promote another extension of the ceasefire and to promote stage
two. But unfortunately, Hamas was not dealing with good faith. Hamas refused the deals that could have extended that. And so, the responsibility
from not accepting that relies on Hamas.
And I want to mention you also, you're talking about a humanitarian ceasefire and that issue. My shirt is a Hadar Goldin. Hadar Goldin was
murdered and abducted into Gaza during a humanitarian ceasefire by Hamas. They don't care about the rules of law -- of the rules of war.
AMANPOUR: Sorry, when was that? When was that?
HASKEL: They don't care about humanitarian. That was 11 years ago when Hadar was actually murdered and abducted during a humanitarian ceasefire.
So, unfortunately, we're not dealing with, you know, a normal government or someone who's seeking a better future for their people. This is a terrorist
organization, a death call that cannot be trusted, that swore for the complete obliteration of my children, of my community.
So, you're talking to me --
AMANPOUR: Again --
HASKEL: -- as if they're a normal government that is not holding hostage. They are people as well where they're not butchering their own citizens,
their own people on the street, stealing their aid.
AMANPOUR: Again, Deputy --
HASKEL: I mean this war could have been over tomorrow.
AMANPOUR: Deputy Foreign Minister, again, I'm trying to figure out --
[13:20:00]
HASKEL: Christiane, I --
AMANPOUR: Yes?
HASKEL: I'll just say, please, one, one last thing and here I declare it in front of you. The war can end tomorrow. It can end tomorrow if they give
us back our hostages and they disarm themself, that's it.
AMANPOUR: So, given that you say that, I want to know how this war is going to end, because what we are seeing from your own government, which
says that after the Trump visit, they will start Gideon's Chariot and push all the Gazans into about a third or a quarter of the land, then create, I
believe this is happening because it's been seen by satellite imagery, a sort of a 20-acre humanitarian zone to feed the population or somehow do
it.
How does this end? Is it -- because the last time you all tried to do humanitarian deliveries, it turned into a fiasco? It was flour massacre.
How do you plan to do this?
HASKEL: So, I have to say, first of all a humanitarian plan by the Israeli government was never planned or tested in the field before. But it's really
strange, this question, because on the one hand you're telling me, bring aid in, and then on the other hand, when Israel is having a plan to bring
humanitarian aid in, you're telling me no, that's not good.
AMANPOUR: No, no. I'm not telling you, I'm asking you how.
HASKEL: Only to bring aid through a terrorist organization, Hamas.
AMANPOUR: It's not --
HASKEL: So, we are still working on the details. OK. And I know there's a briefing later on at the United Nations as well and we are working on all
the details as well. But the fact is that we are trying to find a way that real need for humanitarian aid will reach the people, the people in Gaza,
not the terrorist organization, but the people.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HASKEL: And that is our goal.
AMANPOUR: And as you know, CogAT was in touch not with Hamas -- CogAT was in touch not in touch with -- and doing negotiations with Hamas, it was
through the U.N. and humanitarians. They were delivering the aid. I get what you're trying to say.
HASKEL: Look --
AMANPOUR: I want to know whether Gaza will be permanently occupied, because that's another thing that is being floated.
HASKEL: Look --
AMANPOUR: Just tell me about that.
HASKEL: Look, you are talking to me about an extreme view. And there's two extreme views. OK. But that's not the position of our government at all.
AMANPOUR: OK.
HASKEL: We can talk about those two extremes. On the one hand, people are actually talking about rewarding the terrorist organization with a state.
And the other extreme is about bringing back some towns into Gaza. But most of the -- the general public and the State of Israel's approach is only to
eliminate the terrorist organization, Hamas, and to bring back our hostages.
We are trying during a very difficult urban war, which we did not want, and we did everything in an attempt to prevent that, including giving, before
we went, in three weeks, three weeks for Hamas after October 7th to disarm itself and bring back 251 hostages so that there won't be a war, and they
refuse.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let me just ask you one more question.
HASKEL: And that difficult urban war situation, we are working with our American friends to try and find a solution to the people of Gaza who have
suffered under the hands of Hamas for too long.
AMANPOUR: There is no doubt about that.
HASKEL: It's not just the Israeli's --
AMANPOUR: Yes. There's no doubt about that. So, let me ask you --
HASKEL: -- but it's the Palestinians as well.
AMANPOUR: Well, the Hamas, yes. So, you used to be in a part -- well, new hope. I'm just fascinated by this tweet because following the government's
attempts to reshape the judiciary, you tweeted last August, that's, you know, less than a year ago, you said, pyromaniacs who want to burn the
country, you have destroyed security. You have robbed the economy. If you were looking to bring a million people out into the streets during a war,
start now, we'll be there. A bunch of irresponsible barn burners who are not interested in the State of Israel.
One month later you joined that very government. So, it's a pretty big shift if I'm reading it right and I was -- it was translated right. And I
want to know what you would say to your prime minister. Would you say bringing back the hostages is more important as a first goal than so-called
defeating Hamas, which you have not done in 18 months?
HASKEL: Christiane, first of all, that sentence was not translated properly. That's one thing.
AMANPOUR: All right. All right. I'll give you that.
HASKEL: If you want to talk to me about a judicial reform here in Israel, we can go in.
AMANPOUR: No, no. I just love the tweet.
[13:25:00]
HASKEL: I think this debate about the judicial -- about our judicial system in Israel is a discussion that is being conducted not just in
Israel, but in the United States as well, in many European countries during these times as well, about checks and balances.
But the fact is Israel has a robust judicial system that is not afraid also to judge prime ministers and presidents. And that should be a testament of
democracy, OK, and transparency and checks and balances with our government as well. Is it perfect?
AMANPOUR: OK. Deputy Foreign Miniser --
HASKEL: Absolutely not. I criticize as well, but I -- and I criticized before when I was in the opposition prior to that, but the 7th of October
changed everything.
AMANPOUR: This was way after it.
HASKEL: Because it wasn't about how we want to shape the State of Israel, it was whether Israel will actually exist. And that shook us all Israelis
into a place where we understood we have to join forces together to defeat an enemy that is out to completely annihilate --
AMANPOUR: I'm still trying to figure out how you will do that using the same tactics after 18 months. But, Deputy Foreign Minister, I'm trying to
get answers out of you, and you've been very generous with your time. You have. And I have to move on now and I will have you back if you'll come
back. Thank you very much indeed. I appreciate it. Including to ask you --
HASKEL: I'm very happy to come back.
AMANPOUR: All right. Including to ask you, and I mean this sincerely, because our colleagues are involved in this, to allow us international
journalists to go in and verify what you've told me on this program today. You say, how can you believe other people? I want to believe my own eyes.
So, allow us in.
HASKEL: I'll be very --
AMANPOUR: And we'll do -- we'll continue.
HASKEL: So, I'll be very happy to provide you with information and accurate data through our authorities as well.
AMANPOUR: All right.
HASKEL: And even to give you my personal number in order to --
AMANPOUR: I appreciate that.
HASKEL: -- to be able to facilitate all of this information.
AMANPOUR: And then a personal route into Gaza. I would appreciate that. Thank you so much. Take care.
Today, the conclave begins at the Vatican. The secret and ancient process to choose a new pope. The first was held in 1276. Cardinals from around the
world have come to decide who will lead -- what's going on? Who will lead the world's 1.4 billion Catholics after the death of Pope Francis? It all
happens under Michelangelo's epic story of God, which is painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, that is kitted out now, the Sistine Chapel, with
voting booth. Wi-Fi and smartphones are strictly prohibited.
The decision will have enormous implications for the direction of the church. Catholics are also gathering outside the Vatican. Ben Wedeman spoke
to some of them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We wanted to be here. And so, our guide brought us here to see the goings on, if you will.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And in terms of who might be the next pope, what are the qualities that you would like to see
in that individual?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Someone that's very much like Francis was. Humble.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Integrity, honesty, care for everybody out in the world.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm hoping that this pope will be more like St. Pope John Paul II. And lead the church and unify the church and just be a lovely
shepherd for all of us. We need it. We need to unify.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: On his deathbed, Pope Francis left a major issue for his successor to take up and quickly, and that is the role of women in the
church. In 2021, Sister Nathalie Becquart was appointed by Francis as an undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops, the first woman to have the right
to vote in that body. She's joining us from Rome, alongside author and theologian Steven Millies who's here with me in the studio.
Let me turn to you first, Steven, you're right here. So, what do you think is going on right now? Do you think that we're going to have a white smoke,
we're going to have some smoke?
STEVEN MILLIES, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC THEOLOGY, CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL UNION: Well, certainly.
AMANPOUR: Is there any precedent for immediate white smoke?
MILLIES: I think immediate white smoke would be quite unprecedented. It would be a little surprising, but I also think it'll be a shorter conclave
than many people think it will be. I do. I think Pope Francis was quite shrewd to bring the cardinals and many bishops as well together for the
Senate twice, once in 2023, once in 2024. A third of the cardinals who are voting were present at those meetings. And it's difficult for me to imagine
that some of these conversations didn't get underway at a time like that.
AMANPOUR: And does anything in the sort of pre-conclave talks, I mean, all the gossip that's coming out of Rome and stuff change your mind at all? Do
you think there's any movement towards, you know, traditionalism versus maybe a little progressivism?
MILLIES: My own feeling is that the traditionalist voice, as we sometimes call it, is more noisy than numerous, that, in fact, there's probably among
these cardinals, most of whom were appointed by Pope Francis, quite a lot of commitment to continuing his program, his program of synodality and his
programming of embracing the world.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: Nathalie Becquart, you have this incredible position and I know you want to see, and you don't think Pope Francis went far enough in terms
of empowering women in positions of authority in the church. Describe for me first the singularity of your role, because you have that first vote --
first female voting role.
NATHALIE BECQUART, UNDERSECRETARY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS: Yes, good evening. It was Pope Francis made history and through me it was to give a
sign to all women and to guide the church to be more and more a church with men and women walking together. And the good news is that at the end, at
the Assembly of the Synods, there were 54 women with voting right.
But the most important is that through this process opened by Pope Francis, women have been listened to, they have been protagonist. And you know, Pope
Francis wanted already a church for all, for everyone.
When we see now, I am on St. Peter Square, everybody's there to wait for the smoke. You have such a diverse crowd with men and women, young and
older priest, bishops, lay people from all over the world. That's the church Pope Francis wanted. People of God. And I think we will continue
like this, because it's -- to be the church for the world, to build peace, to build unity, and to find ways to be in diversity, that's our situation,
but to be one human family.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, Steven, then. You know, obviously, I mean, Nathalie's a woman. I'm a woman. There are many women in the Catholic
church who are really interested in women having at least some parity. What do you think of the -- is the significance of what we're told was sort of
on his deathbed, him giving a sort of order, if you like, or a suggestion that one of the first things they pick up, the new pope, is the idea of
women deacons?
MILLIES: Well, I certainly would say first any new pope can do anything he like. But I do think what you're hearing there is Pope Francis' very firm
commitment to what my friend Sister Nathalie was talking about just a moment ago, making sure that this is a church for every baptized person who
is in it in a church that is also for the world. His commitment to that I think was total and it was constant.
AMANPOUR: Nathalie, I don't know what you are hearing. You are on the ground in Rome and every two seconds people are like, you know, dropping
little bits of gossip from cardinals and things. That's obviously ended now that they're in the Sistine Chapel.
But Pope Francis is also stepped out by being a real champion for our environment, for the real dispossessed, for the migrants, for many of the
poorest of the poor. Do you think that will stick? Do you think that is something that is really taken hold, not just amongst Catholic people, but
in the Catholic power structure?
BECQUART: I think so, because, you know, since Pope Francis' death, all the people who came and they continue to come every day to pay respect to
his tomb, you have such an incredible diversity of poor even at this funeral. You know, all -- almost all the political leaders were there. So,
because we all have a deep desire to have a way to be together on this earth, to care for our common home, to give a place a space for everybody.
And everybody here I have met, you know, from cardinals to people in the street, from all walk of life, they say we must continue this legacy that
Pope Francis has opened. And each pope, it's a path that is unfolded. And so, we hope that the church would continue to be close to this humanity,
because we are in a broken world with so many wounds, wars, conflicts, and the vision -- the vocation of the church is really to help to build this
unity of human family and to live together to find ways for peace, for each one to have a way and a voice.
So, it would continue because that's the deep vocation of the church, to be with the people, to serve the people, and to testimonies, love of God that
life is stronger than death.
AMANPOUR: Steven, there is an ongoing shadow obviously over the Catholic church, like over a lot of institutions, but most certainly the Catholic
church, and that is the sexual abuse and the, you know, lack of accountability and moving priests along.
Now, you know, this group at SNAP, the Survivors Network of the -- of those Abused by Priests, warns that any new pope is likely to have covered up sex
crimes. I see you nodding. SNAP is compiling a list of cardinals it accuses of helping offending priests evade justice.
So, a cardinal, be it a liberal, conservative, should they be disqualified by virtue of having covered up? I mean, how does -- how is this going to
work?
[13:35:00]
MILLIES: I don't think I can speak to the question of whether they can be disqualified. I can say certainly that a whole generation, maybe more than
one generation of Catholic bishops participated in the sorts of things you were talking about. And I would want to add very quickly too, at a time
when the disease was not understood as well. In most cases, they were actually following the best medical and psychological advice available.
But from our perspective today, it's an enormous problem. A number of people, an enormous number of people were hurt permanently by this. And so,
it would be an injury to any papacy. It is a thing to be worried about because it could injure any papacy, whether it would be disqualified --
disqualifying, I don't know, but it certainly would be an enormous problem for that to be the case and for the church and the world to become
preoccupied by it.
AMANPOUR: And we see the Catholic church growing in enormous places, which haven't usually had a representation as pope. I mean, whether it's Latin
America, Africa, Asia. When you think about who might be the next one, do you have any sort of favorites in that regard?
MILLIES: I do. I'm reluctant to sort of speak to who they might be. I think that it -- what is remarkable about this grouping of cardinal
electors, it is the most diverse group of cardinal electors that the church has ever seen. Also, I think the largest.
To a point Sister Nathalie was making before, coming from many different parts of the world that are much more vulnerable to climate change, that's
a consideration that's going to be in the room there as well. I think we have to bear in mind the cardinals always bring world events into the room
with them. We're watching violence between India and Pakistan today. We know what's been happening with the rising authoritarianism around the
world as well. All of those global events enter the conclave with the cardinals, they'll be thinking about those things.
AMANPOUR: Nathalie, very, very quickly, Sister Nathalie. The secrecy is an anachronism, isn't it? I mean, it's so 12 -- you know, 1200s. Do you think
the way this is conducted is for the ages?
BECQUART: Well, you know, the church is both divine mystery, being the same church from the beginning, but then history, many things evolve. So,
we can't say that it is forever. There are different way. But what is very important, and we have to understand what they are experiencing now in the
conclave, you know, it's to give a space of silence so that everyone can already choose and elect someone coming from his deep interiority, is being
aware, his consciousness without any pressure from outside.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
BECQUART: So, already in his earth. in his soul to choose someone.
AMANPOUR: OK.
BECQUART: But then the -- process of discernment.
AMANPOUR: Thank you so much, Nathalie Becquart. Sister Nathalie and Steven Millies, thank you very much for joining us. We will keep an eye on that
smoke stack and report it when it happens.
Next, higher prices, empty shelves, and orders delayed. This may soon become the reality for American consumers far from the golden age of
prosperity that Trump once promised. Now, he's warning that people may have to cut back after his tariffs brought most trade with China to a halt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm just saying they don't need to have 30 dolls. They can have three. They don't need to have 250 pencils, they can
have five.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, this week, the U.S. and China will finally hold talks, but New York Times reporter Ana Swanson, joins Hari Sreenivasan to explain that
much of the damage has already been done.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Ana Swanson, thanks so much for joining us.
You wrote a piece recently titled "A Tidal Wave of Change is Headed for the U.S. Economy," which takes a look at the drastic changes that consumers
might feel in their homes and other places. But you say that right now we actually haven't started to feel the full brunt of the impact of the U.S.
tariffs on China. Explain that.
ANA SWANSON, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Absolutely. So, tariffs have been in the news for a while, but these changes for the economy really take
quite a lot of time to unfold. And if you think about it, it's really because it takes so long for goods to be shipped from China to the United
States.
Typically, a lot of goods that you're buying are moving on container ships. When they leave the port in China, it can take 20 to 40 days to show up at
U.S. ports, and then it might take, you know, another one to 10 days to be sent by truck or train around the country. So, from the time the president
put in very extreme tariffs on China at the beginning of April, you're really looking, you know, kind of to a month timeline before you start to
feel the effects for many of these goods.
[13:40:00]
And so, it's really right about now that we're starting to see, you know, the level of goods coming in through container ships dropping, and that's
something that's just going to keep intensifying over the coming weeks and months with consumers really starting to feel the effect, I think, going
into the summer.
SREENIVASAN: So, I'm assuming that as soon as the tariffs happened, if there was a small business in the United States, it was importing things
from China and they couldn't either afford to or didn't want to pass on the 140 price percent increase to their consumers, they just stopped ordering,
right?
SWANSON: Yes. Yes, it is measurable. And we had some new trade data coming out this week as well, which showed that the share of imports from China
from March were at a historical low. So, definitely those tariffs had led to a pretty sharp drop in trade, especially as you're pointing out for
small businesses, which may not have a lot of cash on hand, you know, may not be able to pay that tariff price, which has more than doubled the cost
of bringing in goods from China.
I would add though, it is really important that a lot of businesses, particularly major retailers, did a lot of stocking up since the election
and earlier this year. So, a lot of big retailers do have, you know, a month or a couple months of inventory on hand. And that has also kind of
helped to soften the blow. But, you know, as time goes on and these tariffs on China remain really high, you are going to see that interruption in
trade and retailers can't cover that pause, you know, forever.
Eventually consumers will start to see that in the form of higher prices. Some empty shelves maybe longer wait times or when they're ordering
products or the inability to order certain products at all.
SREENIVASAN: Now, just to keep it in perspective for our audience, are we the biggest customer of China?
SWANSON: Yes, it's a really interesting question. So, the United States is certainly a major export market for China, but it's definitely not the only
one. So, China's reliance on the United States has fallen in recent years. It used to be, you know, more than a fifth of Chinese products that were
headed to the United States some years ago. Now, I believe it's more like 15 percent, maybe a little bit lower than that.
So, you know, most Chinese goods actually are not headed to the United States. It certainly is a major export market. A very important market for
a lot of Chinese companies. But China -- you know, the Chinese government has been sort of standing up to the Trump administration and trying to make
the point that, you know, just because of tariffs, we won't necessarily fold to your demands or come running to negotiate. And part of that is
because the country is more diversified now and has more export markets that it can sell into.
SREENIVASAN: OK. And let's look at the other side of that equation. If China is exporting a smaller percentage of what they make to us, are we
also importing from lots of other countries?
SWANSON: Yes, absolutely. So, you know, since the first Trump administration -- since President Trump put very high tariffs in on China
in his first term, U.S. imports from China have dropped as a share of overall U.S. imports. So, the United States imports now a bigger share of
its goods from other countries like Mexico, Vietnam, countries in Southeast Asia.
So, you really did see this effect when tariffs went in place that the United States started to buy more from other countries rather than China.
Now, in some cases, it was very interesting. That was actually just Chinese companies moving to other parts of the world, or Chinese companies sending
their parts to other companies and other places in the world. So, there's still a lot of Chinese raw materials and parts that are being imported to
the United States, but it did rearrange trade.
And it made the U.S. trade deficit with other countries like Mexico, like Vietnam, shoot up. And in this term, the Trump administration has kind of
focused their sites on those countries now too. So, there's a bit of a whack-a-mole effect with global trade where you push down, you know, on
part of the balloon with China, the trade deficit just pops up in other countries globally.
SREENIVASAN: You know, you have this fascinating graphic which just kind of looks at the impact of Chinese goods in an average American household.
Walk us through what you're trying to illustrate, because it seems that some household goods, it's almost completely China and only China that
where we're getting these items from.
[13:45:00]
SWANSON: Absolutely. Yes, it's really remarkable. So, my colleagues in graphics put together a visual representation of your house. And you can
walk through the house and see, you know, which products mostly come from China or mostly come from other places.
And the idea behind it is, yes, I mean, U.S. households buy a lot from China, a lot more than you might think, but in some product categories
China produces nearly all of the world's supply. So, for things like alarm clocks, toasters, baby strollers, grills, fireworks, it's more than 90
percent of global products that China is producing.
And so, the point is that, you know, if we are putting 145 percent tariffs on China, were stopping trade with China, right now, the world just doesn't
have many alternatives. For some other categories of goods, you know, you might be able to switch to buying them from Mexico or buying them from the
United States or buying them from elsewhere, but China is just such a dominant manufacturing powerhouse that it has really taken over global
supply of some of these goods. And there's just -- there's really nowhere else to buy your -- you know, your thermos or your alarm clock. And so, for
those types of goods, consumers are more likely to see price increases because of the tariffs.
SREENIVASAN: This past Friday, the de minimis exception for low value packages expired, meaning anything under $800 was exempted from a tariff.
So, kind of explain if you can, what this means for both Americans and for the Chinese.
SWANSON: So, the di minimis exception had allowed retailers to send things into the United States without paying tariffs as long as they were valued
at less than $800, and as long as they were sent sort of directly to the consumer or directly to the business.
So, basically, you had a lot of like individual packages that would come to people's doorsteps or even to businesses from China, and those weren't
being charged the tariffs in President Trump's first term. And when he put those tariffs on, we did see a dramatic increase in di minimis shipping. We
also saw an increase in di minimis shipping as e-commerce platforms got more popular. So, Shein, Temu, you know, these platforms that allow
Americans to buy goods directly.
So, a lot of U.S. manufacturers had complained that this was just very unfair because it was a way for Chinese goods to bypass U.S. tariffs, other
good -- other retailers, bringing things in via cargo ship would have to pay that tariff, but Shein and Temu weren't. So, it kind of upset the
playing field. And so, the Trump administration on Friday decided to put an end to that.
And so, that means that, you know, when you bring those goods into the United States, right now, you need to pay 145 percent tariff. It's a very
dramatic increase on the cost of a lot of, you know, cheap clothing or everyday items that you might be importing.
So, it is going to be an issue for those platforms. They're certainly going to have to reshuffle and we may see their business models change or shrink,
frankly, in the time to come.
SREENIVASAN: There already have been exemptions granted for certain categories of goods that we might be importing, right? Whether it's auto
manufacturing parts or other things. I wonder if we keep adding to that list of exceptions, are these significant enough loopholes where we're not
going to necessarily feel that?
SWANSON: Yes. So, the Trump administration started its tariff measures earlier this year by saying there would be no exemptions, no exclusions to
a lot of these measures. But as time has gone on, we have seen some major carve-outs for industry. The most notable one was last month, the president
decided to exempt electronics from China. So, your iPhone, your cell phone, your iPad are not subject to those, you know, crazy high China tariffs
currently. He said that they might be hit with another tariff investigation in the future, but those tariffs are likely to be a lot lower. So, that was
a very significant source of relief for the electronics industry, and something that seemed to happen after Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, put in a
few strategic calls to the administration and the White House.
There was also an exemption for some automakers, although that was kind of more minor carving out tariffs on some parts, but that also followed calls
by automakers to the White House. So, concern has been growing that, you know, it's really the well-connected companies that are going to be able to
get around these tariffs. And those exemptions, I mean, they really are worth billions and billions of dollars for companies.
So, if you're a company, the smartest thing you can do is deploy, you know, your chief executive or your lobbyist to Washington right now to try to get
around those tariffs. But it does -- you know, it does raise a question of why electronics from China, why not syringes? Why not baby strollers?
[13:50:00]
You know, what is the logic behind exempting some products and not others? And the administration has not been particularly clear about that.
SREENIVASAN: Are there -- you know, we've been talking about, you know what might seem like smaller objects, whether it's toys or alarm clocks or
toasters, but are there any kind of goods that are impacted in our national security pipeline that might be affected and that we should be thinking
about?
SWANSON: Well, yes, in the National Security Pipeline, I mean, we've heard a lot from makers of airplanes and munitions that they are affected by
tariffs on steel and aluminum and parts. So, you know, those that particularly raises the cost of building something like an airplane if you
have to pay 25 percent more for your imported materials.
I also think the effect on automobiles is really, you know, very pronounced and maybe, you know, not as much a national security effect as an effect
for consumers. But a car is the single most -- the single biggest purchase that most American households will make in any given year. And so, we do
have 25 percent tariffs on imported cars right now. We have 25 percent tariffs on most parts. A lot of automakers are depending on imported
foreign parts. And at some point, those price increases are also going to cascade through that supply chain.
You know, some automakers choosing to hold off on price increases, others choosing to go ahead. But that will definitely, at some point, be felt.
SREENIVASAN: With the economists that you speak with and the data that they look at, how will we judge whether or not either side really won this
trade war?
SWANSON: Yes, yes. I mean, it's a very tricky question because, you know, really the U.S. and Chinese economies, because of these decades of trade,
are fairly linked together, right? Our fortunes are kind of linked together. And so, severing those connections is going to be painful for
both sides. And I think from the administration, the question is kind of, you know, who will be hurt less? Who can withstand the pain more? And the
Trump administration has really argued that China is more vulnerable to the United States because we are a major market. It depends on the United
States for jobs. And you know, I think made this calculation that Chinese officials would come to negotiate with them more quickly than they have.
But you know, the United States is also vulnerable. I mean, we, unlike China, our democracy. So, when consumers see prices rise, when they start
to see shortages, they can speak up very vocally about that. They can express opinions in the midterms. You know, that's something that
Republicans are starting to get concerned about.
And so, I think both countries are sort of vulnerable in different ways, both economically and politically to some extent.
SREENIVASAN: One of the key principles that launched this trade war in the first place was the idea that this would bring jobs back to the United
States. How do we measure whether that's happening, how quickly that would happen, and what the impacts of these tariffs are in trying to accelerate
that?
SWANSON: Yes. So, I do think that tariffs do work in some instances, right? Tariffs are designed to raise the price of imports, and that makes
American consumers more likely to buy domestic goods, right? And there are very real concerns that Chinese manufacturers, because of support from the
government or because. Of other unfair trade practices, they're able to price their goods so cheaply that American manufacturers just can't compete
anymore.
And then, also with tariffs, you do have other issues. So, there are a lot of companies that need to import raw materials and parts. And so, tariffs
mean that they're paying a higher price for that. That can make U.S. manufacturing less competitive. So, it's not quite as simple of an equation
as you might think. And the Trump administration obviously has been emphasizing that there are companies that are making big investments in the
United States.
But if you look at the data, it looks like capital expenditure by companies has really fallen off very sharply because of uncertainty due to the
tariffs. So, you know, actually it seems like companies right now are not being encouraged to invest, they're really just holding off to see how this
tariff policy might pan out and what's going to be best for them in the future.
[13:55:00]
SREENIVASAN: So, considering that the tariffs now, not just impact China, but really every major country on the planet, and that there are --
essentially, there is still delay and they could be reimposed, what is likely to happen, I guess, in this 90-day window.
SWANSON: Yes. So, it's kind of confusing because there's so many tariff tranches out there, right? But the president announced really major global
tariffs on most countries at the beginning of April. And then for dozens of them, he then paused them for a period of 90 days to make trade deals.
And so, now, that sets up a deadline of early July where these countries are racing to try to make some deal with the United States, to forestall
those tariffs from coming back into effect. And there are, you know, countries that are coming to the U.S. and making offers, and U.S. trade
negotiators are quite busy right now. I think the problem is that it's a very short timeline to do something that's, you know, very ambitious.
So, typically a normal trade deal would take, you know, over a year to negotiate. And here the Trump administration is trying to do deals with the
entire world in the span of just a few months. So, that's already very difficult. But again, it just creates a lot of uncertainty about whether
tariffs will be going up or down in the next couple months.
SREENIVASAN: Ana Swanson, reporter with The New York Times, thanks so much for your time.
SWANSON: Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That's it for us. Thanks for watching. Goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
