Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Palestinian Attorney And Veteran Peace Negotiator Hiba Husseini; Interview With Former Israeli Minister Of Justice Yossi Beilin; Interview With Professor And Writer Imani Perry; Interview With University Of Minnesota Center For Infectious Research And Policy Director Dr. Michael Osterholm. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 04, 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.
Israel intensifies its attacks on Gaza City and floats annexing the occupied West Bank. I speak to two negotiators still fighting for that
decades old dream of peace, but in a different and new form.
Then, museums, history, culture, all under attack in today's America. I asked renowned Professor Imani Perry about protecting the arts and
knowledge.
Plus, "The Big One," preparing for the next pandemic. Hari Sreenivasan speaks to Dr. Michael Osterholm as RFK Jr. Upends America's vaccine policy.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
In Gaza, dozens more people have been killed by Israeli forces. The IDF is preparing to enter Gaza City, home to hundreds of thousands of displaced
Palestinian families who are now suffering from famine. The U.N. says the humanitarian consequences are horrific.
The hostages are still in captivity. With ceasefire talks, deadlocked and the Israeli government threatening to annex the West Bank, the future is
increasingly uncertain for Palestinians already facing a dire present. As pressure mounts on international leaders to step in, France's President
Macron and Saudi Arabia's crown prince will hold a conference on the two- state solution at the U.N. General Assembly later this month. Just today, Pope Leo met with Israel's president and insisted to him that a two-state
solution is the only way out of this war.
And even in the middle of this war, there are those who've never given up on the possibility of two states. Two of them are here with me now. Yossi
Beilin served as justice minister in Israel and a key peace negotiator while Hiba Husseini is also a longtime Palestinian peace negotiator, and
they've been working together to create a plan for two states with a twist.
So, welcome to our program.
YOSSI BEILIN, FORMER ISRAELI MINISTER OF JUSTICE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Let ask you both. Since you are right in my line of sight, Hiba Husseini, what is the two-state solution with a twist? What is the plan for
the holy land as you have both outlined?
HIBA HUSSEINI, PALESTINIAN ATTORNEY AND VETERAN PEACE NEGOTIATOR: Indeed. Thank you. The holy land with a twist is a proposal, an umbrella, an idea
out of the box, very innovative, to enable the two-state solution through a confederate arrangement whereby two sovereign states enter into the
confederation together. State recognition of the State of Palestine as a sovereign state. Israel and Palestine then enter into this confederate
arrangement, because the confederation provides this vehicle for the two to realize their strategic interests, maintain their presence on the land
share their future together.
AMANPOUR: So, Yosi Beilin, you've been, you know, around the table where it happens. Why is this -- or is this more easy to get past the consensus and
public opinion than the official two-state solution as viewed by Oslo? What makes this, in your mind, more of a goer than the previous ones which have
failed?
BEILIN: Well, it is much more for the decision makers. For them, the current situation in which if you make peace, you have to evacuate about
half a million Israelis from the West Bank is politically very, very difficult. Although, theoretically, this is the right thing to do.
AMANPOUR: You're still sticking by that?
BEILIN: Of course. I mean, it was a mistake to build in the settlements from the day one in '67, '68, and it was -- it is a mistake today, but this
is a reality. The settlers are saying, forget about the two-state solution. It is over. Because we are all over. And even supporters --
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: And that's true.
BEILIN: -- not that we have to forget it, but that they're all over. And we are saying, even if you are all over, we are suggesting that in -- under
the confederation, the Israelis who will find themselves in the Palestinian future state, and it is about 200,000 Israelis, will have the right to
choose between going back to the Sovereign Israel and remaining wherever they are, nobody will touch them in a situation in which they are permanent
residents of Palestine and remain Israeli citizens, and the same number of Palestinian citizens who would like to live in Israel will be allowed to do
that in the context of the arrangement of the of the Israelis who will live in the West Bank.
AMANPOUR: So, you're saying potentially a number -- let's say 200,000, which is the number you floated of Israelis, stay in the settlements, but
they abide by Palestinian rules. Although they are Israeli citizens. I mean, stick with me. But the Palestinians, either from the occupied West
Bank or Gaza, a similar number could come to Israel?
BEILIN: Right.
AMANPOUR: Who's going to accept that?
BEILIN: Well, I believe that this is the main obstacle to peace, not for Netanyahu and the extremists in his government, Ben-Gvir and the others.
But for people who want to have peace, the Gantz of this world, the Lapid of this world, the Golan of this world, they would like to make this, and
they understand that the division of -- the petition of the land is the only solution since ever. But the issue of the evacuation is the biggest,
biggest obstacle in order to make peace.
So, when people are speaking now, leaders, and I'm very glad to see that -- again, that the only solution is the two-state and even some of them are
recognizing the Palestinian State, they don't tell us how are they going to do that. And we are suggesting something. And this is not the only twist in
our story.
AMANPOUR: I'll get back to the next twist. But first, I want to ask you Hiba Husseini, because I think there's not really an Israeli consensus,
much less a Palestinian consensus. The war has radicalized all sides to a point where, you know, the idea of a peaceful coexistence seems to be far
away on the horizon.
Do you think, that a Palestinian State would -- or the precursor would accept all the settlers to stay. Do you think they can be trusted to abide
by Palestinian laws?
HUSSEINI: Well, I mean these are -- this is very challenging indeed. I mean, I think the crux here is that for this -- the -- this occupation to
end for us to realize our independence and statehood and right to self- determination, if it means that we have to accept a certain number of permanent residents, they will no longer be settlers, they will become
permanent residents, law abiding permanent residents.
And this is very challenging indeed. And if they don't accept, they have the option to stay in the State of Israel through the swap arrangements.
AMANPOUR: Swaps of land or swaps of people?
HUSSEINI: Of land. Of land. Of land.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HUSSEINI: No, we don't propose to swap people.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, you know, right now your prime minister and your prime minister and the extremists in his government are basically floating plans
to annex the occupied West Bank, which essentially is what you're talking about right now. Almost as an answer, as a response to the various western
and of course Arab nations, which are saying that in (INAUDIBLE) later this month, they're going to recognize a Palestinian State. It's almost like
they're going to, you know, annex, maybe gradually -- at least this is what's being reported as a way to, you know, gradually pull back in return
for -- you know, it's this endless game of give and take, so to speak.
BEILIN: But it is not new. And I mean, the annexation of the West Bank is in Gaza is a direct punishment to Israel. I mean, this is what we need now,
to have millions of Palestinians under our occupation that we will be in charge of everything. I mean, what happened in Oslo is that at least for
five years, which became more than 30, it was the Palestinians with the help of the world took the care for themselves.
The success is partial, but Israel was out. Now to get back, it is really crazy and I don't believe that it will happen because of that.
AMANPOUR: Do you believe that it could happen? I mean, do you believe these threats are real? Because we've been seeing, ever since October 7th, an
increase in settler violence, aided and abetted in many instances by the Israeli police, the IDF under the, you know, authority of the extreme
ministers of Ben-Gvir anyway. It's happening.
[13:10:00]
I mean, there's gradual destruction in and increasing incursion into the West Bank. The increasing expelling or fleeing of Palestinians from the
West Bank, it's happening right now. Do you see it as a critical moment that -- because Netanyahu said, we're going to bury any idea of a
Palestinian State?
HUSSEINI: Indeed. I mean, that's the government of Israel's position. Of course. That is very extreme. I mean, remember we have 3 million
Palestinians in the West Bank. So -- and indeed, we have around 50,000 Palestinians who have been expelled from the refugee camps in Jenin and
Tulkarem, and they have been moved to the heart of the West Bank.
AMANPOUR: And that's just in the last few months?
HUSSEINI: Just the last few months, of course. And not to mention what's happening, as you correctly have pointed out, the Jordan Valley and the
Bedouin community and the attack and onslaught on the natural resources, you know, so forth, and the shepherds and the olive trees and all of that.
But I think annexation for Israel is -- means annexation without people. And for --
AMANPOUR: What do you mean?
HUSSEINI: I mean that if they want to annex the West Bank, they would like to expel the Palestinians from those -- to Georgia. So, that is farfetched.
That is very unlikely to happen. Again, these are bargaining chips, bargaining positions. Land may be swapped here and there. So, the future
will not stand to see that there will be full total annexation of the West Bank.
AMANPOUR: You say bargaining chips and all the rest of it, and these are -- you know, it's the current sort of, everybody's talking about something and
never quite sure what's going to happen. But according to the Israeli journalist, Barak Ravid of Axios, a senior Emirati official has told him
that the choice before Israel right now is annexation or integration, i.e., you saw last night that in a rare public statement, the UAE basically
warned Israel of crossing a red line, that there'd be no -- it would risk the Abraham Accords if it was actually to annex.
BEILIN: Of course. The whole deal was that Israel will give up on annexation and that there will be good relations, normal relations between
Israel and some Arab states. If Israel now says, forget about the issue of annexation, meaning, we will annex now, it means the day will be free to
forget about normalization. This is --
AMANPOUR: The Arab countries, you're talking about?
BEILIN: The Arab countries.
AMANPOUR: And most especially Saudi Arabia.
BEILIN: This will be more than crazy if Israel goes for --
AMANPOUR: Yes. But there are -- if you wouldn't mind me saying --
BEILIN: We have some lunatics in our government.
AMANPOUR: You have some what?
BEILIN: Some lunatics in our government. Them, a minority, thinks heaven.
AMANPOUR: But they're powerful. In other words, their settlers are running the government.
BEILIN: They're not running the government but, of course, they're having power much more than their formal power in the Knesset. And since Netanyahu
did a huge mistake, if I can call it my mistake, to invite them to his cabinet after promising on TV that he will never put people like Ben-Gvir
in the cabinet.
AMANPOUR: I know, but it's done. And look what they're doing.
BEILIN: Yes. But it will not get to the crazy situation in which we are going to annex the West Bank, give up on any normalization.
AMANPOUR: But could it bury a two-state solution?
BEILIN: This cannot prevent a two-state solution. A two-state solution eventually will be a reality because if we don't have a two-state solution,
we will not have Israel State, Jewish, and democratic state, and the Palestinians will not have the right -- the way to fulfill the right self-
determination. Both of us cannot give up on a two-state solution.
AMANPOUR: Yosi Beilin, your partner in this, calls members of the government lunatics, and they have been described as such by other people
as well. Do you believe you have your own lunatics in the Palestinian political consensus, most certainly in Hamas, in Gaza, and those who
apparently can't seem to push the political ball along in the recognized Palestinian Authority?
HUSSEINI: Well, lunacy is one tough word. I mean --
AMANPOUR: Right. Obstructionists.
HUSSEINI: Obstructionists is probably the more accurate term in this respect. I mean, they come at -- Hamas comes at it from a whole different
perspective. You know, ideologically driven, disagreeing with the PLO on the entire Oslo process way back then in 1993 -- '92, '93.
So, from their perspective the two-state solution undermines Palestinian national interest. The whole -- the right to self-determination. So, I
mean, yes, we do have internal divisions in Palestine, and we have obstructionists and we have people who get in the way of fulfilling peace.
But I think the dynamics are changing now. Things are changing.
[13:15:00]
The Gaza war is so horrific and the powers of armed struggle are shifting and changing.
AMANPOUR: Look, Netanyahu keeps saying that the idea is to destroy Hamas. The Arab states, in a very unprecedented joint statement, called for Hamas
to disarm and give up any notion of power. That's never happened publicly before in that regard. It was just a few month -- a month or so ago. Do you
think that it will disarm and give up its aspirations to any kind of political or even military presence? And do you think that Israel can
destroy Hamas in the way that the government says?
BEILIN: Not in this way. Not in this way. And I don't think that we should sit and watch what is happening and say, OK, until Hamas is gone, the same
situation will continue and we will have a war forever in Gaza. No, it is nonsense.
What has to happen is that we should demand that Hamas will never be part of the government in Gaza. This is, I think, more than reasonable to
demand. If they don't move, then we'll have to take -- to do our best in order to try and release the hostages and leave the place, not to remain
there on a square kilometer in order for the Palestinian Authority to enter Gaza. This is the only solution which is reasonable, which is possible.
I talked about it with people in the region. I talked about it with Abu Mazen, who in the past rejected such a return to the Gaza Strip on our
tanks, so-called. Today, he's ready. I think that we should go for this rather than to say OK, until there is no problem with Hamas, we are waiting
and watching.
AMANPOUR: And to you, Hiba. The U.S. is also unclear about what it wants. I mean, every day we read new things that come out of allegedly the White
House, the Trump Riviera plan for Gaza. Marco Rubio has again been reported by the press, has told the Israelis that he wouldn't -- the U.S. wouldn't
stand in the way of annexation of the West Bank.
I mean, what -- can anything happen without U.S. support for what you guys are saying and the general public consensus around -- or the global
consensus around a two-state solution?
HUSSEINI: We need the support of the U.S., we need the support of Europe, we need the support of the Arab states, the International Community. I
mean, this conflict cannot be resolved by Israelis and Palestinians alone because it has become not only a regional, but also a global conflict in a
sense. Yes.
But I think the position of the U.S. has to be more even keel and there -- it has to take into account the fact that Palestinian interest and Israeli
interest have to be treated equally and have to be addressed in a meaningful way to realize peace and security in -- for Israelis and
Palestinians, for the region, for the international -- for the globe, in this respect.
So, I think shifting of opinion from night and day is -- it does not help anybody. Statements on a riviera do not help anybody. Statements on
displacing and forced removing Gaza into the Sinai and continuing this famine and starvation and really atrocities in Gaza do not help anybody,
and don't serve the interests of anyone. So, I think it's very, very important for the Palestinian Authority to return to Gaza, to be empowered,
for Hamas to work with the Palestinian Authority and for us to alleviate what is going on in Gaza.
First, our plan is to provide, again, a vision so that for the two-state solution post this horrific period of time.
AMANPOUR: And, Yossi, last question to you. It sounds, you know, perfectly reasonable, but the U.S. has even denied Palestinian officials' visas to go
to the U.N., in fact, the U.S. has denied it.
BEILIN: A huge mistake. The huge mistake.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's unprecedented, I think, because usually anybody, even adversaries of the U.S. can go to the U.N. So, as Hiba says, all of this is
not in the interest of the Palestinian. Is what the U.S. doing in the interest of America -- of Israel as well, because it's becoming a pariah
and it's not being, you know, stopped or managed by the U.S.?
[13:20:00]
BEILIN: You have to be a genius in order to understand what President Trump wants, and I'm not a genius. But what I can tell you is that although we --
in many areas, we are dependent, but not a hundred percent. And I would like to remind you, and you remember it, we did not ask the Americans a
permit in order to go to Oslo.
AMANPOUR: They didn't even know about it till you're done it.
BEILIN: They didn't know about it. But when I spoke with Mr. Juridian (ph), who was then the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East and
region, and I said, I have such an idea to begin to talk with the PLO. Would it be possible to do it in the United States? And he said, I bless
you for the idea, but you can't do it here because it is against the resolutions of the Congress.
AMANPOUR: That's a very important point that you point out right now. Things have to change. Well, it's great to know that two people working
together from different sides of this conflict are still as committed as you are and working so hard. It should give people a lot of -- you know, of
energy to try to work this out. So, thank you very much for being with us. Yossi Beilin and --
BEILIN: Thank you for having us.
AMANPOUR: -- Hiba Husseini, thank you very much.
HUSSEINI: Thank you very much. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And good luck on behalf of peace, really.
HUSSEINI: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And stay with us because we'll be right back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: In the United States, many sectors in the arts, media culture, education, health, science, you name it, are coming under pressure as the
Trump administration increasingly seeks to control so much of civil society, including a world-famous historical institution like the
Smithsonian. On Wednesday, it responded to an announcement from the administration that they'd been reviewing exhibitions and programming
saying, our independence is paramount.
Pressure from the White House has forced the resignation of the director of the National Portrait Gallery. There's Trump's takeover of the Kennedy
Center and the cancellation of millions of dollars in grant funding, and the list goes on.
To discuss all of this, I'm joined by Imani Perry, a professor of women gender and sexuality, and of African and American Studies at Harvard
University. And welcome to our program.
IMANI PERRY, PROFESSOR AND WRITER: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, can I first ask you the critical to comment on the response from the Smithsonian and that they will be -- you know, they'll be looking
into what the administration has demanded, requested, and yet, they will also maintain their independence. How do you think that's going to shake
down?
PERRY: I'm not entirely sure. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Lonnie Bunch, who was the director of the Smithsonian, who has exhibited
extraordinary leadership in this moment. I mean, this is an institution that has a lot of deliberation, a lot of experts, a great deal of
knowledge, a great deal of scholarship that goes into every exhibition, every institution. It's a large set of institutions.
And so, I think that if they are pushed to simply have, you know, these sort of knee-jerk ideological, mythological exhibitions that will lie
directly contrary to what the mission of the institution is. So, while I -- you know, it's appropriate to respond to questions I do think that it's
going to be -- it would certainly be a dramatic standoff if they're forced to shut down this extraordinary institution that was founded with a
commitment to knowledge and information.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: So, I mean, you've used a lot of words that I want to drill down on. I just want to ask you what you think will be the alternative
exhibitions or whatever. Trump, and let me quote him, has said the Smithsonian was, quote, "out of control." It's the -- you know, it's the
center of wokeness. He says, everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have
been. Not quite sure what that last bit means.
But anyway, what do you think that they want to see at somewhere like the Smithsonian or any of the other institutes, like the National Portrait
Gallery, the Kennedy Center that so much control has now been taken by the administration?
PERRY: Right. I mean, I do think that it is, on the one hand, kind of effort to displace knowledge and study with mythology. You cannot -- you
simply cannot tell the story of the United States without the story of American slavery, for example. You can't tell the story of how the nation
became a global power without it. But there's a way in which there's a commitment on the part of this administration to tell a kind of story that
on the one hand, supports a vision of the nation as fundamentally white as sort of this romanticized story that is one that excludes, that limits,
that excludes people of color, that excludes LGBTQIA communities, that excludes the idea that women ought to be self-actualizing and making
decisions for their own lives.
And so, the vision is one that, on the one hand, is anti-intellectual, which I think is potentially disastrous. And on the other is a kind of
manipulation of very old culture wars to distract Americans from the other kinds of threats that this administration is posing. So, to say, oh, look,
it's all those other -- those troubling others that are causing your problems as opposed to all of the very real dangers now to our health, to
our wellbeing, to our to our national security and our foreign policy, all of those things.
AMANPOUR: So, let's just play this intellectual, you know, game out, which is not a game. I mean, it is a reality. What is the chilling effect? What
happens when a government systematically tries to, you know, distance itself from knowledge, from, you know, actual history from what's going on?
What would happen to a nation if that is allowed to proceed?
PERRY: I mean, we've seen the examples historically. This is the attack on institutions of knowledge, it's one of the sort of consistent pre-court
cursors to fascism and authoritarianism. It certainly is a deep threat to democracy if people are afraid to tell their stories, to participate fully
in the nation.
I will say though, notwithstanding all of that, that there are people who are continuing to resist this turn. I think of my colleague Sarah Lewis'
Vision and Justice Initiative, which is trying to make the argument that you have to actually see the fullest representation of human beings in
order to get to justice through the work of artists and scholars.
And so, there is an imminent danger. And at the same time, you know, there -- not everyone is willing to lie down and take care.
AMANPOUR: And yet -- I mean, you are a Harvard professor, and Harvard has justifiably, from a certain sector, received a whole amount of kudos for
so-called standing up to the pressure from the administration. And yet, you know, you can also read in the newspaper that while it's not actively
capitulating, it's seeking to somehow, this phrase, thread the needle, and kind of address what the administration is demanding of them in one way or
another.
How do you perceive what Harvard is doing right now, because education is critical to all of this?
PERRY: It is. You know, I think it's a complex question to answer there. You know, I'm not privy to what's happening at the upper levels of
administration. There's a wide array of political perspectives amongst the thousands of faculty members and students at the university.
So, what I will say is that, there are many of us within Harvard University who are trying to figure out ways to pursue knowledge, to continue to
teach, notwithstanding the very direct threats on the university and its resources that are coming from the administration. And we operate with the
vision of liberal education, not politically, but conceptually that people ought -- you know, young people ought to be able to engage in debate and
deliberation and confront ideas that they may find troubling and study as part of the effort to make decisions about what kind of people they're
going to be in the world.
[13:30:00]
And so, that continues to happen at the university, notwithstanding the fact that there is a chilling effect, particularly on students, some of
whom are terrified, certainly for international students. But you know, there is a critical mass of people in the side of the institution who are
committed to the values of knowledge and democracy.
AMANPOUR: So, what you -- what do your students say to you? Do they question you? Do they say, you know, where's the resistance or whatever it
might be? Because you've just described, students are always at the forefront of any resistance, aren't they, right, the culture, the
countercultural, and all the rest of it. What do they expect and what are they saying to you, if anything, about how they're going to be protected?
PERRY: Yes. I mean, we get the full range from absolute bewilderment to terror. The one thing I will say is that our students, at least the ones
that I teach, are pretty committed to interrogating and challenging perhaps more deeply even than those of us who are supposed to be educating them.
And so, they -- even when it has -- only when this moment has had a chilling effect, certainly on certain forms of student activism, but it
hasn't had a chilling effect on their intellectual lives and their commitments. And so, I'm actually looking to them as part of the process of
leading the way through this morass.
You know, I'm hoping that -- to the extent that we haven't -- or my generation, Generation X as it were, haven't always been appropriately
alarmed and responsive to the crises that we are facing, that the young people have it.
AMANPOUR: And President Trump signed an executive order, I guess, around his inauguration, which called for a patriotic education. What does that
look like? And I guess also I want to ask you, again, the thought process, is there -- do you think that there is room for a more ideologically
diverse education curriculum or indeed, do you think there's anything that justifies the demand for more diverse exhibitions in various cultural
institutions? Is that even something real that you would you would accept?
PERRY: Well, you know, what's remarkable is that there is extreme ideological diversity in higher education and certainly in museums. You
know, the -- in my home state of Alabama, there is the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery and literally, one highway stop away, there's the
Confederacy Museum. I mean, there is extreme ideological and diversity.
I think what we're actually seeing is an attack on the free exercise of ideas that's coming from the right. I think it's exactly upside down from
the way they describe it. And so there is -- certainly, there -- we should have room from for a diverse set of viewpoints, but it's actually those of
us who have been historically marginalized whose voices are under attack.
And so, there's this sort of transition from a long history of silencing and exclusion to this brief window, really just a generation of opening up
some of the doors and then this intense backlash against it. And I think the backlash is in part because of how many people were -- have been deeply
moved by the stories of people who've been marginalized.
You know, if we think just -- you know, just 10 years ago, the society started to open up and we saw the impact around the world. The George Floyd
protest, the response to Trayvon Martin. And so, it's almost as if there's an effort to close the hearts and minds of people who have been transformed
by more recent pursuits of a wide array of knowledge and storytelling.
AMANPOUR: And sort of, you know, narrowing the focus, this controversy over Amy Sherald, the artist, who became famous, even more famous, a after she
painted Michelle Obama's official portrait as first lady. She withdrew her painting of a black trans woman holding a torch like the Statue of Liberty
in its -- we're seeing it on the cover of the New Yorker there. She heard about the controversy over this. Apparently, she canceled her entire show
there. She's moved it. That in itself is quite scary. I mean, that's a real actual, you know, bricks and mortar event that actually happened.
I understand you used to own an Amy Sherald, am I speaking out of turn?
[13:35:00]
PERRY: No, I did. And I -- you know, I think this -- that action in this moment is actually an example of the way artists and intellectuals are
using the opportunity of the moment to make political judgements about the world in which we live. She's part of the Vision and Justice convening that
I talked about previously that's happening in October.
There are a number of people who work in the arts in various capacities who are actually not simply being -- have experiencing. And this as a chilling
effect, but instead, are embracing this as a moment to assert values and commitments to democracy, which I think on -- it's really what is required
of us in this moment.
AMANPOUR: So, lastly, because that's what -- this is all about, isn't it, democracy versus a creeping anti-democratic spirit. Do you have hope that
America will sort all this out and will actually maintain its democracy as a beacon to the rest of the world as it's always been?
PERRY: You know, this is a -- it's a fascinating question. You know, democracy is never static. It is a doing. I think the way that the
organizer, Mariame Kaba, says that hope is a discipline, that we have a responsibility to hope, and we demonstrate our hope by actually behaving in
ways that bring us closer to the beloved community and deeper inclusion.
So, the question is, what will we do? And I'm hoping that we will do something, some many things that are just, that are deeply humane and that
resist the idea that only some of us in this country matter.
AMANPOUR: Well, certainly, we see some of the court decisions trying to hold up the principle of constitutional legality, and it's a very
interesting topic because everyone around the world is looking at the United States as well. So, Professor Imani Perry, thank you for your
intervention on this. Thank you so much.
PERRY: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And we'll be right back after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: From firing the CDC director to terminating research for some life-saving vaccines, RFK Jr. has been tearing apart the American
healthcare system, but senators gave him a grilling at the hearing earlier today on his controversial and what most experts say dangerous decisions as
health secretary. He fired back accusing the CDC of failing to keep Americans healthy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEY JR., U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: We are the sickest country in the world. That's why we have to fire people at CDC.
They did not do their job. This was their job to keep us healthy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And when pushed on the vital role of vaccines during COVID, Kennedy claimed incorrectly that we were, quote, "lied to about
everything." Dr. Michael Osterholm is the founding director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and
Policy. And his new book, "The Big One," examines the global pandemic and how we could prepare and should prepare for the next one. He tells Havas
and why the health secretary's latest moves could spell disaster.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Dr. Michael Osterholm, thanks so much for joining us.
Your new book is titled "The Big One: How We Must Prepare for Future Deadly Pandemics." Before we get to the -- what's in the book, I really want to
talk a little bit about what's in the news these days. Just in August 5th, the Health and Human Services Department announced a cut of $500 million in
mRNA research, which will impact 22 projects being led by big pharmaceutical companies, eight? And in a recent interview there, you said,
I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I've ever seen made by a government body. Explain why.
DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS RESEARCH AND POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Well, first of all, again, assuming that the next
pandemic might very well be influenza, that's a virus that could easily kill even many more people than we saw with COVID. Our ability to respond
to that really is back to vaccines. And currently, the capacity we have in the world to make influenza vaccines is limited. We use chicken eggs
largely to grow the virus in.
In a year to 15 months after a pandemic began, we could probably make only enough vaccine to vaccinate less than a quarter of the world. It turns out
that the mRNA technology, the same we use for COVID, actually can be applied to influenza and that it's not going to be a better vaccine in the
sense that it's going to protect a whole lot more. It'll still provide that same protection we saw with the COVID vaccines, but we can make enough
vaccine within a year to probably vaccinate the whole world. That's the difference in millions of lives lost, just that one simple decision.
And we need these vaccines badly for future pandemics. And right now, the likelihood of that happening is close to zero because of that decision.
SREENIVASAN: As part of the rationale for these cuts, Secretary RFK Jr. said, the data shows, this is his words, these vaccines failed to protect
effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. We're shifting that funding towards safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain
effective even as viruses mutate. How do you respond to that?
DR. OSTERHOLM: Well, let me put that into context. One is science. Science has given us the major improvements in health over the last a hundred years
that meant that life expectancy rose from the 50s to the -- into 80-year- olds just in one year -- or one 100 years. And today, we have to count on science.
Unfortunately, what Mr. Kennedy is promoting and sharing is in fact mis and disinformation. What we really call magic or smoke and mirrors. And the
public has to understand that his comments, while they may sound very professional and official, are meaningless, in many cases, they make no
sense whatsoever.
And so, we have to continue to emphasize if we want to maintain the kind of health protection we've had in this country and around the world and
improvements on it, even when we have had great challenges with infectious diseases, we have to stick with the science. If we follow the comments, the
recommendations or the actions of Mr. Kennedy, we are doomed to see public health really denigrated greatly.
SREENIVASAN: You know, back in 2017 you wrote a book called "Deadliest Enemy," and it was prescient in a way, and now you've teamed up with the
same co-author, Mark Olshaker, and you wrote "The Big One: How We Must Prepare for Future Deadly Pandemics." And I think, you know, a lot of
viewers will be surprised that your fear is not COVID-19, it's actually something, you know, worse, and you play out this kind of worst-case
scenarios and how we should prepare for that. Explain.
DR. OSTERHOLM: When I say worst-case scenario, let me just be clear, I'm not even sure that this scenario is the worst-case. It's a very realistic
situation. The listeners may remember back in 2003 we had a global outbreak of SARS at that time, the first real coronavirus infection that caused
serious illness in humans. Because that virus was not very infectious, we were actually able to suppress its transmission and stop it from being
spread around. But it did kill 15 to 20 percent of the people that got infected.
Then along came MERS, the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, another coronavirus infection in 2012 in the Middle East. And that virus then also
spread to Seoul, Korea in 2015 when a visitor to Saudi Arabia returned back to Seoul with this virus infection.
In those instances, this -- the MERS virus killed actually almost to 35 percent of the people had infected. And so, you can see the difference with
what happened with COVID, where it's only about 1.5 percent of people died, and I say only with great regret.
So, the point being here is that if you had a new coronavirus that could kill like SARS or MERS, but be spread like SARS, Cov-2 or COVID, that would
be disastrous. And that's what this scenario is about. Well, guess what? In just recent months we've actually found viruses in bats and caves in China
that have the ability to spread likely that of what we saw with COVID. And they also have onboard the same genetic pieces that would make it possible
for them to cause very serious illness with the deaths potentially in that 15 to 35 percent range.
[13:45:00]
So, this is not some kind of science fiction in that sense. This is, I think, anything just a harbinger of things to come reality that we have to
deal with.
SREENIVASAN: So, if you could summarize, what are some of the biggest mistakes that we should be learning from from COVID?
DR. OSTERHOLM: Well, first of all, we didn't understand as a society that this was going to last for three years or more. And therefore, we planned
for it much like you might think of with a severe hurricane, where basically you find, you know, for 12 to 18 hours it's horrible. But you can
go into recovery shortly thereafter.
And so, one of the challenges we had early on is that people wanted to approach this from the idea of a lockdown or closing everything down, and
then we'd come back out the other end. And unfortunately, we had a number of our leaders saying that that is what would happen.
We, in January of 2020, actually laid out the fact that this is likely to last many years, two, three, maybe even four. And we had to be prepared how
are we going to handle for that. And what our real goal was -- should have been at least was to make sure that our hospitals were not overrun. The one
thing that could save more people's lives was to have adequate healthcare. But if you're running your hospital 140, 150 percent capacity, at that
point, you didn't really have any chance to hopefully provide better medical care.
And so, one of the things we propose is, rather than doing lockdowns, is use what we call snow days. So that if, in fact, you are in a community
where your hospital bed census is now at a hundred percent and you know that number every day, it's publicly made available, at that point, you can
say to the public, please, for the next, you know, 10 to 20 days, we need to back off whatever we can in terms of public engagements, crowds coming
together, et cetera, so that we can get that census down in our hospitals and hopefully provide medical -- better medical care.
If we had done, that would've made all the difference in the world. And people understanding that lockdowns aren't the answer. A number of events
just like that, that we could learn a lot from with COVID.
SREENIVASAN: Just this last week we had the director of the Centers for Disease Control removed by RFK Jr. and we had several officials who
resigned. One of the officials in an interview said that, based on what I'm seeing, based on what I've heard with the new members of the Advisory
Committee for Immunization Practices, or ACIP, they're really moving in an ideologic direction where they want to see the undoing of vaccination. They
do want to see the undoing of mRNA vaccination.
What does that mean for our public health?
DR. OSTERHOLM: Well, in very simple terms, it's a disaster. We are literally watching a hundred years of public health activity that has
resulted in saving millions and millions of lives potentially flush down the drain. And it's -- that important for the public to understand that
because you need to be talking to your local, your national elected officials and saying, is this the kind of government that you want to
provide to us?
Because this is not an issue where one day we'll still have a debate. Well, which one was right? I can tell you what'll be right, it's going to be the
science side will be right, because the numbers of people who will die because of following the same kind of ideology approach are going to become
very apparent and not a too distant of a future.
Again, if we have that same mindset going into a pandemic right now, it would be an utter disaster. And it's not just HHS, in the Health and Human
Services, that center -- that Secretary Kennedy heads up. Right now, there's no one in the White House, no one who has overseen bio-preparedness
for a future biologic event, one that might even be manmade. Meaning, a bio terrorist attack or a pandemic. This is such a major, major shortcoming in
our preparedness. And so, I think we need to take a step back.
And I just want to point out that, again, ideologically, in the first Trump administration, they did a lot of really good things to help get us better
prepared for a bio-preparedness event. And I don't know why now, suddenly that type of activity is frowned on, if not totally discouraged when, in
fact, that was the hallmark of the Trump 1 administration.
SREENIVASAN: Right now, our conversation so far has been focused primarily on the United States, but I also want to ask about what happens when USAID
has been slashed as it has been, and what our visibility is for viruses, future pandemics overseas, because viruses don't care about borders, right?
[13:50:00]
And I wonder, is there, you know, that loss of funding and infrastructure, can you either quantify or qualify the effects that will have downstream?
DR. OSTERHOLM: We have withdrawn support, as you noted from, USAID, one of the most successful soft power efforts ever put forward by any government,
not just ours, in terms of lives saved, in terms of the endearment of locals in countries around the world for the United States support, and as
well as the fact we pulled out of the World Health Organization.
We're no longer a member there. We actually are not part of the routine communications. We are not contributing to knowledge at WHO, but we're also
not learning from it. Why is that important? Because there are so many infectious diseases, for example, that start on a distant shore and can
come to our country.
You know, we look at what happened in 2015 and '16 with Ebola in Africa, and the concern we had for getting here. By not participating on the
international level, we actually shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of protecting ourselves. Borders in of themselves will not keep infectious
agents from going from one country to the other. What does make a difference is stopping those outbreaks in their tracks in the countries
where they begin.
And so, we are losing all of that opportunity. We are going to see a resurgence of HIV/AIDS. We're going to see a resurgence of drug resistant
tuberculosis. We're going to see a resurgence of malaria in areas that used to control the mosquitoes that are not now going to happen. And guess what?
They're all going to land in the United States eventually.
And because we live in a world where travel now is so ubiquitous, we're also going to see U.S. citizens going to countries around the world in much
greater risk for being in that country than before because of this very decision to pull out of the global health arena.
And so, all I can say is that this, again, is pennywise pound-foolish effort. We are not helping us at all. You know, we keep talking about
putting America first, this puts America last.
SREENIVASAN: You're leading an initiative called the Vaccine Integrity Project. What's the need that you're trying to address with this?
DR. OSTERHOLM: Well, what we realized early on after the election was that based on the 2025 document and what the priorities were for dismantling
public health, that one of the first areas to go was likely to be vaccines. And of course, with Mr. Kennedy being nominated for secretary of Health
Human Services, we recognized that his major anti-vaccine theme was going to be carried through.
Actually, in November of last year I wrote an article in The New York Times laying out what likely could be lost in public health in the future with a
Kennedy HHS appointment. And sure enough, the vaccine issues that we worried about are happening.
Let me just say that, at this point, it's very, very clear that the kinds of things that we're seeing happen at the federal level are going to
continue to happen unless we see Congress step up and begin to insert itself into this process. Remember, at the time when the confirmation
hearings were held, we actually had Mr. Kennedy promising to Secretary Cassidy that he would not take vaccines away from anyone. Well, he did.
That really brought us at the -- our center in Minneapolis with the idea that we need to figure out what can we do to help out if in fact the ACIP,
the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, is suddenly done in, what roles did they play? And so, we started this new initiative. And with that,
we actually first did focus groups in with a number of vaccine enterprise experts all the way from research and development to the final shot into
the arm to say, what can any non-governmental organization do to help support one's there with ACIP?
And one of the things we learned was, in fact, to make recommendations for vaccine use, we needed to have the comprehensive data that the ACIP used to
present. Well, we picked that up. We actually, as an effort out of the VIP Project begin doing a review of all of the vaccine information for COVID,
for RSV, and for influenza to have it in time for this season, this upcoming winter season. And we did the analysis where we were able to
identify over 17,500 different pieces of information, articles about these vaccines. We've summarized that using a very specific protocol approach,
and that is now the information being used by our medical societies to determine their own vaccine recommendations. And so, from that perspective,
we are now providing what ACIP once did.
SREENIVASAN: Founding director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Dr. Michael Osterholm,
thanks so much for joining us.
DR. OSTERHOLM: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: It does sound like basic common sense that almost everyone can get behind. And finally, tonight it does take two to tango. This
Argentinian pair was crowned champions of this year's World Tango tournament, which took place in Buenos Aires over the past two weeks.
Gliding gracefully across the stage with their dramatic and swirling footwork. The duo was among 2,000 dancers competing across 50 venues,
making this the largest tango gathering in the world. And with a record number of international participants, including from Germany, Japan, and
the United States, showing a growing love for this unique dance from all over.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online and on our website and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
