Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Assessing Trump 2.0 So Far; Trump's Assault on American Foreign Aid; Europe Could Be Next in Trump's Tariff Crosshairs; Interview With The CEO Of Axel Springer Mathias Dopfner; Interview With The Director Of International Reporting Program, CUNY, Alia Malek; Interview With Americas Quarterly Editor-In-Chief Brian Winter. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired February 09, 2025 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:43]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria, coming to you from New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Today on the program, less than three weeks into his second presidency, and Donald Trump seems hell bent on shaking up American foreign policy, the national security establishment and the world. He wants America to take over Gaza.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East.

ZAKARIA: He's offered buyouts to everybody in the CIA. He's dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development and he's brandished tariffs against friends and foes.

We'll tackle it all with a great series of guests. Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, David Miliband, the head of the International Rescue Committee and one of Europe's most important CEOs, Mathias Dopfner.

Also, it's been two months since the Assad regime fell to Islamic militants. Is this the new Taliban or something else?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's "My Take."

It's been a head-spinning week for American foreign policy, with tariffs against Canada and Mexico dramatically announced, and then suddenly postponed, USAID was gutted and President Trump said he wants the U.S. to take over Gaza. The most revealing lens through which to look at all this might not be Donald Trump's pronouncements, but rather those of his aides and supporters.

The tariff tantrum suggested that foreign leaders are becoming skilled at handling Trump. They mollify him with token concessions, allow him to declare victory, and then return to business as usual. The concessions that Mexico and Canada made were either small bore or policies that they were already pursuing. Mexico agreed to send thousands of troops to the border at the Biden administration's request, and are now doing the same for Trump. In the case of Canada, Trump's own statement notes that Canada was agreeing to implement its border plan, much of which had been announced over a month ago.

Some conservative commentators pointed out the obvious, in the words of a "Wall Street Journal" editorial, Trump blinks. The FOX anchor Laura Ingraham implied that the president caved to huge negative reaction from markets, saying, I'm not too impressed about the concessions from Canada. Canadian media reactions were similar. Canada's CTV News published an article with the headline Canada takes a stand and Donald Trump blinks.

The country's satirical show "22 Minutes" has a Donald Trump lookalike declaring victory.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did the impossible. I made peace with Canada and ended the unjust trade war that I started. I'm signing this. This executive order, the "I did not lose, but I totally won the trade war" order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: Of course, from JD Vance to Mike Johnson, Republicans fell over themselves to praise the stunning negotiating powers of President Trump. The Trump effect is in full force. Johnson posted. At this rate of achievement, wrote Elon Musk, not only should President Donald Trump be on Mount Rushmore, I want to personally work the chisel.

With the abrupt dismantling of USAID, Trump supporters scrambled to adjust. Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly blasted the agency, saying it was out of control and unresponsive. This was the same agency that he had repeatedly posted in favor of over the years, written about in his book with pride and admiration, and recently recommended funding increases to President Biden.

The pattern is now familiar, and was followed after Trump's Gaza announcement. Those who had long supported Trump's determination to end America's military interventions cheered when he announced he would take over Gaza, send in troops if necessary, displace two million Palestinians to neighboring countries, and stay in Gaza for long term ownership.

[10:05:13]

Kayleigh McEnany responded with this on FOX News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: President Trump is playing four dimensional chess. You all are playing checkers.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ZAKARIA: Later that day, Trump officials began walking back key aspects of the president's plan, as did Trump himself. If you don't understand all this, you haven't played four dimensional chess.

Donald Trump's White House is now a court, and his courtiers scurry around, aware that the mercurial monarch might change his mind at any time. TikTok is terrible can suddenly become TikTok is great, and they need to pivot quickly. It reminds one of the court of Henry VIII, the monarch who went from being the greatest defender of the Catholic Church to a vicious opponent because he wanted a divorce that the Pope would not sanction. One man who refused to play the game, Sir Thomas More, had his head chopped off.

The reason Trump forces aides and supporters to say things that they know are false is to enforce a regime in which loyalty is paramount, overriding facts, overriding your long held convictions. Now, this might seem like an amusing spectacle, but there is a real cost. In the case of USAID, it will translate into death and despair for millions of the poorest people on the planet. On trade, it remains a mystery as to why Trump singled out Canada. In the 2024 fiscal year less than 10 percent of migrant encounters happened at the Canadian border, and just 0.2 percent of fentanyl seizures occurred there.

America runs a smaller trade deficit with Canada than with China or Vietnam. In fact, if you put aside Canadian crude oil, the U.S. sells more to Canada than it buys from it. But the effect is clear. For Canada the U.S. is turning into an undependable ally, and it will try to lessen its reliance on America and search for new markets and friends from Britain to China.

The largest effect, though, is on American democracy. The scholar Francis Fukuyama has noted that the history of modern government has been a steady movement away from patrimonial rule. the rule of a single strongman to benefit his family and friends, towards rule by institutions and rules and norms. He notes that in the United States now we are seeing the return to patrimonial rule as citizens freely debating laws are replaced by supplicants begging the king to favor their interests.

Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link to my "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.

Joining me now to talk about Trump, America and the world is Richard Haass. He is the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior counselor at Centerview Partners.

So, Richard, let's start with Gaza. You know that region very well. What do you think? You know, there are a lot of people who say, well, this is out-of-the-box thinking, maybe it stirs things up. What do you think Trump's proposal on Gaza has done on the ground?

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: It's out of the box, but doesn't mean it's better. Just because the box isn't working. There's been policy failures over the years. I think on the ground, Fareed, it probably plays into Hamas's hands. They can say, look, there's no chance of any compromise working. We were right all along to be maximalist.

For the Israeli right, this is, what, a gift from heaven. This is manna from heaven. Their whole policy is to deny Palestinian nationalism, transfer of people out of Gaza is for them the perfect precedent because what they really want is transfer of three million more Palestinians out of the West Bank, or what they call Judea and Samaria. Plus, it shows, Fareed, even more worrisome if things get violent enough, it creates conditions which some will then point to and say, we therefore need to transfer.

What does that do? It incentivizes the dynamic on the West Bank to become more and more violent. So Palestinians will get more radical, Israeli settlers and defense forces will get more combative. This is not a good dynamic.

ZAKARIA: So it encourages the radicals on both sides.

HAASS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

ZAKARIA: And what do you think Trump was thinking when -- I mean, you've talked to him. What's going on?

HAASS: My own sense is he comes from a world of deals. And you can always sprinkle in new incentives, if this doesn't work, what about this? What about that? What I think he's missing from the world of real estate is this is not something that can be easily bought off. What are the two most powerful things? You and I have spent a lot of time talking about the Middle East. One is nationalism.

[10:10:01]

Virtually everyone in the Middle East coming out of World War II wanted a state of their own. Zionism was getting a state of their own for the Jews. Palestinians and the Kurds have been denied it. This denies it and kills off the chance. Second of all, it reinforces humiliation. And what did we learn around 9/11 and other times? Humiliation is a dangerously powerful human motivator. So I think this is actually not only going to buy things off, but rather it's going to inflame the situation.

ZAKARIA: Right. You can't tell a Palestinian family, you know, I'll build you a nicer house in Egypt. What they want is their own country.

HAASS: Hundred percent. Man cannot live by bread alone. The idea that there's going to be a financial sop put forward that's going to assuage the desire for a country of their own is simply preposterous.

ZAKARIA: What else do you, you know, are you noticing in this? You know, it's been three weeks. The fight with Canada, the fight with Mexico. Is there -- you know, what's the broader implication?

HAASS: One is being a friend buys you nothing. It's almost like everyone is equal. In some ways, it's worse to be a friend because you have more connections that can then be leveraged. You can threaten your security dependence. We can threaten our trade or investment. The other thing that I noticed is someone who's worked, you know, for multiple presidents is the lack of anything resembling a serious policy making process.

There ought not to be surprises. You never want to send a president out there to propose something and someone says, well, hold it. Did you think about this, and say, take the Gaza thing again. What about the cost? What about troops? What about Palestinian reactions?

ZAKARIA: And you can see it was unthought through because he himself walked back half of that.

HAASS: Within 24 hours.

ZAKARIA: Yes. Yes.

HAASS: That's what a policy process is meant to do, to anticipate. How's everyone going to react? What's the context? What are the implementation concerns? It may be what seems to be a good idea, but then when you really put it under a microscope, not so good. And that's what we're seeing does not exist in the Trump administration. On tariffs, we saw it. You put them on. You take them off. We see it now with Gaza.

There's a haphazard quality to this and a shifting number of players, special envoys here and there. This is not a process that is sustainable.

ZAKARIA: Now you talked about the allies feeling there's no point, there's no advantage to being an ally, maybe even a cost. What can they do? Is there a realistic -- I mean, what's going to happen?

HAASS: Well, I think allies are going to start -- it'll be gradual -- is diversify their portfolios. A country like South Korea is going to have a much more serious debate about nuclear weapons of their own. Other countries are going to say, like Colombia, we don't really want to have four-fifths of our economy dependent on access to the United States. Maybe we dial it down. Maybe, by the way, we bring in China.

ZAKARIA: The one unpredictable thing Trump has said, and he mentioned it once during the campaign, which might be a kind of good out-of-the- box thinking, is on Iran.

HAASS: Right.

ZAKARIA: He seems there's something going on there where he keeps saying, I wonder if there's a deal to be had. I wonder -- which is ironic because he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. What do you think is possible?

HAASS: That's one of the two areas, the other being Ukraine. Surprisingly tough attitudes towards Russia. I think he was surprised and disappointed that it's Putin and not Zelenskyy, who's the obstacle to a ceasefire on Ukraine. Iran, he doesn't want to use force. I think he almost like, remember he went from NAFTA to the USMCA, a better deal with Canada and Mexico on trade, even though he pulled out of the 2015 deal.

I think he wants now a better deal with Iran, what he calls a verifiable, peaceful nuclear agreement. And I actually think there's a possibility for it. The ayatollah is saying no, but I actually think this administration would be wise to press Iran and essentially set up a deal on the nuclear. You reduce, you put a seal, and you make it verifiable. We could ease some sanctions. You won't get attacked. I actually think that's worthy of exploration.

ZAKARIA: All right. On that optimistic note, we're going to end.

Richard Haass, always a pleasure.

Next on GPS, President Trump's dramatic attack on USAID is not only shocking, it is life threatening for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. I'll discuss the ripple effects with David Miliband, the president of the International Rescue Committee. next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:40]

ZAKARIA: The fight against malaria, the disbursement of HIV medications, the delivery of 500 metric tons of food in places where famine looms. These are all examples of work that has either ceased or been thrown into grave uncertainty since President Trump's decision to freeze foreign aid and all but dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.

What will be the effect on the most vulnerable people in the world?

Joining me now to discuss is David Miliband. He is the president of the International Rescue Committee and the former British foreign secretary.

You guys spent an enormous amount of time on the ground with these vulnerable populations, people who are often near death, near starvation. Is there any way for other funds to come to them? What's going to happen to these people?

DAVID MILIBAND, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: Well, America has an incredibly proud and effective record of being a leader in global foreign aid. About $4 in $10 globally that are spent on foreign aid come from the United States. It's also been a very effective, high value for money spender with real rigor against diversion of aid. Health is probably the best example. Global health, half you mentioned USAID, half of USAID spending is on health. And that's partly on lifesaving health care, which Secretary Rubio has said he wants to keep.

[10:20:03]

But it's also mapping trends in Ebola and fighting Ebola. It's clinical trials of new drugs. It's basic health centers that provide primary care. It's non-communicable diseases that are such a major issue across the developing world. So there is a moral question at issue here. But there's also a strategic question, which is that these investments in a connected world are part of America's strategic interest.

And I think the critical point, you alluded to it in your introduction, every administration will do a review. That makes sense. It wants to align things behind its priorities. Organizations like mine want to contribute to the review and partner in a thoughtful process. The danger now is the suspension, the freezing of all aid apart from a small number of lifesaving waivers. That's what creates jeopardy.

And it also creates cost because when you tear down systems, when you sack people, when you close down offices and health centers, as everyone is now doing, it takes money as well as time to put them back together.

ZAKARIA: The International Rescue Committee works on, you know, helping people, the most vulnerable people in the world. What has this done to you, to your organization's ability to work in those places?

MILIBAND: Well, we're obviously absolutely committed to keeping our mission going, and we're waiting for the results of the review. What we know is that certain programs, for example, around climate resilience, some programs around sexual and reproductive health, they're going to be canned in the new administration. They're not going to be supported.

We are working very, very hard to raise funds to find donors who could gap fill for that. That's a tough process because it's just been going this week. What we know is that those programs offer enormous value for money. Just listen to this. $80 to help an out of school kid in northern Nigeria. I mean, that's the kind of value. $4 to deliver a shot of vaccine in East Africa. These are the figures of a highly efficient, highly effective good investment.

And that's the rallying call we're making to the U.S. government. Let's reform together. Let's deliver more value for money together. But we're also saying to those outside the U.S. government, come and support these vital programs.

ZAKARIA: When I've seen the examples, you know, there are all these examples being published on X, on Twitter, nothing -- I haven't come across a single case that seemed like it was fraud or corruption. There are a lot of them which are, you know, ones that clearly the people tweeting them out disagree with. But have you seen anything here, you know, that's publicly been released that suggests, you know, fraud or corruption or anything like that?

MILIBAND: I think the first thing to say, it's important to be very rigorous and very zealous about the way in which aid money is delivered and to make sure it reaches the right people. Second point, all of the international evidence shows that it's the big prestige projects. There was a lot of work done in Afghanistan on this. It's the big prestige national projects, infrastructure projects that are the most prone to fraud. The community based projects are actually the least prone to fraud for a very simple reason. People blow the whistle when their money is not reaching the people that it's being intended for. I know that this sector takes incredibly seriously the fight against

fraud for a very simple reason. We're in it because of the mission of helping people, and it's doubly in our interest to make sure that no fraud occurs. And if ever there are allegations, they're properly investigated and stamped on.

ZAKARIA: I mean, it's a sad day for the United States, which has been, as you say, the kind of the most generous country. It's the richest country in the world. It has also been the most generous country in the world. Do you think it changes the way the world looks at America?

MILIBAND: I think that we're in a really important moment. The Trump administration was elected, obviously, to disrupt. Some things do need disrupting. This is an area where reform and progress is essential. And I think that the world is watching and wants to see a committed, engaged America that is thoughtful and planful in the way it does its work in the kind of public-private partnership that has stood America in such good stead.

ZAKARIA: David Miliband, pleasure to have you on.

MILIBAND: Thank you very much.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, the next target for Trump's trade wars could be the E.U. When we return, I'll talk to a top European CEO who has some interesting ideas about what his continent should do.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:28:56]

ZAKARIA: China, Canada and Mexico have all come into Trump's crosshairs on trade, and the European Union could be next. My guest has some interesting ideas about what the E.U. should do.

Mathias Dopfner is the CEO of the German media company Axel Springer, which owns many outlets such as Die Welt and Politico. He has a new book called "Dealings with Dictators: A CEO's Guide to Defending Democracy."

Mathias, welcome. Let me ask you about the situation for Europe now. I mean, as you know, a lot of people feel like Europe is in trouble economically. The E.U. needs to get its act together. There have been reports like the Draghi Report by Mario Draghi saying, you know, the E.U. is lagging behind. And now enter Donald Trump who has talked often about how he wants to put tariffs on the European Union.

How do you react to that?

MATHIAS DOPFNER, CEO, AXEL SPRINGER: Well, Fareed, let me give for a second a bigger context and then I very precisely will answer your question. So I think democracy, the open society model, is threatened by rising autocrats and dictatorships, Russia, Iran, and Islamist, and most importantly China.

[10:30:00] The conflicts, the major geopolitical challenges that we face, the Russian war on Ukraine, the Hamas war on Israel, and the potential takeover of Taiwan have one thing in common, that's the goal to weaken democracies. And concretely to weaken the biggest democracy in the world, the United States, and more concretely, to split the United States and Europe. That is the most efficient way to weaken democracy.

And I think in that context, it is important that we are not taking the wrong exit here. If the U.S. and Europe would start a trade war, that would just strengthen China. If Europe and the United States could get together, have some negotiation, and Trump is a very transactional president, and I think he has a point. The E.U. is imposing tariffs on average of 5.5 percent on U.S. goods. The U.S. are on average only 3.3 percent.

So, there is a point to renegotiate, but it should not increase tariffs. It should lower tariffs or ideally no tariffs in order to stimulate transatlantic trade. And then we have a common case to negotiate with China. If America does it alone, because there is a misunderstanding that America first means America alone, then I think China will benefit.

If America and Europe would represent not 300 million citizens, but 800 million citizens, we have a real leverage at the negotiation table in order to negotiate with China. Symmetrical trade relationships, which would be beneficial for the U.S. and for Europe. That's, I think, the goal and not a split between America and Europe. That's what these autocrats want.

ZAKARIA: Is it possible that Trump's kind of threat of abandonment forces the European Union to get its act together on things like structural reform, on opening up and creating a single market, for example, for technology or banking? You know, is it possible that it has the - because the Europeans feel, we're on our own, we have to -- you know.

DOPFNER: Absolutely. And I think it is desperately needed. And whether it's because of Trump's policies or whether it's because we understand ourselves that we got to change. Ronald Reagan once said famously, the European definition of a successful economy is if a business moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. If it's dead, subsidize it.

It cannot be the future of Europe. Europe is totally overregulated. America has less regulation and is deregulating. The whole world is deregulating. And Europe regulates more and more. No innovation, no real growth. It's a sad case.

I mean, Europe is like a sleeping beauty and it needs to wake up. And hopefully these developments, even if they are a bit more tensions, help that we will have a healthier and more successful outcome.

ZAKARIA: What do you think of Elon Musk's support for what is often called Germany's far right party, the AfD?

DOPFNER: Also here, I mean, I don't know. I mean, I know Elon Musk for 10 years and we have a friendship relationship almost, and we have a lot of discussions. But here I think he gets it. He gets it wrong, I have to say, because what he loves is disruption.

And he sees that disruption is necessary. And that's why he likes Milei. That's why he likes Meloni. That's why he likes Trump. But the AfD in Germany is a different kind. It's a at -- least partly, non- democratic organization that is very pro-Russia, pro-Putin, very pro- China, very anti-American, very anti-capitalist, anti-business. And of course, parts of the -- of the party have a decent anti-Semitic tone. From a far distant perspective it may look healthy to have that disruption, but if you know more, then there is a very dangerous element in that movement.

ZAKARIA: If you know more, very important words in this context. Mathias Dopfner, a pleasure to have you on, and it's an important book. I hope people read it.

DOPFNER: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, two months ago, Syrian president Bashar al- Assad's 24-year dictatorship fell to Islamic militants. Now, a former jihadi is running the country. We will talk about what all this means when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:39:33]

ZAKARIA: It has been two months since Islamic rebels stormed Damascus, toppling the 53-year Assad reign in a matter of days, stunning Syrians and the world. But celebrations in the street quickly turned to deep uncertainty at the direction of the country. The rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former head of al Qaeda in Syria, is now the interim president. So, just where is Syria headed?

Joining me now is Alia Malek, a Syrian American journalist and the author of "The Home That Was Our Country: A Memoir of Syria."

[10:40:08]

You're just back from Syria. Tell me what your dominant impressions are.

ALIA MALEK, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL REPORTING PROGRAM, CUNY: That it's a unique and monumental moment. And I say that in a value neutral way because it's loaded both negative ways and in positive ways. It's the end of something which implies several dynamics and accounting that needs to happen. It's also the start of something.

And it's a -- it's like a twilight moment. And it was fascinating time to be there. It was overwhelming. There was a solid 24 hours where I really didn't know what to say or how to feel. You know, I hadn't been back since 2013. That's not long enough for things to be drastically different and yet everything had changed.

ZAKARIA: What were most people saying? Are they -- are they mostly hopeful? Are they mostly worried about the onset of another civil war? MALEK: Both of those things, I think, exist at the same time. I think they're also very much in a roll up their sleeves sort of mentality, because they realize there's a lot to be done and that the window to work with the new government, you know, their willingness to also work with people will close at some point.

I think it's clear and everyone on the ground says that the new rulers were not really expecting to make it all the way to Damascus. And all of a sudden, they found themselves in charge of much more territory and carrying the hopes of many more people, I think, than they had -- they had previously imagined.

And so, there is this window in which they are talking to people. And civil society, and normal Syrians are quite aware that that window will close, and they are not going to be let out of or kept out of, you know, self-determination.

ZAKARIA: So, people talking about democracy and elections?

MALEK: You know, these are the metrics that we think about. I don't think that's exactly what people are talking about. They are talking about stability. They are talking about electricity. They are talking about infrastructure. They are talking about the sanctions being removed, and they are talking about being included in their own governance.

ZAKARIA: And when we talk about this new leader, the president, he has changed his name. Has he changed his ideology? First of all, explain the name change. He had a kind of nom de guerre.

MALEK: He had a nom de guerre.

ZAKARIA: He had a nom de guerre.

MALEK: Yes, al-Jolani.

ZAKARIA: Yes.

MALEK: From the Golan Heights, which are -- which is where he is -- he is originally -- his family is originally from. He's now using his real name, Ahmed al-Sharaa. And yes, there's definitely been a sartorial change.

You know, everyone keeps asking me, is he sincere? And I just think, you know, you don't go to politicians for sincerity. He was a rebel leader and now he is a politician. And these are often awkward transitions. We've seen, you know, movements as they try to transition to governance falter.

ZAKARIA: So, what gives you hope that Syria will not descend into a kind of sectarian/Islamist versus the other's civil war the way, you know, it happened in Iraq, the way it happened in Libya, the way it almost happened in Egypt. And then, you know, the army intervenes.

MALEK: What gives me hope is Syrians themselves. I have been talking to and reporting on Syrians since 2011, and I think the same way we are conscious of what has happened in the region and has happened in Syria So are they.

It's not that they are ignorant as to what happened on their borders in Iraq. They know what happened in Lebanon when the idea that the civil war is over. Now, everybody goes back to life as normal. They know that that failed.

They know what happened in Libya. And we sort of have experienced our own version of Libya to some extent. In many ways, they are greeting 2011 in the same spirit that they're greeting 2024, that the future has arrived and they have a role to play in that future. But in those 14 years, they have become infinitely less naive.

ZAKARIA: So, the mood is hopeful, and people are, at least in the cities, hoping to build a new country?

MALEK: Hopeful and vigilant. We know exactly what the fault lines could be, or the fault lines that are -- both internally and externally have been played upon by malignant actors.

I think Syrians are tired of that. They want a state. They want to live. They want electricity. They want to harness the talents that other countries have taken advantage of when they've had Syrian populations in their midst.

ZAKARIA: So, it would be fair to say your advice to the West would be drop the sanctions, engage with Syria, try to make this work?

MALEK: And listen to Syrians. The Syrians haven't been silent in the last 14 years. Even in exile, they have -- even as refugees, for example, they've held using universal jurisdiction in European courts. They've held members of the regime and of ISIS accountable for their crimes. They've been speaking to each other.

I think, you know, a government is, of course, you know, the immediate interlocutors. But the Syrian people have not been silent. And it's just really a matter of, are we willing to listen?

ZAKARIA: Alia, a pleasure to have you on.

MALEK: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, El Salvador's president made headlines this week by offering to jail American criminals in his country's notorious prisons.

[10:45:05]

What is going on? I will ask an expert.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: This week, El Salvador took the spotlight with a bold offer to the United States. During a visit from U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio, conservative president Nayib Bukele suggested his country could take in, not just deported immigrants, but American criminals as well. [10:50:07]

Rubio said the U.S. would consider what he called a, quote, "act of extraordinary friendship," unquote, despite being a plan that many experts say is illegal. Indeed, it's notable that Rubio's first trip in his new post was to Latin America, a region many believe the U.S. has long neglected. So, what to make of all this?

Brian Winter is the editor-in-chief of "Americas Quarterly," which covers Latin American politics, business and culture. So, before we get to Bukele and the prison offer, why is Marco Rubio choosing Latin America as the first visit? That's always symbolically important. And he has clearly decided that he wants to send a signal.

BRIAN WINTER, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, AMERICAS QUARTERLY: I think this administration, Fareed, is more focused on Latin America than maybe any U.S. government for the last 30 years. The reason why is they know that their big domestic policies of reducing irregular immigration, as well as cutting back on drug flows into the states, and some work on China as well, depend on Latin America. And I think Secretary Rubio's choice of Latin America -- unusual. And we haven't seen anything like this in years. For a secretary of state to go there first, I think reflects those priorities.

ZAKARIA: And Latin America and Central America is very divided between some new rulers, Milei in Argentina, Bukele in El Salvador, who seem very populist and in some ways kind of on the right side of the, you know, the populist divide, even in the United States. And then there are others like the Colombian president, who is a kind of, you know, radical left winger, I think, many people would say. Is the administration favoring one group over the other?

WINTER: Well, there's no doubt that several governments around Latin America are happy with this increased attention from the United States. But it's also true that being an ally of the U.S. does not necessarily protect you in this current environment. The Panamanians found that out.

I mean, you have a president in Panama who's also a right of center Mulino, very allied with the United States. And yet they were on the receiving end of these threats that President Trump made in his inaugural address about wanting to take back the Panama Canal.

So, it's not just about left or right. Governments all over the region are asking themselves whether being an ally of Washington, like what that really means.

ZAKARIA: Bukele and this offer to take American prisoners. The backdrop, I think, it's important to remember is Trump, during the campaign was -- said some very nasty things about Bukele, right?

WINTER: I think that this offer of prisons is at least partly a peace offering from President Bukele to President Trump. Recognizing that Trump accused him during the campaign last year of sending, you know, his criminals to the United States. And that's why crime was down in El Salvador. Of course, the story is more complicated than that. ZAKARIA: I mean, as far as I can tell, the real story is he didn't send the criminals to the United States. He locked up, you know, vast numbers of people, including suspected criminals, criminals, you know, people who are innocent. But crime has gone down like 80 percent or something like that.

How are things going in El Salvador? Is he a success story?

WINTER: Look, there is frustration all over Latin America with organized crime, which is not a new issue in the region. But we've seen, according to the U.N., a doubling in the amount of cocaine that is being produced in the world over the last decade that has given cartels, organized crime groups, all kinds of resources, and they're creating havoc in countries that they never really had much of a presence before, including places like Ecuador, Peru and others.

And so, what we see, not just in El Salvador but across the region, is an eagerness to try those kinds of tactics. The downside is that it results in due process and other things being suspended, and you end up with innocent people being put in jail, according to organizations like the Organization of American States. But that is a sacrifice that Salvadorans seem willingness to make. And perhaps people in other countries as well, because, as you noted, Fareed, the results are clear. Homicides are way down.

ZAKARIA: Fair to say that you're, you know, looking at this landscape and this region. So far, while Trump has used some strong-arm tactics, and the U.S. is so much more powerful, it is always going to, you know, win in one of those contests. The U.S. is focusing more on the region. It is trying to get results that are important. This doesn't seem as much of a kind of, you know, a strange mess that some of the other parts of the world, of the Trump people seem to be focused on this for good reasons.

WINTER: Well, they see -- again, these U.S. domestic objectives of reducing immigration, of reducing drug flows. They believe that Latin America is key to that.

[10:55:01]

It's also true that we have governments all over the region who are trying to, in some cases, imitate the deregulation, the cutting of government, the generally pro-business policies that they see in the Trump administration. And with these elections that we see over the next year, year and a half, there may even be more governments in the region that end up aligned with Trump.

So, you know, but again, not even they consider themselves safe. Some of them are asking questions. Do we need to look more to Europe? Do we need to look more to China? Do we need to look more within our own countries to make sure that were not at risk of, you know, being threatened by a government, and the White House that's dealing with us at a transactional level?

ZAKARIA: Brian, always a pleasure to hear from you. WINTER: Thank you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Thank you. And thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)