Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Starmer Under Pressure Over Mandelson Scandal; UK PM Addresses Parliament over Mandelson Vetting Scandal; Israel Issues Warning to Residents of Southern Lebanon; Oil Prices Surge after U.S. Seizes Iranian- Flagged Ship; Leaving North Korea: A Journey 10 Years in the Making; Ship Survivor's Life Jacket Fetches more than $900K. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired April 20, 2026 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: -- in number 10 was informed about UK SB's recommendation. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear and for the record, the
Cabinet Office's, Permanent Secretary, did receive information recently and then sought the necessary and legal advice.
Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office's Permanent Secretary, I was told that is in the last two weeks or so, that was
entirely the right procedure to get the legal advice and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. It was the right procedure that
was followed by my officials in the last few weeks.
Mr. Speaker, in relation to why I was furious about the process for the very reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe I should have been given this
information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told. I should have been told on appointment,
I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked, the Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process.
The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the set that Committee, and I should have been told when I
ordered a review of vetting Mr. Speaker. In relation to the point, she makes about what I said in February in answer to a question of hers.
I make it very clear Mr. Speaker I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that. UK sprain, the question asked me about vetting. I knew
about the due diligence, and that is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. The question asked me about
vetting, and I knew what the due diligence has said, and therefore I told the House what the due diligence has said.
I did not tell them what security vetting had said, because I had not seen the file in relation to that. Mr. Speaker, in relation to the particular
details, in relation to Peter Mandelson, I acted on all of the information that I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is I should have
had more information.
I did not have that information. The House should have had that information, and I have now set it out in full to the House.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chair the Foreign Reverse Select Committee gave Emily Thornberry.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, is that my committee did ask. We asked on the record, and we got a partial
truth that could hardly be the whole truth. But we are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the other side say should have been
asked. And the answers are there on the record to see just what we got when we did ask.
Mr. Speaker, may I just turn to my question. A month before Mandelson's appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that
necessary security clearance should be acquired before confirming a political appointment. That doesn't seem to have been the usual practice.
I'm glad that it's changed, because it was clearly abused.
Because what happened was that somebody, probably Peter Mandelson himself, leaked to the press his appointment as U.S. Ambassador, effectively
bouncing the government into confirming it. But then, when the confirmation did come forward about his appointment, it did not make clear that it was
subject to vetting in either the offer letter to Peter Mandelson, or in the government's press release.
I am afraid to say, doesn't this look like for certain members of the Prime Minister's team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that
overrode everything else, and that security considerations were very much second order.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prime Minister.
STARMER: Can I thank you for a question. Her committee did ask relevant questions, and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that
the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation the questions
were asked.
She was asked to -- advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. And that is unforgivable. As for the
appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process now so it can never happen again. And she heard me quote the evidence of the former
cabinet secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.
Mr. Speaker, can I just deal with the third point she makes. And that is that somehow the Downing Street's wish to appoint Peter Mandelson over road
security concerns. No, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker let me be very clear, if I had been told that Peter Mandelson or anybody else had failed
security and had not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have pointed them.
[11:05:00]
A deliberate decision was -- a deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from it. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that
material. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn't an oversight. It was a decision. It was a -- it was a decision taken not to share that information
on repeated occasions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ed Davey, Leader of the Liberal Democrats.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's 2022 all over again. Back then, when he stood on this side of the House, there was Boris Johnson, who
was accused of misleading parliament and scapegoating senior officials. The then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer the public need
to know he said.
That not all politicians are the same, that not all politicians put themselves above their country, and that honesty, integrity and
accountability matter. So, he promised change, Mr. Speaker. He promised to break the cycle and stop the chaos. He promised a government with and I
quote, more focus on long term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.
I'm afraid, the fact that he even had to make the statement today shows how badly he has failed? How badly he has let down the millions of people
across our country who are so desperate for change? He blames his officials. He says he had no idea. He gives every impression of a Prime
Minister in office, but not in power.
The facts remain. Even on his own account, the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States, even after he had been
warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson --
LYNDA KINKADE, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: Hello, I'm Lynda Kinkade in Atlanta. You've just been listening to the British House of Commons where Prime
Minister Keir Starmer addressed the most recent controversy regarding Peter Mandelson's appointment as Ambassador to the United States.
Now, news surfaced last week that Mandelson had failed an in-depth security vetting before his 2025 appointment. Prime Minister, Starmer insists that
he was not aware of that failure. Mandelson was fired in September over his ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer, moments ago, again,
apologized to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein who were clearly failed.
Our Clare Sebastian has been listening to this and joins me from inside the House of Commons. Good to have you with us Clare. So, some tough questions
and scrutiny for the Prime Minister of Britain over the appointment of Mandelson. The big question is, what he knew and when he knew it? Just take
us through what has been said so far in this heated exchange.
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, Lynda, the Prime Minister is leaning heavily into his core defense that he did not know up until last
week, that Mandelson had failed this security vetting, and that failure was then overruled, essentially by Foreign Office officials, and his
appointment was allowed to go ahead.
He said there were multiple opportunities where he could have been informed about this, where other senior officials could have been informed about
this, and that it was. And he, and I quote, a deliberate decision by Foreign Office officials not to inform him. He said, at one point, many
members of this House will find these facts to be incredible, and for that, I can only say they're right.
That said, that is essentially his court events. He's also saying that he's made changes, that he's now saying that you cannot make this kind of
appointment or announce this kind of appointment before security betting has been completed, which is what was, of course, the case with Peter
Mandelson. And he has suspended the right of the Foreign Office to overrule decisions by the UK security vetting agency which carries out these
confidential checks on officials like Ambassadors taking up these postings.
So that's sort of his argument. He expressed a lot of incredulity throughout that he was not given this information. But the backlash from
the other side of the House has been intense. The Head of the Conservative Party, which was the second biggest party in parliament, coming up and
saying essentially that he broke the ministerial code because he knew about this last Tuesday.
And he could have come to the House and corrected the record on Wednesday, as is required when you need to do so. So, she's accusing him of that.
She's saying that they should have taken a closer look at vetting. Because, of course, there were known issues with Mandelson, not, not least, of
course, his long political career in which he was sacked twice from government, and I quote the Leader of the Opposition for lying.
There is controversy, of course, in his past, even before the whole friendship with Epstein and the revelations on that that have come to
light. I thought it was notable that there was a Labour MP, Emily Thornberry, who asked the question and basically accused him of putting his
desire to put Mandelson in this job over National Security.
Starmer hit back at that and said that if he had known, as he's repeated several times, that Mendelson had failed security vetting, he would not
have appointed this him in the first place.
[11:10:00]
And then we had the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, Ed Davey who said, this is 2022 all over again, reminding Starmer that when he was in
opposition and Boris Johnson, the Former Prime Minister was accused of misleading the House. He was the one calling on him to resign for doing
that and that he came into power on a promise to stop the chaos.
So, it is definitely tense. It's noisy on the floor there. I will say that on the issue of judgment around the appointment of Mandelson, this was an
area where Starmer takes full responsibility. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STARMER: I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologize again to the victims of the pedophile
Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SEBASTIAN: So, look, what is happening today is Starmer defending himself before the House against allegations he may have, knowingly or unknowingly,
as he claims, misled them on this issue. What we will hear tomorrow is Ollie Robins, who is the top foreign office official who has been sacked as
a result of this give his side of the story.
And I think that will be a major moment of pearl for the Prime Minister, if his account differs wildly from what we're hearing from Keir Starmer today,
Lynda.
KINKADE: All right. Clare Sebastian, we will come back to you again. Appreciate you being on this story. Breaking news this hour. Good to have
you with us. And we are going to stay on this my next guest wrote in "The Independent" this weekend that Keir Starmer's government lost its way long
before the Mandelson debacle.
We're joined now by John Rentoul the paper's, Chief Political Commentator. Good to have you with us John.
JOHN RENTOUL, CHIEF POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, THE INDEPENDENT: Hello there.
KINKADE: So, Keir Starmer now accepts that he inadvertently misled parliament over the Mandelson appointment. How serious is this, politically
for him? Is this a manageable scandal, or is this a real credibility crisis?
RENTOUL: It's a -- it could be both. His credibility has been seriously undermined by this. I thought he gave a reasonable account of himself just
now in the House of Commons. You actually reran that clip of what he said at the start, which was admitting that he made a mistake in appointing
Peter Mandelson in the first place, and really that really is the top, bottom and sides of the story.
He accepts that it was a mistake to have appointed Peter Mandelson. All this argument about what he knew and why he didn't know about the security
vetting is really a sort of procedure question that sort of follows that main question. But the fact is, he's admitted it was a mistake, and it was
a damaging mistake.
And he's going to keep paying the price for it for some time to come, because there are lots more documents relating to the appointment of Peter
Mendelson that are going to be published in the next few weeks as a result of a parliamentary motion which was carried against his wishes.
KINKADE: So, do we know who actually made that final decision to proceed with the appointment of Peter Mandelson and essentially overrule that
vetting decision?
RENTOUL: Yes. Well, it's very interesting that Keir Starmer didn't say, didn't identify an individual. He said that Foreign Office officials
decided to overrule the security vetting judgment. The person who has to take responsibility for that, of course, is the top official in the Foreign
Office, Sir Ollie Robins.
Who had only taken up post 12 days before the security vetting service reported that they thought that Peter Mandelson should not be appointed
Ambassador. Ollie Robins as a new permanent secretary of the foreign office then had a very, very awkward decision to make. Did he overrule that
decision? Or did he -- did he agree with it?
It would have been very difficult for him to have tried to block Peter Mandelson's appointment at that point, because he knew that the Prime
Minister wanted him. So, everything flows from that. But the Prime Minister was justified, I think, in being annoyed with Ollie Robins for keeping it
secret that he had overruled the security vetting judgment.
KINKADE: So, is this being treated as a systematic breakdown for the UK vetting process, or is this a one-off failure?
RENTOUL: Well, it's very, very difficult, because one of the things -- one of the reasons why this happened, is that the foreign office is a law to
itself. As the Prime Minister explained, if the security vetting service had ruled against any other candidate in any other department, that would
have been the end of the matter.
But the Foreign Office for some reason, its officials are allowed to overrule the decision of the security vetting service, which on this
occasion, they did.
[11:15:00]
So, the Prime Minister, I think, managed to defend himself very, very solidly on the fact that he wasn't told that this this decision had been
overruled. But the question is whether it is sensible for him to go to war with the civil service in this way.
I mean, to have sacked the chief civil servant in the Foreign Office summarily, overnight, is a very dangerous thing for him to do, because all
the senior service, senior civil service now will find it very difficult to trust anything that the Prime Minister says.
KINKADE: John Rentoul, great to get your perspective. Appreciate you joining us. Thanks so much.
RENTOUL: Thank you.
KINKADE: We are going to take a quick break. We'll have much more news in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KINKADE: Welcome back. With a two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran set to expire in just days. There is growing uncertainty over what happens
next. The U.S. is now holding an Iranian flagship it sees near the Strait of Hormuz Sunday. The U.S. military video released by CENTCOM shows marine
helicopters flying towards a ship called the Tusca and Marines then descending from the helicopters on to the vessel using ropes.
The U.S. says the ship tried to evade the U.S. blockade. And for the third day in a row, the Strait of Hormuz remains virtually empty as the U.S. and
Iran trade threats. U.S. President Trump confirms American officials will soon travel to Islamabad for a second round of negotiations with Tehran,
though Iran's Foreign Minister is casting serious doubt on whether Iran will even take part.
Let's get straight to Kevin Liptak for the latest live from the White House. Good to see you, Kevin. So just days ago, the president was saying
this war was almost over, that the conflict was very close to being over. He virtually declared victory and said the Strait was open. But given the
recent ship seizures and the warning shots, is the Strait of Hormuz virtually closed?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: It seems as if it's closed for now, despite what the president had been saying all over the course of
the last week. And some of the president's rhetoric, I think is throwing into doubt the state of these negotiations that he says were set to occur
this evening in Islamabad.
Now it is already evening in Pakistan right now, and to our knowledge, no American officials have yet left the United States to participate in these
talks.
[11:20:00]
We just saw J.D. Vance, the Vice President, arriving here at the White House. And so, the state of those negotiations still somewhat unclear. Our
understanding is that, yes, they will still transpire at some point in the coming days, but when that exactly is?
We don't know, in part because the Iranians have said that they have not agreed to a new round of talks, in part because the president has said that
Iran has agreed to all of the sticking points that remained in these negotiations. And so, it's a somewhat confusing moment.
I think you know, when you talk to American officials, they say that it is their belief that the Iranians are simply posturing, trying to, you know,
get an extract from the United States all of their demands. From the Trump point of view, he still believes that the U.S. has the upper hand in all of
this.
What we don't know at this point is what exactly Iran might have agreed to allow the president to suggest that everything that the United States had
been asking for had been agreed to? We don't know yet what the agreement is on nuclear enrichment for example.
The president has said that Iran not be able to enrich uranium. Iran says that is its right. How that is reconciled? We don't know just yet.
Similarly, we don't understand what the president has agreed to in terms of lifting sanctions or unfreezing Iranian assets. That's something that
Tehran has said is a non-negotiable as part of any deal.
And of course, the Strait of Hormuz that we don't know at this point how that will be resolved as part of these negotiations. And remember Lynda
that a ceasefire, that two-week ceasefire, is set to expire tomorrow evening, the president saying that he will target Iranian bridges and power
plants if no deal is struck that many experts say would amount to a violation of international law.
It's also something that the president has threatened repeatedly over the course of this conflict, only to step back, pull back. He hasn't done that
just yet. The question now is whether this additional pressure will cause Iran to come to the negotiating table, ready to make concessions, or
whether the president will follow through.
It's to be sure, I think, a very unstable moment in the course of this conflict. But when you talk to White House officials, they are of the
belief that these negotiations will occur sometime, quickly.
KINKADE: All right. Got your finger on the poles. Kevin Liptak outside the White House. Thank you very much. Well, Lebanon's President says his
country's peace talks with Israel should be separate from any negotiations on resolving the conflict with Iran. A fragile 10-day U.S. brokered
ceasefire appears to be largely holding.
It's meant to halt fighting between Israel and the Iranian backed Hezbollah. One Lebanese resident says the scale of destruction there
mirrors that of Gaza. Entire communities have been erased. CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Tel Aviv, Israel.
Jeremy, good to have you with us. So, you know, the ceasefire largely intact, but on the ground, Israeli forces is still in Southern Lebanon.
Just how is the ceasefire holding and what are the conditions for the next round of talks?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you know, Lynda the ceasefire in Lebanon does appear to be holding. We haven't seen any
Hezbollah rocket attacks in recent days, no significant Israeli strikes to speak of at this moment.
What we have seen, though, are continued warnings from the Israeli military for residents of Southern Lebanon not to return to their homes south of the
Litani River, some 25 miles north of the Israel Lebanon border. Despite that, we have seen some of those residents beginning to return to their
homes to take stock of the enormous levels of destruction that they are finding on the ground, homes and businesses destroyed in many cases.
We are -- we haven't seen people return, though, to the closest areas to the Israeli border, where we now see about, you know, five-kilometer
security buffer zone that the Israeli military has established in Southern Lebanon. And no one seems to be able to get through the Israeli lines to
their homes in those areas.
And that is also the area where we are seeing the Israeli military carrying out significant demolitions and bulldozing in order to clear villages,
homes, land, flatten it essentially, in order to have a clear line of sight into Lebanon, actions that in many cases are considered to be a violation
of international law and could even rise to the level of war crimes, given the scale of the destruction of civilian infrastructure that we are
witnessing in Southern Lebanon.
The Israeli government has been insistent that thousands of Israeli troops will continue to maintain this position -- these positions inside of
Southern Lebanon, even as negotiations with the Lebanese government take place.
[11:25:00]
We expect the next round of talks on that front to take place this coming Thursday in Washington between the Israelis and the Lebanese, with American
officials hosting that discussion. The Lebanese President today making clear that he sees dialog as the best option forward.
And he is also trying to de link the Lebanese front from what could happen between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. And
that really speaks to this fragile moment in the region right now the very real possibility of the return to a hot war between the United States and
Iran.
Should this diplomacy that's taking place right now break down? And the Lebanese President basically trying to make sure that this ceasefire with
Israel holds, even if the conflict returns to Iran, Lynda.
KINKADE: All right. Jeremy Diamond, we'll touch base with you again soon. Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv, thank you. I want to turn now to Spain, which
has launched a massive immigration program to legalize about half a million undocumented people, while other European governments time their policies
long lines for in person immigration interviews have been seen in southern Spain.
The Spanish Prime Minister's plan is part of an effort to harness the economic benefits of migration as the country's population ages. Let's go
to Pau Mosquera, who is at an immigration office in Madrid. Good to have you there for us. So, talk to us about this plan, this move to push ahead
with a pathway for legal status for up to half a million undocumented immigrants. What's the political calculation?
PAU MOSQUERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Lynda. The government estimates that they are going to legalize around half a million people in
Spain. But there are other institutions and organizations that estimate that the final figure could be much higher, about 1 million people.
And let me show you what is happening right now here in the North in Madrid, in the district of Tetuan, I'm here in front of one of the many
offices that are collaborating with the Spanish government in order to process the hundreds of thousands of applications that they are expecting
regarding this program.
Specifically, we are now in one of the CR offices, which stands for Spanish commission for refugee aid. And as you can see here, there are dozens and
dozens of people awaiting their turn to be attended. But let me tell you that half an hour ago, the line was much longer. In fact, we can talk about
a double line.
And what they decided to do from the organization is to hand out tickets, so those who got one will be attended today, but everyone else will have to
come back tomorrow. And it's important to say that many of them that are here, the last ones from the line, they have been waiting since the small
hours of this Monday.
And what they are expecting from being here is to obtain one of the key documents of this plan. This is the certificate of vulnerability. It is a
document that states their status of vulnerability in the country. Also important to say, Lynda that we have been monitoring many other offices
that are spread here in the area, and we have seen like striking lines in one of the non-governmental organizations.
We were earlier this morning there were around 2000 people awaiting to be attended. So, they had to deploy National Police in order to make everyone
wait their position in the line. So today, Lynda marks the very first day where people can start their process in person, and they will be able to do
so until the next June 30th, Lynda.
KINKADE: Wow, incredible. Such a contrast to what we're seeing in other parts of Europe and certainly here in the U.S. Pau Mosquera in Madrid,
thanks very much. Well, still to come, profound uncertainty hangs over one of the world's most crucial energy choke points. What happens next will
depend largely on whether the U.S. and Iran head back to the negotiating table.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
KINKADE: Welcome back to "One World". I'm Lynda Kinkade. Zain and Bianna are off today. This is "One World". State media reports that Iran is vowing
retaliation after the U.S. seized an Iranian flagged cargo ship. New footage from CENTCOM appears to show U.S. Marines approaching the vessel.
Meantime, the status of peace talks remains unclear, after Iran's foreign ministry insisted that there are no plans for a second round of
negotiations. In Japan, a tsunami warning has been downgraded to an advisory following a 7.4 magnitude earthquake off the country's
northeastern coast.
This video shows the impact of the tremors at a restaurant in Yamagata prefecture. There are no immediate reports of casualties or major damage.
Pope Leo is criticizing what he calls the exploitation of people by authoritarians around the world. During a mass in Angola, he also said the
hopes of many are frustrated by violence and defrauded by the rich. The first American Pope is touring Africa, using his trip to repeatedly call
for peace.
Oil prices are surging after the seizure of an Iranian flagged cargo ship by the U.S. near the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday. Brent Crude, the
international benchmark, rose by more than 6 percent earlier. Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Secretary says gas prices may not return to under $3 a
gallon until next year.
CNN's David Goldman joins us now, live from New York. Great to have you with us, David. So, hopefully we've got audio. I can't hear you right now,
but I'll ask you the question, make sure we get that right. So can you hear now, which is great.
DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Oh, good. OK.
KINKADE: So, the Energy Secretary is warning that oil prices might not return to the pre-conflict price levels until next year. The president, on
the other hand, is saying that that's not going to happen. He's pushing back on that outlook. What's the reality?
GOLDMAN: Yeah. I mean, listen, oil prices are up, oil prices are down, then they're back up again. It's hard to keep track, and I would urge viewers
not to worry too much about it. Here's what they need to know. Oil needs to come down to around $60 a barrel for gas to go back down to $3 a gallon,
which is where it was before the war.
We are nowhere close to that, right? And the thing that's going to get oil back down to 60 is for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen. Now we all know that
that was supposed to happen over the past weekend, it didn't happen. This is a very, very tricky and fraught negotiation that needs to happen, and
it's not clear when that is going to happen. So is Wright, wrong, or is Wright, right, is the big question.
[11:35:00]
The big question is Secretary of the Energy Chris Wright correct in saying that gas prices are going to be $3 not until next year. Yeah, probably at
this pace. But what we might see is a deal today, and then, you know, we're back where we were over the weekend. We don't know, but that is the
precursor to all of this.
KINKADE: Although, even if there was a deal today, it's not like oil prices are going to bounce back to pre-conflict levels immediately.
GOLDMAN: Nope.
KINKADE: That aside, I want to ask you about the terror situation, because the U.S. is now beginning the process of unwinding what was one of the
largest tariff regimes in the world after the Supreme Court ruled that, you know, Trump's tariffs were unlawful. So just take us through that process
of refunds. How does it work? Because it comes with interest, right?
GOLDMAN: It does come with interest. Yes. So, there's $166 billion of illegal tariffs that were charged. Those are the ones that the Supreme
Court overturned. And so now the U.S. government owes that, plus interest, as you mentioned, and that's in -- that's going to be measured in the
hundreds of millions of dollars.
And so, this is a big bill that taxpayers ultimately will be on the hook for. So how does it work? Well, this is a big mess, according to not just
the Trump Administration, but also Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who said as much when this was going to when they have a hearing about
this.
What needs to happen is that you need to apply for a tariff rebate. And when I say you, I don't mean you and me. I mean if you were an importer, if
you brought stuff from overseas into the United States, you paid a tariff. Now you're owed a refund. But did you pay the tariff on what was illegally
charged, or were there legal tariffs?
Still legal tariffs charged in there? That's something that the Customs and Border Protection need to figure out. So, there's a portal now you can go
and complain and say, I was charged illegal tariffs. They're going to review it. They said it could take 60 to 90 days to figure that out, and
then they might push back. And so, it could take even longer.
This is going to be a very long process. And if you're a consumer watching this and wondering, am I going to get my money back? Doesn't look like it,
because you're pretty far removed from this process. Remember, the importers paid the tariffs, not the retailer that you bought from, so
you're kind of three steps removed. You know, you've got a long way down the chain before you get that money back.
KINKADE: Yeah, consumers certainly aren't going to see that refund. David Goldman, our thanks to you in New York.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
KINKADE: Well, the vital economic waterway at the center of all the oil volatility that we are seeing is at a virtual standstill. For the third
consecutive day the Strait of Hormuz is all but empty, according to ship tracking data. Tevron briefly reopened the -- point on Friday, but then
reimposed sharp restrictions after the U.S. said it would not end its blockade of Iranian ports.
Now the Strait, of course, is a key waterway for global trade, carrying roughly 20 percent of the world's oil supply, or at least that's what it
did before the war. Rosemary Kelanic is the Director of Middle East Programs at Defense Priorities. She's also the Author of "Black and Gold
and Blackmail Oil and Great Power Politics". Welcome to the program.
ROSEMARY KELANIC, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM, DEFENSE PRIORITIES: Thanks so much for having me on.
KINKADE: So, Rosemary, you've previously argued that when U.S. policy contributes to what we are seeing right now, which is this global supply
disruption. Washington is responsible for the global oil volatility that we're seeing. Just how responsible is it?
KELANIC: Well, the Strait of Hormuz was open and functioning normally before Trump attacked Iran. And that is what led to this closure that has
led to this disruption of 20 percent of global oil supplies that normally go through the Strait every day. Hormuz was essentially all but closed.
Small amounts of traffic were going through if companies or countries paid tolls to Iran. Iranian shipments were also going through at relatively low
levels, but some oil was still getting out. But now the United States, under Trump, has blockaded the blockade. So, they've blockaded Iran's ports
and prevented Iran from exporting its oil, which then, you know, led to Iran closing Hormuz again.
And then this also, like outlet valve that we used to have with Iranian exports, is now closed thanks to the U.S. military. So, the U.S. is fully
responsible for this, for this disruption. And you know, we just don't know how long Trump is going to keep it in place.
KINKADE: And it's not just the oil prices that are spiking that we're seeing. Also, insurance premiums are certainly jumping sharply in response
to this maritime risk. At what point does this become a strategic success for Iran? Does it have the leverage right now?
[11:40:00]
KELANIC: Oh, it's already a success for Iran, 100 percent. I mean, Iran has leverage for two main reasons. One, they have shown that all they have to
do is threaten to attack shipping or attack a small number of ships in Hormuz, and the whole thing shuts down. Ships won't go through.
And that gives Iran huge leverage over oil prices, which is extremely important to the rest of the world, including President Trump, especially
in a midterm election year. So that's one source of leverage. The other source is that Iran can just continue to resist indefinitely.
The U.S. theory of victory was proved inaccurate after a couple of days, right? The U.S. thought that if it targeted Iran's leadership, killed the
Supreme Leader, Iran would capitulate, and the whole thing would be over before markets opened on Monday. That didn't happen.
And now Iran has shown it can just continue to resist the United States indefinitely, using very cheap guerrilla tactics like drones and attack
boats and sort of submarine launch drones and other sorts of things to keep oil tankers from transiting the Strait so Iran has the leverage here, not
the United States.
KINKADE: And so, markets now permanently pricing in this Hormuz risk premium. And if so, should we reset? You know, what we consider a baseline
oil price, a normal baseline oil price?
KELANIC: I think we are looking at a new normal now. And I don't actually think markets have priced in the shock, fully. Physical, you know, sort of
immediate physical delivery those prices are way up, somewhere around $145 a barrel. But futures prices, which are often cited in the press, in the
media, are still relatively low compared to the scale of the disruption, right?
They're higher than they were before. But it's signaling that they believe, that traders believe that this crisis is going to end soon and everything
will go back to normal. And that just is not likely, because there will always be, now, going forward, a higher risk premium in the Strait because
Iran has demonstrated it has this leverage.
So, I think we're not going back to the pre-war, February 27 status quo, possibly ever. And the only question now is, what's the new equilibrium
price once the current conflict is actually settled, which, so far it is not.
KINKADE: And of course, right now we are racing towards the end of this ceasefire, which is tomorrow evening. The Strait of Hormuz virtually at a
stand cell yet again, and Iran saying we might not even come to the talks. So, what do you think the next steps are? What should the U.S. do to at
least get Iran to the table?
KELANIC: Well, the U.S. should focus on extending the ceasefire, and then should take some mutual steps for confidence building, right? So, Iran
doesn't trust the United States. Several times now that the U.S. has negotiated with Iran, immediately after those negotiations, the U.S.
escalated, right?
We started war with Iran, or after the most recent one, we put this blockade on Iran. And so, Iran doesn't trust us, and they have that gives
them a huge disincentive to negotiate with us. So, we need to have some sort of mutual steps, right? And the obvious one is, we continue to
ceasefire. Iran drops the blockade of Hormuz, and we drop the blockade of Iran.
And then, if we can do that, then maybe we can get a deal, or we can have talks about a more substantive deal that settles the issues that led to the
war in the first place. But really the only thing the president can do that's going to end this is to step back from it.
There's no victory here. As much as he wants to declare victory, he can try to spin it however he wants, but he's not going to get more concessions out
of Iran as a result of this war.
KINKADE: Rosemary Kelanic, great to get your expert analysis. Much appreciate it.
KELANIC: Thank you.
KINKADE: North Korean families spent a decade planning their escape. Coming up, they talked to CNN about the harrowing journey to the south.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
KINKADE: Well, it took 10 years of planning in secret and a very dangerous journey under the cover of darkness. But one family finally made it out of
North Korea and are now telling their story to CNN's Mike Valeria.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KIM II-HYEOK, NORTH KOREAN DEFECTOR: I was so tense that my heart was pounding in my ears as it was hitting my head. It was silent and still,
with no one speaking at all. It was pouring rain that night. The waves could have easily crashed our boat against the rocks causing it to sink
right away.
MIKE VELARIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This small fishing boat carried Kim Il-Hyeok, his pregnant wife and seven other family members,
hoping to survive one of the most dangerous escapes from North Korea. A journey they say they planned for more than a decade. As Kim settles into
his new life in Seoul, he told us how his escape began with his father and his brother.
II-HYEOK: My father said, "There is no hope in this society. There is no way to change it. There is a vast, free world out there. Let's go to South
Korea". That's how it all started. And my father sent my younger brother to the sea. While working at the sea, my brother built close relationships
with local security officers, to prevent any suspicions. He bribed them and earned the trust of party loyalists.
VELARIO (voice-over): For more than 10 years, Kim and his brother practice their plan sailing near the closely watched sea border between North and
South Korea. It's a boundary called the Northern Limit Line, or NLL.
II-HYEOK: When we get near the NLL, a patrol boat started following us like it was chasing us. We always calculated the time it would take for them to
catch up. We would say, "We're not trying to defect. We're just here to make money. Then we would be released. We went through this several times".
VELARIO (voice-over): Kim says he finally decided his family needed to leave when the regime became even more repressive and COVID spread across
the country.
II-HYEOK: Things became extremely difficult during COVID. People focused on survival. Many people starved to death. Every day we would wake up to
stories of deaths and robberies.
VELARIO (voice-over): Kim later picked the precise timing for their defection, May 6th, 2023 10:00 p.m.
II-HYEOK: We specifically chose a day with tidal warnings. As the warning was issued, the waves grew higher, and a typhoon came in, so the North
Korean patrol boats retreated. My sister-in-law, my brother's mother-in- law, my mother and my wife passed through a minefield and hid by the rocks on the shore. My brother's two children were also with us. When we put them
in sacks we told them stay silent and not to move at all.
[11:50:00]
To avoid detection, we moved at a slow speed. Even the engine sound was low, like "thump, thump, thump". The children didn't fall asleep and stayed
completely quiet. When I opened the sacks, their eyes were wide open, and they hadn't made a sound. With the GPS on our boat, we confirmed we'd
crossed the NLL. Then we saw Yeonpyeong Island. It was lit up like day light, while we were in total darkness. When we were rescued, the South
Korean Navy came, and talked to us with a loud speaker, asking if the engine had broken down.
They must have wanted to check our intentions. "No, our engine isn't broken. We're North Korean fishermen, and we've come to defect to South
Korea". My wife was emotional because we had left her family behind. Her eyes were swollen from crying so much. It felt like a huge weight was
lifted off my shoulders. I was filled with relief, thinking, "it's finally over," and my tension just melted away.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KINKADE: Welcome back to "Magnum Bottles of Bordeaux" is sold for a record- breaking total of more than $306,000 at a Sotheby's Auction on Friday. The 1870 Chateau Lafitte Rothschilds Bottles were hidden deep in the wine
cellar of Glamis Castle, which was considered the most haunted castle in Scotland.
The castle once hosted Mary Queen of Scots, and has strong links to the British Royal Family. The first bottle sold for more than $106,000 the
second one for $200,000. Well, a titanic survivor's life jacket sold for even more, over $900,000 in a landmark auction over the weekend. The
winning bid was much higher than predicted. According to UK Auction House the west is the only one from a survivor of the 1912 tragedy ever to go to
auction.
[11:55:00]
It was worn by the first-class passenger, Laura Mayor Francatelli. She was one of 700 survivors from the tragedy. Some 1500 people died. Last week,
marked 114 years since the ill-fated ocean liner sank on its maiden voyage.
And finally, before we go the herculean rescue effort to say the humpback whale has captured the hearts of people around the world. Over the past
four weeks, rescuers have repeatedly tried to get it back into open waters after it became stuck on a sand bank along Germany's Baltic Coast.
Members of the public are calling the whale Timmy. This morning, CNN Affiliate RTL, Germany captured rescue boats off the Coast of Pearl Island
attempting to guide Timmy to safety. The elaborate effort could be Timmy's last chance. Stay with CNN. We have much more news, and I'll have much more
of "One World" in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
