Bernard Haykel (3:03)

It's lovely to be here.

Christiane Amanpour (3:05)

So I don't know what you thought, but, you know, we had the entire press conference at the Oval Office live on television, and it was quite something. I just wonder from the get go. Let's just ask. President Trump was asked about, you know, welcoming Mohammed bin Salman, who his own CIA determined in the first Trump administration had been behind Khashoggi's murder. Now, obviously the Saudis deny it, but Trump went at the ABC journalist, called her fake news and Binsorry, Mohammed bin Salman answered in a measured and direct way to the journalists. I want to get your reaction, but first I want to play that soundbite.

Juan Gonzalez (3:51)

About the journalists. It's really painful to hear, you know.

Stefano Pozobon (3:55)

Anyone that been losing his life for, you know, no real purpose or not.

Juan Gonzalez (4:02)

In a legal way. And it's been painful for us in Saudi Arabia. We did all the right steps of investigation, et cetera, in Saudi Arabia. And we've improved our system to be.

Stefano Pozobon (4:14)

Sure that nothing happened like that.

Juan Gonzalez (4:16)

And it's painful and it's a huge.

Stefano Pozobon (4:18)

Mistake and we are doing our best.

Juan Gonzalez (4:20)

That this doesn't happen again.

Christiane Amanpour (4:23)

So, Professor Haykel, I was astounded that it was the crown Prince himself who answered a reporter, a Western reporter, while President Trump said that she was insulting his welcome visitor. What do you make of that encounter?

Bernard Haykel (4:38)

Well, I mean, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia is a very, you know, dignified and respectful man when it comes to interacting with other people. You know, he put the murder of Jamal also within the context of the 911 attacks where he said that bin Laden was trying to destroy the relationship between the kingdom and the United States and that that had failed and the, and that it was very important that that fails and that he was continuing with, you know, building that relationship and that the Jamal Khashoggi murder was a rogue operation effectively, and that, you know, the people who had committed that crime were punished and the family of Jamal was paid what we call blood money or diya in Arabic, and that the judicial procedures in the kingdom were undertaken to make sure that, that, that justice was served according to Islamic law and that, you know, this would never happen again. I don't know what else he can say. I mean, he's not going to admit to having, you know, ordered.

Christiane Amanpour (5:42)

That's not, that's not what I was asking. I was asking the difference of the Saudi crown Prince directly answering a direct question that Trump had batted away and essentially insulted and threatened the US Reporter.

Bernard Haykel (5:57)

Yeah, my sense of President Trump was essentially he accused the Reporter of being disrespectful to his guest. And, you know, President Trump wants to get on with the business of doing all these deals with the kingdom and signing all these agreements and that, you know, he doesn't want those jeopardized. And he feels that, you know, what he calls the extreme left, you know, as not wanting that to happen.

Christiane Amanpour (6:21)

So let's get down to the actual business at hand. I mean, you have met and spoken to and interviewed the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman many times. As I said, you've got a book coming up. You've referred to the relationship between him and Trump as a bromance, and you've just talked about the business deals. So what is the most important thing on Crown Prince bin Salman's mind at this meeting at the White House?

Bernard Haykel (6:47)

Right, so the crown prince wants to establish a strategic alliance with the United States. He wants to accomplish for Saudi Arabia, with no previous king has been able to accomplish, which is to raise the status of Saudi Arabia in the administration, in this administration, and in future administrations to the level of, say, the UK Or France or Japan. That's his ambition. So for that, he wants ultimately a mutual defense treaty, which he cannot get because it requires 67 votes in the Senate. It's going to start with an agreement, and then he's going to build over time, as he becomes king and rules for many years towards a treaty. He also wants a strong artificial intelligence agreement because he sees that US Artificial intelligence is superior to the Chinese and to anyone else, and he wants that also built in. And there are many other treaties to do with mining and rare earths and so on. But essentially what he wants to do is develop a strong strategic alliance that will provide security to the kingdom. So security in a region that is very turbulent and with many aggressive neighbors, like Iran, for instance, or Shiite militias in Yemen or in Iraq, and civil wars such as you see in the Sudan. So that's what he wants. He wants security. And that's been a constant feature of Saudi foreign policy for many, many decades. He wants to now just secure that for his country.

Christiane Amanpour (8:13)

Okay, so let's take one by one. But first let's go to what the Americans certainly want, and that is the crown jewel of the Abraham Accords, which is for them getting the Saudi Arabians to normalize with Israel. Obviously, Crown Prince Mohammed runs the kingdom, by all intents and purposes. What is the likelihood of him giving that, you know, during this visit, will he tell Trump that, yep, you've persuaded me that I will recognize Israel?

Bernard Haykel (8:47)

He will only do that if the Israelis make a gesture towards the Palestinians. And also he's asked for several things. He's asked first for a ceasefire in Gaza, which is now accomplished. He's asked for full withdrawal and removing the arms from Hamas, full withdrawal of Israel from Gaza. And then he wants the Israelis to make a gesture towards a roadmap for a Palestinian state. If the Israelis make those gestures, then I think he will begin the process of normalization. It'll be a gradual process. It won't be like what we saw with the uae, with the United Arab Emirates. And I think he does want that. Let me just explain how I think the Crown Prince sees Israel first. He sees a region in the Middle east that he wants to be stable and economically prosperous. That stability and prosperity cannot be accomplished without Israel being included in the region and normalized relationship being had with Israel. But he also sees the Palestinian, the lack of Palestinian rights and self determination for the Palestinians as a cause of radicalization in the region. So he wants the Palestinians to be given a state. He's not going to determine what that state looks like. But once that happens, that source of radicalization ends and then normalization and order, stability and prosperity can be accomplished. And then you can have a military alliance that would include both Israel, Saudi and other US Allies against the troublemakers in the region. Here read Iran.

Christiane Amanpour (10:20)

Obviously everybody including Israel and the United States says Iran has been defanged, Hezbollah has been defanged. Obviously Hamas has been defanged, that Israel has accomplished all of that in its neighborhood. So now would be the time. But I want to ask you what do you and how do the Saudis read the UN Security Council resolution overn that essentially backed President Trump's so called 20 point plan. But key to this, it basically says about a Palestinian state only sort of a, sort of maybe reference, no specific timeline or process for achieving it or judging what would make so called reform in the Palestinian PA acceptable and to whom and by whom what do these Saudis make of that resolution?

Bernard Haykel (11:09)

So let me first address the first point you made, which is that the Saudis do not believe that the Iranians are, they're weakened, yes, but they're certainly not eliminated. And they're worried that the Israelis will attack the Iranians again and that in a moment of existential crisis for Iran that the Iranians would lash out at Saudi Arabia. And the Iranians still have short range missiles and drones that could damage Saudi vital installations and facilities, oil, water and other facilities, communications, for instance. So they're not convinced that Iran is out of the picture. So that's just. It's important for you, I think, and your viewers to understand that as far as the Palestinians are concerned and this resolution, the Saudis are supportive, but they want more. They want a more definitive timeline. They want, you know, the Palestinian Authority to be reformed. I think, you know, behind the scenes, what they would be saying to the Americans is that we want a specific leadership among the Palestinians. There are people who are clean and technocratic and not corrupt. They want them to take over and they want the Palestinian. They want Hamas also to be demilitarized and disarmed, just as they want Hezbollah. So, you know, there are interests that cross or intersect with Israel and Saudi Arabia when it comes to radical movements. But they will want more from the Americans and they will want specifically American pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government to come to an acknowledgement that a Palestinian state with a roadmap towards that state be officially and openly acknowledged and declared by the Israelis.

Christiane Amanpour (12:50)

There seems to be no progress in that regard. But clearly the Israelis, the Americans, many, many people want to see Hamas disarmed. Hamas has responded this resolution basically saying it won't. I was under the impression that that was part of the ceasefire agreement. Maybe I'm wrong. But who is going to disarm? How will they be disarmed? And the resolution, I believe, is also about a stabilization force, without which nothing is going to happen in Gaza.

Bernard Haykel (13:18)

That's right. So, yes, originally I think the plan was that the Qataris and the Turks, who have huge sway over Hamas, would convince Hamas to disarm. I don't think that's likely to happen. The Saudis have less, you know, influence over Hamas as and similarly the uae. So this international force may have to do it. I don't see how it can be done. You know, there are. The Saudis certainly will not contribute troops to that international stabilization force. What the Saudis are saying is that, you know, once Hamas is disarmed, once the Israelis withdrawal, we will help with financially rebuilding Gaza and helping restructure and reform the Palestinian Authority. That's the kind of Saudi role, essentially, that's on offer.

Christiane Amanpour (14:05)

Yeah. Well, okay, that still seems to be stuck then. So given that that aspect seems to be unresolved at the moment and showing no sign of being resolved, no sign of maybe any immediate recognition, therefore, or normalization with Israel. What about wanting the F35s? Apparently, this is something that Saudi Arabia wants. You heard in the press conference that one reporter said to President Trump, do you Accept that giving the Saudi Arabians F35s, that will put them at parity with the Israeli F35s. And the Israelis obviously don't want that. Are you surprised that President Trump has said yes? And has he said yes, or is he just floating it on the F35s?

Bernard Haykel (14:50)

I mean, the way I see the president. The president is basically using the F35 as a symbol. He's saying, basically, all American kit, all American weaponry is available to you Saudis. And this is a sign of how warmly he feels towards Saudi Arabia as an ally. The Saudis are saying, that's wonderful. You know, of course we want the F35. Now, whether they actually ever buy the F35, you know, is to my mind a very big question. And that's because the platform itself, you know, has a US Kill switch on it. You can't move the machine from one base to another within Saudi Arabia without American permission. There are, you know, it'll take 10 years before delivery comes because there are a lot of other countries waiting for the machine. You know, also, the war in Ukraine has shown that drones are more effective than airplanes. So I think the Saudis are basically telling Trump, you know, we want everything you can offer us. We're going to invest endless amounts of money. They're trying to please him so that they can get on with the business of signing all these agreements. The most important of which are, I think, three agreements. First, a mutual defense agreement. Second, an AI agreement, and third, a nuclear power agreement.

Christiane Amanpour (15:59)

Yeah. Just to note, of course, the US Defense Intelligence Agency is also very reluctant on the F35s because they don't want that technology getting into Chinese hands somehow via Saudi Arabia. But let's talk about the finances then. President Trump sounded like an auctioneer. You know, I've got a call for 600 billion here. Am I going to hear a trillion? You know, he went back and forth. And finally, Prince Mohammed bin Salman basically said, yep, yep, tomorrow you'll probably get a trillion. But there are two issues here. One is that there's plenty of reporting that Saudi Arabia is running out of that kind of money. It even has to back off some of its big infrastructure plans, the very highfaluting, high tech, you know, cities that it planned in the desert and the like. And two, of course, you've got the controversy that Trump sort of addressed with criticism of Trump family members going into business and profiting in terms of Saudi government assets. Where do you think all that is leading and how stressed are the Saudi finances?

Bernard Haykel (17:02)

Okay. I mean, we need to disentangle some of these issues. So one is the Saudis have lots of money, for sure, but they have to invest it domestically because of their diversification of their economy project, which is to try to make themselves more independent or less dependent on oil revenue. That requires a lot of domestic investment. So if you listen carefully to the Crown Prince, he said that, you know, we're going to invest in chips and so on, but what he meant is that we, Saudi Arabia, need chips. So in other words, whatever money he's spending in the United States has to contribute directly to his own domestic transformation and economic diversification projects. So the money is going to, if it comes, has to, as it were, go back to rebuild and help rebuild Saudi Arabia and modernize it. As far as, you know, the other point about, you know, Trump's family getting involved in business, first of all, there is no Trump business in Saudi Arabia, as far as I know. There are promises of potential, you know, Trump buildings being built there and so on. But to be honest and to be fair, every country in the world, certainly in the third world and in the developing world, is making promises to Trump and his family for business. So you have this in Turkey. We have the Indonesian president saying, how can I contact your son Eric, you know, at one of the meetings? You know, so everyone in the uae, Qatar, everyone is basically in the business of trying to, you know, please the Trump family and other, by the way, and other members of the administration. It's not just Trump that his family that's benefiting others are too. So this is a kind of systemic issue. And I think it has more to do with domestic American politics than with these foreigners who basically want to take advantage wherever they can to benefit their own country's interests.

Christiane Amanpour (18:51)

Yeah, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one. And thank you very much, Professor Bernard Hakal. Thank you so much for being with us.

Bernard Haykel (18:59)

Thank you.

Christiane Amanpour (19:00)

And stay with us because we'll be right back after the break. Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast All There Is, we.

Pamela Diaz (19:12)

Explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You'll hear deeply moving and honest discussions with people who have faced and are living with life altering losses. I first met Kenny Chesney nearly 20 years ago when I did a profile of him for CBS's 60 Minutes. Kenny's written a memoir called Heart Life Music about his incredible journey. I was one of those guys that really didn't have dogs in their life. It's a connection as strong as any other for many people.

Juan Gonzalez (19:38)

When Ruby passed, it was really, really difficult. It was as terrible as any friend.

Pamela Diaz (19:44)

I've ever had that talking, grief, building community. New episodes of All There Is come out Tuesday nights. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.

Christiane Amanpour (20:01)

Now the threat of a US War with Venezuela keeps rising. Now President Trump openly is musing about how to handle the country that he claims is responsible for an influx of drugs into the United States. After striking boats which they say carried cartel leaders, the president is considering whether to strike Venezuela itself and even other countries in the region. At the same time, Trump and Maduro say they're open to dialogue with each other. Stefano Pozobon is in Caracas with the very latest. So, Stefano, thank you for being with us. So which is it? What's the feeling on the ground? Is there any chance people are thinking of potential negotiations or are people hunkering down for a military attack?

Stefano Pozobon (20:46)

I think people that you speak with here, Christiane, in Caracas, both inside the government, in the opposition, but also just regular people who have been really following the development of these news in the last few days and weeks. They do believe that there is one more chance, one last chance perhaps to negotiations. Let's remember that this is a country and a government, in particular the Maduro government, that has been involved in negotiations before with everyone from the Qataris to the Norwegians to several other international bodies and members of the opposition. The Biden administration, for example, enthralled some negotiations with Maduro to no success in part. And I think that they believe that the Republicans and this Trump administration will give one last chance. And this is why, for example, just yesterday on Monday night in his weekly television show, Maduro did say that he was ready to speak, speak to Donald Trump face to face, take a listen.

Juan Gonzalez (21:43)

So this country is in peace. This country will continue to be at peace. And in the United States, anyone who wants to talk to Venezuela will talk.

Bernard Haykel (22:00)

Face to face.

Juan Gonzalez (22:04)

Seen without any problem.

Stefano Pozobon (22:09)

I think what is crucial is that the message from Maduro has been frankly consistent in the last few months since at least we have seen these display of military forces off the coast of Venezuela. It's not that he's saying that now just because there is the largest aircraft carrier in the world that is stationed again in the Caribbean on front of the Venezuelan coast. But he it's the first time that we hear that these messages have indeed arrived to Donald Trump. Maduro, for example, yesterday revealed that he had written a letter to Donald Trump suggesting talks and asking for a meeting as early as September 6th. We would need to know more than what Maduro stands for. What is Donald Trump trying to achieve here and whether diplomacy is actually what will get him.

Christiane Amanpour (22:53)

Cristiano Stone, what about people you sort of touched on it, but ordinary people who are under so much stress, you know, the poverty, the disorganization, there are obviously opposition people who voted for the opposition candidate who actually won the election. What do they think? What are they bracing for?

Stefano Pozobon (23:13)

I think it's a mix of emotions. I think you covered it really well, Cristiano. I think that if you speak to most Venezuelans at one level, they are so used to this sort of geopolitical tensions and crises. I've been here since 2016, for example, covering this story. And you've had massive street protests back in 2014, then 17, then 19. You had the whole experience of Juan Guaido, who was a leader of the Legislative assembly that had grounds to self declare himself as the leader of the republic. And then that led to nothing. Then the pandemic. And then, yes, last year, just last year, this massive movement that came together to oust Maduro with democratic tools by winning an election. And then finally Maduro not giving an inch and not stepping down. I think that is the reason of some frustration, of course, that is widespread all across the country. And then on the other hand, Christiane, let's not forget the economic crisis that is here. Like we've been here for almost 10 years. This country has been in dire but dire economic straits rates right now. It's a country that has a 400% inflation rate year on year. And that's why when you speak to people, they're more worried that what they're putting on the table at dinner time rather than actually what they believe Trump will do with their president.

Christiane Amanpour (24:33)

Well, thank you, Stefano Potzebon, for all that from Venezuela. And we're going to turn now for more policy conversation with Juan Gonzalez. He's a former US national security official for the Biden White House who worked on Latin America. Welcome back to our program.

Juan Gonzalez (24:50)

Thanks for having me.

Christiane Amanpour (24:51)

You just heard what Stefano said laying the table from Caracas. But I want to ask you about his, you know, conversation around what Maduro said, what he said on television, the letters he's been sending to the White House, what you're hearing from President Trump as well. Where do you think this stands? Is it giving a bit more room for potentially negotiations or do you think with the military, you know, signaling that it is going to be a military strike?

Juan Gonzalez (25:23)

Yeah, well, the existence of dialogue or channel for dialogue is incredibly important. Not Least of which because there is a potential for miscalculation where you have military assets operating near territorial lines and you could actually have some sort of accident. But I think the real end game here is the US Pressure campaign looks less like a. A march toward war and more like a negotiation strategy to raise the cost of the status quo and force Maduro to opposition. That said, it really will depend on what the contours of that conversation will be like. Look, Maduro lost the election. He should leave power peacefully, but they are not going to. As Joe Biden says, you never back a man into a corner where his only way out is over you. What are they gonna put on the table? Are they gonna be political guarantees, security guarantees? I think the context of that conversation will to what happens next.

Christiane Amanpour (26:17)

But do you really think reading the tea leaves, and not just the tea leaves, the overt policy coming from Washington that, for instance, Maduro did offer a lot. Right. And you can confirm to me there were negotiations. He offered to get rid of all the forces that the Americans didn't like, from the Chinese to the Iranians to everybody else. He offered a major share partnership in Venezuela's natural resources, and on and on and on. That didn't seem to work in Washington. The move towards regime change seems to have been on the ascendant.

Juan Gonzalez (26:56)

Certainly. But I think if President Trump puts in front of Maduro that the only option is for him to leave power. It won't actually lead to Maduro removing power. I think there's also this misconception that. That all this is a prelude to regime change by force. The reality, though, is that removing Maduro is not the hard part. The hard part really comes after. So I think, is there in the Oval Office, press or. Yesterday the president was asked if there was any scenario under which he would allow Maduro to stay. I think it'll depend right on the contours of that conversation. What more can Maduro put on the table, including when it comes to accepting Venezuelan migrants back to the country, which is this administration's top priority in Latin America overall.

Christiane Amanpour (27:43)

So is it even a more top priority than allowing democracy to return to Venezuela? I mean, you know better than I do that the main opposition leader, Maria Carina Machado, pretty much supports the military pressure on Venezuela. She has said that if they had allowed, you know, Maduro to allow the election results to stand, it would be de facto regime change. So would the US Allow Maduro to stay in power?

Juan Gonzalez (28:12)

Well, I mean, if you look at, I think, the different paths by Secretary Rubio and then Rick Grenell. When Rick Grenell traveled to Venezuela, early in the administration, his focus was on everything you laid out, which is he called an America first strategy toward Venezuela, which was access to Venezuela's reserves, driving a wedge between Venezuela, China, Iran and the Russians. And if you look at President Trump's commentary, he's not really talked about democracy, about actually having a free and fair election. But again, what I would say, even if they try to, whether it's through pressure or military force, I think what history tells us here is that transitions really only succeed when there's sequencing, not a winner take all purge. And that really means power sharing, security guarantees, humanitarian stabilization, and then a path toward elections once basic order is restored. You know, I've said this before, that the idea that you're just going to put Edmundo Gonzalez, who is the rightfully elected president, in Miraflores and that Venezuela will return to normal, does not really understand that Venezuela isn't a vacuum. It's a state with overlapping intelligence services, pseudo paramilitary forces, foreign actors that have significant interest in the country, insurgent groups and criminal revenue streams. That's not a system you collapse with one strike or one pressure. I think this is going to end up having to be an ongoing negotiation. I think the question I have is, does Donald Trump have the space for it, or is he actually going to commit? And is this going to escalate toward, number one, either missile attacks into Venezuelan territory or more broadly, actually having boots on the ground to ensure the security. But there's really no stomach for 50,000 troop mobilization or stabilization force in the United States. I think what's more likely is that the military pressure becomes a negotiating tool, not a mechanism that removes Maduro.

Christiane Amanpour (30:07)

Okay, so let's just talk about the current, you know, overt military strategy and the words that are coming out of the administration. So Trump accuses Maduro of leading, quote, Cartel de los Soles. Now, he calls that an organization that is basically a violent drug cartel, but apparently it's not. It's a name for a general name. There's no specific cartel by that name. Is that correct?

Juan Gonzalez (30:36)

That is correct. You know, they described it as the largest cartel in the world. That would be Sinaloa. I think Cartel de los Olas wouldn't even be in the top 10. Again, 5% of the cocaine that comes into the United States, there's more that goes to Europe, but 5% comes from Venezuela. It's a transhipment point. And the Cartel de los Odes is a general term as Usual, as you mentioned, they're refers to officials, yes, military and government officials that are involved in drug trafficking, but they're not a threat. I think when the Colombians think about all the security threats and drug organizations, trafficking organizations that they're dealing with, Cartel de los Ores nor Trenderagua really are in the top 10 list. These are criminal actors, they are criminal groups, but they're not the threat that really requires the United States to send a carrier strike group to the Caribbean. We're bringing a nuclear weapon to a knife fight. And so this is really, as I mentioned before, really about characterized as a drug, counter drug operation, but it's really about pressuring for regime change.

Christiane Amanpour (31:31)

Okay, so if the causes belli or they're stated is that this is to counter narco terrorists, as they say, is that a legitimate cause that the United States Congress would approve? And does the United States Congress have to approve any strikes if this would to go to war or not?

Juan Gonzalez (31:51)

Well, I mean it's. I don't understand why the administration hasn't pushed for this. They have the executive, they have Congress, they have the, you know, majority on the Supreme Court. What are they afraid of? They should really have an open debate so that Americans can decide whether this is something that we really want to employ U.S. forces toward. The challenge here is that the strikes that have been taking place there have been right now five disclosed strikes. There have been over 80 casualties approximately, do not meet the standard in the UN Charter or under international humanitarian law as a really credible use of force. So just designating a gang as a terrorist organization is not a license to use lethal force, especially when there's no eminent danger. I think this argument that the administration has made of an invasion, it was struck down when the administration tried to use it to use the Alien Enemies act to deport Venezuelans without due process. It was struck down in the sixth Circuit, went to the appeals court, to the Supreme Court, is now with the 5th Circuit. So a cynical read of whatever the administration is doing is that it is all about the ability to actually continue to deport Venezuelans without due process. The majority of migrants that are being sent to third countries are Venezuelans. And right now the matter is before the fifth Circuit. The cases was heard right around the time that this deployment started. So I mean, that's one view of why the administration is really focusing on a counter drug counterterror operation. It's also a way to sell it to the American public. Because if you're not somebody who's following this issue very closely, you're not going to shed a tear for a dead drug trafficker. You may actually support the use of the military against cartels, but I think what we know is that that fundamentally doesn't work, especially when this administration has cut $26 billion off of demand reduction and treatment programs for drugs, which actually does work.

Christiane Amanpour (33:33)

Okay. So on the other issue of actually getting allies to keep, you know, helping with this kind of situation, if it's really about drugs, this US Military action has alienated allies not just in Europe, but also in the region. So France says the strikes are a violation of international law. Canada and the Netherlands are distancing themselves. And Colombia, once Washington's closest partner on all of this, has cut its intelligence sharing. And as of last year, 80% of cocaine disruptions relied on international partners, according to the US Defense officials, and that was mostly Colombia. Without their help, then this whole idea of interdicting narcotics is made much more difficult, right?

Juan Gonzalez (34:22)

Indeed. And I think there were reports about the UK Potentially cutting off some intel sharing. But I think the key one is Colombian intelligence has been central to our effort, not just at combating drug trafficking, but as a regional intelligence platform. We have no better partner than Colombia. And so the region really has a meaningful role to play, because without, number one, regional buy in, the US Owns the entire aftermath. You know, Brazil and Colombia and the Caribbean states will deal with the refugees, the security spillover, and the economics. If there's no really shared framework. But again, and 95% of the cocaine that comes in the United States comes from Colombia, when you lose intelligence cooperation with a key partner there, then you're really cutting your nose off, despite your face. I would say the other. The statistics that this administration has used about how the drugs that are being trafficked from Venezuela are leading to the deaths of 50,000 or more Americans. I think what they're talking about is fentanyl that's coming primarily from Mexico and over 80% of which enters the United States carried by American citizens. So, again, the tool that the administration is using is not the one that will actually achieve the intended result. And it begs the question, is this really a kind of narcotics operation, or is it one big effort to actually achieve regime change or a better deal for Trump when it comes to Venezuela?

Christiane Amanpour (35:40)

And he's also musing about maybe hitting Mexico, maybe hitting other countries. So, yeah, I don't know, negotiating tactics maybe. Thank you, Juan Gonzalez, for your Bird's Eye Perch experience there. Thanks so much. Now, we'll be right back after the short break. Next to the New York Sorry to the new Netflix documentary the Perfect Neighbor, which explores a two year neighborhood dispute in Florida that resulted in the tragic shooting death of Ajike Owens, a mother of four. The story unfolds entirely through police body cam footage. The film raises urgent questions about stand your ground laws that allow the use of deadly force if a person believes they're in imminent danger. Here's a look at the trailer.

Geeta Ganbir (36:35)

My neighbor has been screaming outside.

Pamela Diaz (36:38)

She's got her banging on her door.

Geeta Ganbir (36:42)

Me in and then bang. I'm peaceful, I'm quiet. I don't bug anybody.

Juan Gonzalez (37:00)

Come outside with your hands up.

Geeta Ganbir (37:02)

Barely ever see me.

Pamela Diaz (37:08)

I'm like the perfect neighbor.

Christiane Amanpour (37:11)

Hari Srinivasan is joined by director Geeta Ganbir and Pamela Diaz, who's the mother of Ajike Owens, to discuss the motivation behind the documentary and what they hope viewers will take away from it.

Hari Srinivasan (37:26)

Christiane, thanks. Pamela Dias. Geeta Gunbird, thanks so much for joining us, Geeta. You've done several social justice focused films in the past and your most recent one is on Netflix. It's called Perfect Neighborhood and it focuses on the death the shooting of 35 year old Ajika Owens, a Florida woman who is the mother of four who was shot by her neighbor, Susan Lawrence. Tell us a little bit about this story and why you decided to tell it.

Geeta Ganbir (37:51)

Sure. So the background to the story is that Ajika Owens was a family friend. She was my sister in law's best friend. So when this happened, we were immediately called my partner, Nakam Kwantu, who's also a producer on this film, and I were on the ground immediately to try to support Pamela Dias and her family as far as keeping the story in the news. That was something we wanted to do because we were concerned that due to stand your ground laws that exist in Florida that Susan Lawrence would walk from the crime. And we have the precursor of Trayvon Martin that I think is steeped in the national conscious. And that was again, it was a concern. So about two months later, after we became involved in supporting the family, we received the body camera footage from Pamela's lawyers, Benjamin Crump and Anthony Thomas. And they had used the Freedom of Information act to acquire all the materials that the police had recorded in the process of this case and prior to the murder. And so when we got our hands on that and went through the materials, we were asked to look through them to see if there was anything that would be useful for the media or maybe even for the lawyers. We realized that there was a much bigger story here because the Body camera footage stretched back two years. So that's how the film began.

Hari Srinivasan (39:26)

Geeta, when you looked at the footage, what surprised you? Because I suspect you were expecting, well, the night of, but to have two years worth of video.

Geeta Ganbir (39:35)

Yeah, no, absolutely. I think for us, as you mentioned, usually when a crime occurs, as far as police body camera footage, it really usually is only the night of. You might have some security camera footage that captures something. But we were shocked to see the frequency with which police were called to the scene. And again, like I said, it spanned back two years.

Hari Srinivasan (39:59)

Pamela, I guess for people who might not have seen the film, can you just tell us a little bit more about Ajika as a daughter, a mother, a friend?

Pamela Diaz (40:10)

Yes. Ajika was a single mother of four children. She was supermom, I would say. She was very involved in her children's lives. She had her children in private school. She instilled in them a deep faith. She had core values. She instilled in them respect for their elders, as you see in the film, where she tells her son, or she tells the police regarding her son that if they have a problem with an adult, you know, to take it, come tell her and she'll take it up with the adult. The kids were involved in a lot of extracurricular activities. She was the cheer mom. She was the football team mom. I always joke and say that we have this great extended family because everyone that she considered a friend was family to her. She had great high dreams, aspirations, just a joy. Very comedic, funny, loved, and just a beautiful person.

Hari Srinivasan (41:27)

Before this event, did you know much about the neighbor that shot your daughter?

Pamela Diaz (41:34)

I did not know her by name. She always referenced her as a neighbor. And she would tell me, my daughter would tell me that there was a white neighbor that would harass the children. And then she told me that there was an incident where she waved a gun. I couldn't wrap my mind around the fact that a neighbor would show a gun to children. It just didn't seem real to me at that time. But obviously it was Susan.

Christiane Amanpour (42:13)

She would come out and scream.

Geeta Ganbir (42:18)

And the language around these little kids that. Susan with you?

Stefano Pozobon (42:23)

Yeah.

Juan Gonzalez (42:23)

Oh. Describe to me what she was saying.

Pamela Diaz (42:27)

The F word, the B word.

Juan Gonzalez (42:30)

B word and the F word.

Geeta Ganbir (42:33)

She called them slaves.

Pamela Diaz (42:34)

She told them that the field that.

Geeta Ganbir (42:36)

They weren't on was what it wasn't the underground railroad.

Pamela Diaz (42:39)

So it definitely had a major racial component to it. And Susan's. Susan was never in fear. Susan was motivated by hate, biases, and racism.

Hari Srinivasan (42:57)

Geeta, we see so many different interactions of the police that come to Susan's door, that come to the neighborhood, that talk to the kids, that talk to the families. Black police, white police, male, female. What was their failure here? Was there. What was. How did race play into those interactions?

Geeta Ganbir (43:17)

Sure. So I think what's so fascinating in this, that we saw in the footage, and I think what you see in the film is that there were overall systemic failures in this case, and the police show up on scene multiple times. And what's interesting, and I think when, again, in sharing this film with audiences, what we see is that our bar for the police is so low that we sometimes mistake politeness or, again, them not showing up guns blazing, throwing people to the ground, or shooting anyone as competence. And I think what happened here is that Susan was treated as a client again, because she was the person who called again and again. She, as an. As a. As an older white woman, was handled with kid gloves and just treated as a nuisance. Right. Ultimately, the police did get. Seemed to tire of her, but they never saw her as a threat, and they never saw the community, a multiracial community, as people who are worth protecting. They never saw them as, I think, as important or as citizens in the way that they saw Susan. So they sort of, again, they dismissed the idea that there was any threat. I think one of the reasons we were so committed to using the body camera footage is because it is evidence, and we are filmmakers first. So we wanted to make sure that we clearly documented our. Or showed the audience the perspective of the police, Susan's perspective, and the community's perspective. But when you look at all of them, you really see that Susan was the aggressor in this case. And the police, again, they should have. Maybe by the third time Susan called and it was unfounded, they should have flagged her. I do believe that if Susan had been a person of color, that this would have gone very differently.

Pamela Diaz (45:25)

Okay.

Bernard Haykel (45:38)

Marionette. Hold on.

Juan Gonzalez (45:49)

Oh, my God.

Christiane Amanpour (45:51)

I'm up front. Sheriff's office.

Juan Gonzalez (45:54)

Come outside with your hands up.

Hari Srinivasan (45:57)

The day Ajika was shot, she had gone over to Susan's house because Susan allegedly threw roller skates at Ajika's children. And it snowballed from there. According to the facts, Susan shot Ajica through a bolted metal door. And her defense team called on the stand your ground laws. And some people might remember that from 2012, when George Zimmerman used that defense when he shot Trayvon Martin. But just refresh us, what are stand your ground laws?

Pamela Diaz (46:34)

Yes. So in essence, I'll give you the short version. Basically, stand Your ground law states that it removes the duty to retreat if you feel that you are in danger, that you have the right to protect your home. And again, this law, actually it's really being misused. It creates fear. It emboldens people to shoot first and rationalize later. Stand your ground law is definitely a law that needs to be reviewed, modified, taken off. It exists in about 38 states, if I believe in some form or fashion. So it is a very. A law that basically allows people to weaponize it and lack accountability.

Hari Srinivasan (47:31)

Geeta, you have a statistic at the end of the film that shows it says that these laws have been linked to an 8 to 11% increase in homicide rates, or roughly 700 additional deaths each year. And there is, there are statistics from the FBI. These are about 10 years old now. But controlling for other variables, the odds that a white on black homicide is ruled justified are 281% greater than when a white person kills another white person. How does race play into that foundational level of this policy that is so broadly adopted in the United States?

Geeta Ganbir (48:08)

Sure. So I think what's so interesting to me is in the. I think the film is a microcosm of the best of American society, but also the worst of American society. And the worst is the sort of the racial disparities that you see in systemic treatments. And I think that stand your ground laws, again, it's a predatory law falling under the castle doctrine. But the key part of it is that if you can prove that or if you feel that your life is in imminent danger, you have the right to defend yourself without having the duty to retreat. And so I think again, there is this almost a paranoia in our society about those around us. I think there is manufactured fear and that is a tool of an authoritarian government also used to polarize and divide us. We are instead of sort of living together and living in community the way that Ajika and her neighbors did. I think Susan sort of embodies those fears. And you see this play out in history time and time again, and it's particularly with white women. The story of Emmett Till is reflected on that that black people are punished and murdered for in some way offending, even if they do not. Right. But a white person will claim that they were somehow offended by or insulted by or, you know, harmed by a black person. And the. The result is, is death, you know, is a death sentence for, for the black person. And stand your ground laws are just an extension of that.

Juan Gonzalez (50:06)

I think, you know, what you did was wrong. I think, you know, that there were already deputies on the way.

Geeta Ganbir (50:16)

There was times I called and deputies never showed up.

Juan Gonzalez (50:19)

I understand it's been two minutes, so you.

Pamela Diaz (50:21)

To me, it wasn't two minutes. To me, it was much longer.

Geeta Ganbir (50:24)

In my mind, it just.

Pamela Diaz (50:25)

It felt like.

Juan Gonzalez (50:26)

But there's only. There's only one reality where time exists, Anderson. Perception of time can be different for.

Hari Srinivasan (50:33)

Different people, but in the reality of.

Bernard Haykel (50:35)

Things, you had just disconnected.

Juan Gonzalez (50:39)

Within two minutes, a shot was fired through that door.

Hari Srinivasan (50:41)

Pamela Susan Lawrence recently did an interview from the correctional facility that she's in serving 25 years for. And in there, she expresses some remorse. I want to read her quote. I can't take it back. I can't replace her. And I'm still so sorry in regards to your daughter. But she still claims that your grandchildren repeatedly threatened her and maintains that she was fearful for her life when she shot. Pamela, what you see in this film is these really difficult images of your grandchildren hearing that their mother is gone. And we are all collectively watching this. And that must have been difficult for you to see the first time. But then to decide, yeah, I wanted the rest of, well, America or the world to see this. What made you say, yes, let's go forward?

Pamela Diaz (51:34)

I'm grieving. The grandchildren are grieving. The community is grieving. I said to myself, it has to be more than just grief. I can't just bury my child and just walk away. And that's the end of the story. My daughter said the world would know her name. We don't know the winds, the whys and the hows, but this is the way the world knows her name. And I had to honor her. I had to show up for her. I had to be her voice. The manner in which she died under the premise of stand your ground lungs, is a clear representation of why this law needs to be repealed. And for that reason, I said, yes, we need our family. Our story will be the call to action, will be the catalyst to make real changes in our community and our society.

Hari Srinivasan (52:35)

The film is on Netflix now. It's called the Perfect Neither. Pamela, I'm so saddened for your loss and the loss for your grandchildren. And Geetha Ganbir, thanks so much for making the film.

Geeta Ganbir (52:48)

No, thank you for having us.

Pamela Diaz (52:50)

Thank you. This week on the Assignment with me, Audie Cornish. It's common to hear people, especially women, talking about having imposter syndrome, but I did not expect to hear that from a woman who was once ahead of state.

Geeta Ganbir (53:12)

You worry about being exposed. You worry about failure.

Pamela Diaz (53:16)

This is the right honorable dame Jacinda Ardern, former prime minister of New Zealand. The last few years, she's been teaching a new generation about leadership at Harvard and at Oxford University's Blavatnik School of Government, where I met her for this conversation. In an era of strongman politics, what would a different kind of power even look like? Listen to the Assignment with me, Audie Cornish, Streaming now on your favorite podcast. Apparently.