← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Could Trump invade Canada & has the US lost its soft power?
00:28:05
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:03]
A
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:10]
B
Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Q and A episode of the X Files with me, Cristiana Monpour and Jamie Rubin. This is where we answer your questions and we're going to get started in a sec. But just a quick heads up that it's a little bit different. We're going to answer some questions and I'm going to use a few minutes to interview the former US Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz, who is a physicist, but he also now heads up the Nuclear Threat Initiative. That is what my boss, Ted Turner, the founder of CNN started in order to control loose nukes and to try to get to full disarmament. And it's interesting to hear how his vision started. So we'll get to that. So, Jamie, how about you ask the first one?
- [00:54]
A
Sure. Karen on YouTube asks, Can Trump just order the military to test nuclear weapons? What is the legal procedure to do this?
- [01:02]
B
Well, you're going to know more about this than I do, but all I know is that it's not the military, apparently it's not the Pentagon, apparently it's the Energy Department, according to the articles I've been reading that does the testing. And the person in charge of the nucleophile there was asked during his confirmation point blank, will there be any nuclear testing? And he said, point blank, no. So that's, that's what most of the response has been from those actually in charge of this file, you know, since Trump announced it on the plane back from, from Asia. But also, and Jamie, you'll confirm this, it's not democratic. The president is the only one who has the authority. It's not a democratic system. Once they decide and they've had their confrontation consultations and this and that. It's only the president, it's a lonely job, has the authority to decide to whether it's test, but certainly whether it's to press that button in a real case scenario.
- [02:06]
A
Well, yes, the president's the commander in chief. Nuclear weapons are a weapon. And this is one of those strange anomalies in the American democracy where the president himself can make decision to use or not use nuclear weapons, to test or not test nuclear weapons. I think if Congress voted to ban testing and not spend any money on testing, not spend $1 on testing, that would end up going to the Supreme Court for some sort of decision. But the answer to the question is it's up to President Trump to decide this. And that official you referencing in his confirmation hearing said no testing, although that decision is up to higher authority. And he said, you know, that's for know, people with bigger paychecks and more power to decide than I do. But the point is, is that I don't think we're going to test nuclear weapons. I think he's talking about sub critical testing.
- [03:00]
B
And I need to point out for our viewers, whoever's looking at this, that Jamie is enveloped in a fog of smoke and he's smoking. And I thought we'd decided weeks ago that you're going to quit smoking, but I'm not in charge of you anymore.
- [03:17]
A
That's true. Why don't you ask me the next section?
- [03:21]
B
Stephen ON email if Canada were to be militarily invaded by the United States, would NATO respond to an Article 5 by Canada leading to a situation where NATO allies are fighting to repel another of their allies, the United States? And would NATO adhere to a doctrine of flexible response in this instance? So good question.
- [03:43]
A
Just to explain the question a little bit is so good. The last reference, flexible response is a reference to the fact that if conventional forces don't succeed in achieving the military objective, we have to have the flexibility to possibly use nuclear weapons.
- [03:59]
B
Okay, this is going crazy. By the United States or Canada against each other.
- [04:03]
A
That's what he the questioner is showing by this question. So look, I think the answer to the question is one, we're not going to invade Canada. If that extreme one out of a million chance were to happen, no, NATO couldn't operate because the United States is the most important country in NATO and they would veto any attempt by Canada, ask for help from European countries who are across the ocean. So it wouldn't do them much good. But what the questioner is correctly pointing out is the absurdity of threatening to invade Canada, the absurdity of damaging our relations with one of our closest ally by being mad if they show commercials that you don't like that quote accurately if in the wrong order. Ronald Reagan's opposition to tariffs because he was a free trader and Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada had to apologize to Trump because he was cutting off trade talks. Again, this isn't the way you deal with your closest ally, who you need in the struggle against Russia and China to Canada is one of the most resource rich countries and modern effective economies in the world. We need Canada and the United States to be working together to protect us from what China wants the world to look like where they control rare earths, where they control critical minerals, where they can dominate their neighbors, where they can potentially invade Taiwan. We do not want the world to be broken up into a situation where China is in charge. That's why we need allies, allies, allies like Canada. That's why we shouldn't threaten to invade them.
- [05:45]
B
Interestingly, we talked about this in Tuesday's episode the of the X Files about tariffs. There was a lot of conversation, certainly amongst the African leaders and, and others at this CNN summit that Trump's tariffs don't seem to be about trade really. They're just about getting his way, America's way, America first, his policy, and using the threat of, you know, punitive financial measures to do that. So look at Bolsonaro, rather Brazil. 50% tariff wasn't anything to do with trade because Brazil does not have a surplus with the United States. In fact, the opposite. And it was just to help Trump's friend Bolsonaro. And in fact, it was called interfering in their domestic affairs. But I do think that's interesting that a lot of countries are saying this isn't even about trade. You know, it's just about, you know, using a sledgehammer to get your way.
- [06:42]
A
Speaking of Africa, Rachel on Instagram, I'm a medical student in South Africa. I've seen TB and HIV deaths climb and resentment toward America mount after the cuts in the usaid, China has stepped in as, quote, savior, unquote, funding projects once backed by America. Could microcosms like this signal China systematically supplanting US soft power footholds and shifting global loyalties? Christian, what do you think?
- [07:11]
B
Well, we did talk a little bit about the fact that China is stepping in in our episode, and I was hearing from these African leaders, you know, earlier, look, yes, China is stepping into a lot of places, but it didn't. Doesn't do it the way America did it, the way John F. Kennedy envisioned it. It's not like a soft power in order to really do good things for the rest of the world. It's more like kind of leverage, I think. And it's not something that necessarily will. Will be working forever. And I think China does only what's in their interests. I think the interesting thing about USAID is that it was done in America's interest, but also to help save lives and project American good power, soft power, not just military power, as well as competing for the hearts and minds at the height of the Cold War, when there was a tug of war between Russia or the Soviet Union and the United States. So I think that China does it, but in a much, much more different way, and probably not in the depth that the United States did. And I think it's going to be very difficult to just throw money at a problem that's already been fractured in the months that it's already happened. Because these are long relationships and careful relationships. Health clinics and, you know, trust, you know, healthcare workers and all the other things that go into really saving lives and keeping these programs going on a daily, weekly, monthly, and definitely multi year, multi decade basis.
- [08:43]
A
Let me just tell you a story about this because I think it reflects on what the questioner is talking about. One of the things I was most proud of doing in the Biden administration on disinformation. What we did was we were able to downgrade sensitive intelligence information and make it available to governments, to the media and to the public. One of the things we were able to do is prevent Russia from using a disinformation covert operation in Africa about this very subject of disease and medicine and, and the efforts of the United States to help the people of Africa. They were so offended by the fact that America is popular, that American programs are in the world's interest, that America had saved millions of lives in Africa. They tried to discredit those programs. And so they had come up with this wacko conspiracy theory right out of a John le Carre novel about big pharma testing secret bioweapons on African, innocent Africans. And they were gonna spread it all over Africa. And we did something very effective. And I believe we saved lives. We went and got real health experts and corporate connections to the Gates foundation and others. And we sent teams around Africa to all the governments where this was going to happen. We warned them about it. We said, the Russians are about to launch this disinformation operation. Don't believe it. Don't let your people believe it. And then we made it public. We downgraded sensitive intelligence to make it public, and we defeated their disinformation operation. By so doing, I believe we prevented people from rejecting Western medicine and therefore helped save their lives. And I know that some number of people, I don't know how many, a few hundred, a thousand, doesn't matter, would have believed that disinformation and probably not gotten the medicine and therefore gotten sick. And that just shows you how powerful these programs are that Russia was willing to go to these extensive lengths to try to discredit it.
- [10:54]
B
That's it for me and Jamie for this episode. Jamie, you want to say bye bye.
- [10:57]
A
Goodbye again from New York.
- [11:09]
B
So, as I said, I'm going to spend this part of our Q and A bonus segment talking to and asking questions to Ernest Moniz. He's currently the head of the Nuclear Threat Initiative which was started by my boss Ted Turners of CNN and before he was Energy Secretary under the Obama administration and helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal. So Ernie, welcome.
- [11:33]
C
Thank you.
- [11:33]
B
Can I just first ask you, where are we with this? You know, President Trump saying that he was going to order the resumption of nuclear testing. That followed Putin talking about nuclear weapons capable testing and brandishing his, you know, pretty major new menacing nuclear powered weapons. Where are we in this? What will the US do do you think?
- [11:59]
C
Well, first of all, the President's comment last week, particularly the little innocent phrase on an equal basis, has created a tremendous amount of confusion. And I'll just mention that in the nuclear weapons business, while the President seems to like ambiguity, nuclear weapons business is not the best place for ambiguity. We've always liked clarity there to avoid miscalculation. Now what the President said would suggest to many that he was talking not about nuclear explosives but about delivery systems. That's what Russia tested. They tested two nuclear powered delivery systems. The Secretary of Energy who would be responsible for explosive tests clarified that by saying yes, there would be no explosive testing. However, the President then doubled down and it could be that he is referring to a long standing ambiguity in the intelligence which has suggested that Russia and China have done so called supercritical tests. Little teeny nuclear explosions below the level of detection that's always been controversial. I should certainly hope that's not the motivation for this and frankly I hope that he was indeed talking about delivery systems which we have always tested. We tested nuclear submarine missile launches not long ago for example.
- [13:31]
B
So I was talking in the previous episode and in some of this Q and A with Jamie that actually the United States, Russia, China, they haven't done nuclear testing for at least 30, 35 years if you take all of them. And I just wondered what would be the impact, Ernie, if either or all of those would do nuclear weapons testing?
- [13:53]
C
Again, the impact would be quite terrible in multiple dimensions. Number one, our national security, we are the ones who least need to do explosive testing. We've done half of all the tests in history, about 1,000 out of 2,000. And it would certainly set off the race. Russia and China and probably others, India and Pakistan would probably start testing. They would gain more and it would risk triggering a nuclear arms race. Again, risk miscalculations. Look at India and Pakistan, they had military exchanges this year. If they start testing nuclear weapons that will not exactly lower the temperature. So anyway, national security would be ill served by doing that. But secondly, it was only back in June that the citizens of Nevada, which is where a test would take place unanimously across the aisle, Republicans, Democrats, 100% voted that they did not want to see a resumption of nuclear testing in Nevada. They have national security concerns, but they also have health concerns. They have frankly economic concerns. It does not raise real estate values to have the building shaken every now and then. So. So it would be an ill considered choice. I think the President hopefully and his advisors will interpret it very, very clearly to mean delivery systems.
- [15:27]
B
So look, this is, I mean we happen to be talking about all this as this amazing film by Katherine Bigelow, House of Dynamite has been released. And it's really a thriller and it's really edge of your seat. And you really don't know what will happen either where this ballistic missile, nuclear capable, they think was sent from or whether it will land on what the decision that the President in this film took. So the beginning and end are ambiguous, but it's a very frightening scenario. What, did you see it?
- [16:01]
C
I've seen it three times.
- [16:03]
B
And is it realistic?
- [16:05]
C
And I agree with your full characterization. You know, you can nitpick this, this and that, but it is extremely effective, particularly in my view in showing the fragility of human decision making under crisis. These things don't happen in an orderly way. And I think Kathryn Bigelow captured that in a very, very compelling way.
- [16:28]
B
Exactly. Is it really true that a president would have only like 15 minutes to make a decision?
- [16:35]
C
Yeah, I think it's really 10. But we can argue whether it's 10 or 15. Well, because I think there are so many end effects. You know, when the missile is first detected as it was in the film, it's not as though the President then gets notified within one second. That takes minutes to clarify. Especially since as you saw in the film, there is kind of a presumption that it's another mistake. We've had so many mistakes. And by the time the President is found with his girls basketball team and taken away to his limousine, taken away to his helicopter, finally opens the book, I would say 10 minutes is more of an honest accounting. And Christian, can I just add, it's one reason why we are also very concerned about how new technologies emerging like AI can really mess up the command and control system directly through cyber attacks, but also indirectly through preparing the briefing for the President very, very quickly. So the President makes the final decision, but based upon presumably an AI generated briefing. So we are quite concerned.
- [17:53]
B
Wow, that is very, very concerning, especially the ability to hack and also the potential. And we've discussed this before, either with you or with others. And it's been discussed that there must be a human in the chain of command for nuclear decision making. Right? I mean, you can't have AI take over, right?
- [18:12]
C
So the. The decision has been made that a human will be in the loop. You can be in the loop, out of the loop, on the loop, in the loop. However, as I say, I find it not credible that the information will not be gathered by AI. And as you know, the information you are presented is highly influential in reaching a quick decision. And that's again, where the short time comes in.
- [18:37]
B
In the film. It really upset me knowing how many billions of dollars the Americans have spent on defense that the interceptor didn't intercept. You know, the ballistic missile was still coming and it had not been intercepted. How realistic is that? Shouldn't people expect that the billions and billions that are spent on the most important military action that you could possibly want to defend against work?
- [19:05]
C
Well, it's certainly a concern, but unfortunately, I think it's quite real. And in fact, Christian, since my goal here is not to make you feel better, I will also say that the scenario that was presented would be the easiest to intercept. There were no decoys from the missile, which gives the attacking missile multiple objects to hit. I remind you, the missile is above the air, so even a much lighter object will still follow a ballistic trajectory. The weapon was not merved. In other words, multiple warheads. It only had one warhead. Apparently, in the real world, you could have multiple warheads. You'll have decoys, you could have a barrage of missiles, only one of which is carrying a nuclear weapon, just to confuse the defense. Offense. It's always said it sounds trite, but it's true. Offense always has the edge.
- [20:02]
B
Wow. So let's talk about. You said your mission is not to make me feel better, but Ted Turner tried to make. No, no. The, the, the. The operation that you head right now was founded by Ted Turner along with a bipartisan group of senators. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and the late Senator Richard Luger of Indiana, I think. Right. Republican and Democrat. And they were incredibly serious and incredibly, you know, committed to sort of corralling loose nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union. Tell me about that. What's the origin story as far as you like to tell it?
- [20:40]
C
Could I also mention, in addition to Nunn and Lugar, that through nti, Nunn, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Perry, another bipartisan group was Very influential in arguing that even as cold warriors, they had now flipped to saying that denuclearization, which President Trump also supports, is the direction to go. Now, as far as the origin story goes, at least what I'm told more than once, which must make it true, is that Gene Haberger, who was an Air Force general and head of our strategic forces, did a 60 Minutes interview with a Russian colleague. They were both retired, and they both said that the nuclear positions of the two countries were just careening towards a very bad ending and it had to be changed. I'm told Ted Turner watched that interview and within weeks was founding NTI and recruited Sam Nunn, his fellow Atlantan. They're both from Georgia, and they started NTI with a terrific group, spent a few months planning it, but they were going by January 2001, 25th anniversary coming up very shortly.
- [22:00]
B
Yeah, it is really remarkable. It just shows the, you know, some corporate leaders have the world, you know, good on their minds as well. And it's, it's really, I feel really privileged to work for Ted Turner. I consider, I still do work for Ted Turner because on every now, I.
- [22:20]
C
Would just add that I think Ted Turner is not your normal person, obviously, in many ways, but nevertheless, I think this shows the importance of work done outside of government in what many people think is a purely governmental activity. We have a lot of agency to change it. And something like the House of Dynamite film you mentioned is an example of that. We had Oppenheimer last year. We have House of Dynamite, you. And I did an interview with James Cameron, whose next film will be on Hiroshima, basically survivors. So I think we're getting back into the culture. And that's very important because culture, I think, drives politics, politics drives policy. And so hopefully we're going to be getting the attention of new generations.
- [23:11]
B
Okay, that's really actually very hopeful because I think some people just have no notion, people who were born in the last 10, 20 years of how incredibly dangerous and close you talk about near misses, mistakes. So let me ask you, finally, one of the big issues is maybe not so much the superpower confrontation, because there are, you know, hotlines and negotiations and treaties and things like that. And they actually can talk to each other about this. But what about the sort of rogue actors, the North Koreas, the Irans, people like that? Iran is not a nuclear power, but it is the center of so much speculation. And, you know, a war was, an air war was launched against Iran in June by Israel and the United States on its nuclear facilities. Where is that heading Is there any hope for a resumption of the Iran nuclear deal?
- [24:03]
C
Well, first of all, Christian, I would say the hotlines are getting a little bit cooler. The dialogue between the US And Russia and China is clearly not where it was and where it should be. But going to the Iran situation, look, I think we've discussed before, and I'll just repeat it, that Iran, in my view, had really pushed to and beyond the limits when they enriched to 60% because that was weapons usable material directly. Well, the military strikes occurred. I'm not judging on that one way or the other. However, we've actually proposed just recently a new approach following the military activities, namely that, look, Iran says it wants peaceful nuclear technology, Saudi Arabia says it wants peaceful nuclear technology, the Emirates, the Jordanians, et cetera. So what we propose is a major push supported by the United States and Europe, maybe Japan and Korea as well, in which a regional nuclear effort goes forward and everybody gets nuclear technology. Nuclear security of supply. Actually going back to Ted Turner, Warren Buffett was a huge supporter of NTI and he donated $50 million to establish an LEU bank, low enriched Uranium bank in Kazakhstan owned by the iaea. And that could be a central piece of supplying fuel security in a Mideast consortium. Now, I don't know where that's going to go, but I will say that initial reactions have been very positive. Frankly, the Iranian media published an article on the article within two days. And besides the usual griping from the Iranian press, it did say right up front this is a bold proposal. So that's the kind of thing where I hope we can defuse the situation and do good, frankly, because that area, which, as you know, is also suffering dramatically from climate change, could really use the large amounts of stable, clean electricity that a nuclear initiative in the entire region would produce. So that's the kind of thing that we are doing at NTI and hopefully getting some traction around the entire Gulf region.
- [26:35]
B
Well, I'm happy to hear that. And I choose to end it right there because I want to be optimistic and I want to actually show our listeners and whoever's watching this on YouTube that there are plans afoot. And there, despite, you know, public statements that can be very worrying by leaders, there are a lot of plans that can actually corral this threat and turn it into something that does not threaten the whole world. Ernie Miniz, thank you very much.
- [27:00]
C
Thank you, Christiane.
- [27:04]
B
Thank you for listening to the Q and A episode of the X Files with me, Christiana Manpour and Jamie Rubin. As always, if you have a question for us. Do please find us on all the social media platforms. Our handle is Manpurpod. Or email us. We're amanpurpodlobal.com and our next episode is out on Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcasts, remember, you can listen for free on Global Player and you can download that from the App Store or go to globalplayer.com you can also watch our main episodes and our Q and a episodes on YouTube. Just search Christiana Manpur presents and subscribe to our channel so that you never miss an episode. That's it. Signing out. See you soon.
- [28:01]
A
This has been a Global Player original production.