← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: The killing of “El Mencho”, Trump’s Chagos U-turn and rigged US midterms?
00:27:45
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:03]
A
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:09]
B
Hello, Jamie in stormy New York. Welcome to everybody for the Q and A bonus episode of the X Files with me and Jamie. And this is where we answer your questions. So let's get started. Jamie, you want to set the climatic scene and also ask the first question.
- [00:24]
A
So I'm in Carmela's kitchen out here in eastern Long island and there has never been a set of storms like is going on right now. We're under at least a foot and a half of snow with snow drifts much higher. None of the roads are paved, sort of plowed. And I don't know how long I'll be stuck here, but I so far the Internet is working, the power is working, so I'll be okay.
- [00:46]
B
Can I just point something out? I don't recall you ever taking a shovel and shoveling your way out of anything. Are you going to have to do that?
- [00:54]
A
Probably, yes.
- [00:55]
B
Are you good at that? What about your back? Can you do that?
- [00:59]
A
I've had back surgery since we were divorced and my back is cured. I'm one of the lucky few who had a successful back surgery and I can now do things like that.
- [01:09]
B
Yeah. Well, aren't you pleased I missed out on it? Yeah. But I'm pleased for you. Yeah.
- [01:14]
A
All right, let me ask the first question from a person named Christian to Christiane. Christian on email asks, do you think Xi Jinping, the leader of China, that's me, might see this as a tactically favorable moment to move on Taiwan, given US Naval deployments to Iran and what some view as a narrowing political window in Washington, or is that overstating the situation?
- [01:37]
B
Christian on email I think you should answer it.
- [01:40]
A
All right, let me try. I don't think he's going to invade Taiwan right now. And I think there's a reason for that. This is a, an emperor in China who is a ruler in total, really an emperor who has just fired his entire top level generals across the board from every service, from every level, Strategic forces, Navy, air Force. He doesn't trust anyone at the top levels of his military. And I don't think he would make this grand roll of the dice at a moment like this. I also believe, and this is really, really important, that the Ukraine war has given Taiwan an incredible piece of military intelligence, and that is that drones, naval drones, can destroy a large navy with very, very little cost and effort by. And if there was ever a country that was best suited to build tens of thousands of drones, it's Taiwan with their incredible technological capability. So when and if China decides to maybe someday blockade Taiwan or invade Taiwan, I certainly hope that the Taiwanese and I believe they have, have learned important lessons from the Ukraine war where a small group of naval operators using simple technologies basically defeated the Russian nav in. In. And that is something that Taiwan has learned and is learning and I believe is building to a force to do that. And that I believe will deter in the end if they do that, that threat of a Taiwan blockade or invasion.
- [03:24]
B
I mean, this person Christian does make a good point though. Some of the most important parts of the American military are actually converging into the Middle east now. I mean a huge proportion of fighter jets, a big proport aircraft carry and battle groups. But you know, you were talking about drone warfare and Ukraine. It does take me all the way back to the very beginning, literally the very beginning when Russians were trying to storm parts of the, you know, of the Black Sea area, the Odessa, you know, the southern coastline and Snake island in particular was manned by a few, you know, Ukrainian souls. And they literally put the finger up and they said when they were told to surrender f you Russian soldiers. And that became literally the, you know, the rallying, rallying cry for the, for the early days of the war. And you, as we speak, it's entered its fifth year. You know, February 24th was unfortunately the fourth anniversary of this and we're still no closer. Jamie was still no closer because Vladimir Putin simply won't come to the table with a reasonable negotiating position while Vladimir Zelensky of Ukraine has done. Okay, I'm going to ask you this next one. What does the killing of El Mencho mean for U S Mexico's security cooperation and the future of a joint anti cartel strategy? Well, all I know about this is the United States was somehow involved in the killing of this cartel and it's caused a huge amount and a huge ruckus in Mexico. Over to you.
- [05:00]
A
Right. Well, the Mexican authorities and US Officials are denying an American role in this, which is very important for what we call diplomacy as a Mexican president has. Claudio Sheinbaum, who's doing a terrific job in my humble opinion, knows that it will not fly in that country to have Americans military or security forces operating inside her country, conducting raids or killing anyone in even if they are monstrous criminals like this gentleman or not gentlemen. And so the Mexican government did this. I believe it was their military that is doing this. And people were surprised about it because there's another big cartel. These are the two big cartels, Sinaloa, that the Mexicans have really been cracking down on. And unfortunately, what happens in Mexico and other societies in Latin America is when these cartel leaders are killed. The cartel members use their violence and threats to deter further activity by the government by launching chaos and raids and riots. So the airports were closed down, they were burning trucks, burning, you know, cars and closing down public facilities and threatening shooting, blowing up buses, things like that, to deter a further crackdown. But look, you know, I don't think the drug war can be won by killing criminal kingpins, but I think it's a good thing to put to justice criminal kingspins pins who've done such horrific damage. I mean, these societies are destroyed by these criminals who use violence in the most gruesome ways. And this guy was particularly gruesome, apparently. I don't know how you can get more gruesome than the things I've seen over the years, but apparently he was, and he was involved in human trafficking and all sorts of criminal activities, apparently. Now, previously not in the fentanyl trade, but coming into the fentanyl trade. I don't know the answer to that. What I know is that it's important to destroy these criminal enterprises, but it's. It's dumb to think that's going to solve the drug problem. It will not.
- [07:08]
B
And just the other bit of it, that where we started, I, I understood that some of the tension in an otherwise decent relationship between Shane Baum and Trump is because Trump wants more U. S leeway to go after the cartels, military and otherwise. I don't know what otherwise there is, but certainly military. So it's interesting that they're denying all this. I don't know what the US Is saying, but.
- [07:31]
A
Right. Because what. What happens is different presidents in Mexico have approached these problems differently. Her predecessor had a policy, I think it was called hug not kill. And it was designed to minimize the violence conducted by these drug cartels by avoiding direct military confrontation between the Mexican government and the cartels so that you didn't have these many wars all over the country. And Trump wants to see these kingpins killed or put in jail, and he's pressured her to do so. This, therefore, is very good for the US Mexican relationship. I think he probably went good for you. Probably gave her a congratulatory call is my bet. And that's encouraging because, look, anytime the United States can realize the depth of our friendship with Mexico and the degree to which, you know, I need to tell people one simple fact. Often people say the United States is the dominant economic player in Latin America. That's because of Mexico. If you take Mexico out of the equation and you go to the rest of Latin America, meaning South America, the Chinese are the dominant economic player in the rest of Latin America. Mexico, American relationship economically is so much bigger than people understand in terms of trade and imports and shared technology and joint production and all of the things that have come about as a result of various trade agreements. And, and we have this incredible border. And let's face it, Trump cares about that border more than anything. It brought him to power. Famous wall. So I think this is a good thing for the US Mexican relationship. That's the best part about it, Frank.
- [09:12]
B
All right,
- [09:23]
A
Emily, on email after Trump's latest U turn on the Chagos Islands deal. And you know a lot about this, Christiane Amanpour, who do you think is right on this issue, Trump or UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer?
- [09:35]
B
Well, I do know a lot about this because I actually happen to do a piece for 60 minutes now, beleaguered then in its fantastic heyday under Don Hewitt on the Chagos Islands, because Diego Garcia is one of them. And Diego Garcia has been a long time base for, for the Americans. And they were able to take, you know, to, to refuel, to take off, to use their big, big, big aircraft on that island. And the Chagos Islanders, when I did the piece, were trying to get their rights back. They believed that either they should be independent, autonomous and autonomous, or they should at least not be, you know, a colony and they should be given back to, or joined Mauritius. Anyway, recently the British prime minister did sign such a deal to hand sovereignty back to Mauritius. And Trump thought it was a very, very good deal. If you remember, Jamie, he said it was a very good deal. And then, then he keeps, you know, changing his mind. And I think from what I gather, his latest, you know, diatribe on this came after Prime Minister Starmer called him last week and said, you cannot use our bases, I. E. Diego Garcia or others in order to, you know, do this against, against Iran. And then Trump came out against the deal. But I think it's part of a huge bigger thing and that's an active potential war right now.
- [11:08]
A
Yeah, look, this issue of Diego Garcia is a very, very important substantively and symbol of, of America's role in the world. And that is unique for two reasons. One, we are the first truly global power with our military naval facilities, with our air bases and with our international space capabilities. And all of that goes with that. We are a global power, but that power derives from our alliances because we are Uniquely in the history of the world, have alliances with dozens, if not hundreds of countries where we have basing rights with. The primary example of why this is important is Diego Garcia. Because if you think about where Diego Garcia is located in the middle of the ocean, it's centrally located for the United States to be able to use its long range aircraft globally. Because, for example, when the US used its aircraft from the United States into Iran on the last attack, I think the number is 40 hours, these pilots had to fly back and forth without stopping. That single individual is flying 40 straight hours back and forth with Diego Garcia and using that base to rest and refuel and having the ability to use it cuts that in half and allows, allows us to use our most important equipment everywhere in the world. That is Diego Garcia's centrality. Is this a good deal? Well, look, it depends on whether you believe in the international system. If you believe that countries have rights to their territory, you believe Mauritius should have been able to negotiate an agreement with the UK to lease back this island to the Brits after paying the Brits paying a lot of money for having taken it during the colonial, colonial period. If you don't believe in the international system, if you think the might just makes right and the big can do whatever they want, then you're someone who thinks we shouldn't make deals with little countries like Mauritius. We shouldn't pay for compensation for the damage done to the islanders, we shouldn't even give them sovereignty. We should just do what we can because we're big and strong. That's the behavior of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in China. And what I've been horrified to see in the American political debate is individuals, leaders, smart people saying we should just veto this deal because we can, because we're strong and not because it's the right thing to do. We get everything we need. Trump knows that. That's why he approved it. We get rights for 99 years. I mean, it's ridiculous to, to veto this deal.
- [13:51]
B
I think he's just pissed off because the Brits said no, you can't actually use it. And actually, you know, it is actually the first time in certainly decades and decades and decades that the UK has said to the United States, its closest ally, you can't use our.
- [14:06]
A
And there's a reason for that Christianity,
- [14:08]
B
for this potential attack.
- [14:10]
A
And the reason is because nobody knows what the purpose of this military force is. They haven't articulated it, they haven't explained it, they haven't said what the objective is, except the thing we talked about in our main episode, it'll give them a stronger hand at the negotiating table. That's not a military objective. That's not something people understand. And since the goal of all this that the world agrees on is that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons and their facilities have been destroyed, they can't conduct uranium enrichment right now and apparently have offered to delay any possible enrichment for many, many years, I don't see how you build an international consensus for this war. And I unfortunately think that the Trump administration doesn't care about that and is going to do it anyway. Yeah.
- [14:56]
B
And I mean, you know, I don't yearn for the Bush years because of what happened after 9, 11 and what happened in Iraq and all of the rest of it. But it was significantly different. Even that which was called essentially by so many people around the world a rogue operation. Don't go into Iraq, you've been sold a bill of goods by Iraqi exiles there. You know, there's no proof that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, et cetera, et cetera. And at least they took it to Congress, and at least they took it to the UN and at least it was debated on every sing American show. At least they were, you know, people expressing their protests and, or their agreements in, you know, capitals like London or in Italy and many, many places. This is like nothing. It's almost like people don't understand. I don't know what's happened in the last 20 years, but something this massive is, is. Is happening, even just the buildup with literally zero debate at all and apparently no care at all amongst people anywhere. And it could be very, very consequential. I think the truth is that a lot of people would like to see a byproduct being regime change there, that's for sure.
- [16:09]
A
And that unpopularity of the Iranian regime, I think is, you're right, is why people.
- [16:13]
B
But it's not as if Saddam was massively popular. You know, he was a horrible tyrant, and yet they still debated this stuff.
- [16:20]
A
I think this is a good example of what happens when a president demonstrates how he's going to use exercise of the presidential power. And the people are getting so exhausted by every new breaking of the norms and breaking of the behavior patterns of the United States that this is just one new one. What's really going on here is that he got away with Venezuela. It worked. And he seems to think he can do the same thing in Iran. And then he's surprised, apparently, that Iranians don't behave the way he wants. Them to. They don't.
- [16:57]
B
Well, he got away with as well, the first, you know, in June, him
- [17:01]
A
and Israel, because he didn't expect them to capitulate. He just wanted to do damage and that's.
- [17:06]
B
And they did plenty of damage, which again is.
- [17:08]
A
Right.
- [17:09]
B
Yeah. So again, we don't know, is it regime change, is it coercion for this deal? What is it? I don't think they know, to be honest. Otherwise presumably they'd tell us. And I think there's a, from what I gather, a split within the cabinet, that's what Anyway, that's what's reported that Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI head of national intelligence, and Vice President J.D. vance are against Rubio, the Secretary of State, along with Hegseth, the Secretary of War, by the way, are pro. So there we go.
- [17:40]
A
Yeah. Well, that's just the divide in the Trump coalition between those who believe that we should be staying at home, doing our own business and not playing a role abroad, and Rubio, who has enabled the Venezuela operation and probably sees this as another one that he can rack up. But they're not going to get what they want, which is regime change. And that's why this is so hard. That's why the military is being so careful, because they're not going to promise President Bush as President Trump regime change, because they know they can't do that from the air.
- [18:14]
B
So just let's just very briefly before we've got two more questions, but very briefly, let's say they really hammer regime targets, including irgc, the basically the military underpinning of the theocracy. People I don't think will come out under the bombs. Even if they want regime change. I think they will have to be careful where they go out in terms of protesting or supporting or whatever. So I'm concerned that if it's about regime change, it'll take a while for people to come out onto the streets until after this bombing has stopped. I wouldn't go out on the street if the US Is bombing, frankly, would you? But then who jumps into that vacuum? Let's say then they declare the war's over, then the guard are presumably still there. I mean, I don't know. It just still hasn't really been thought out.
- [19:07]
A
Here's my best guess, and I'm not involved in this government, so I don't know and I don't think we've been told the real story. My guess is they're going to conduct a short set of, of bombing attacks over a couple of Days say, and with the objective twofold. One is to see whether it achieves their claim to get the Iranians to capitulate at the negotiating table, which it won't. And they also hope that after the raids are finished, the Iranian people come out.
- [19:40]
B
Yeah.
- [19:40]
A
And that that will be their objective. And to hope that this time, having seen millions come out before, even more will come. And that having just conducted these attacks, the regime will be unable to withstand the popular pressure. I don't see that as the realistic scenario. People may come out, but they can't destroy the regime's power to suppress those people because that power lies in the hands of tens of thousands of members of their gangs called the Basij and the irgc. The military capabilities, and you can't destroy that from the air. And one thing the Iran have apparently done, I've been reading about this over the last few weeks and certainly they want us to think they have, which is to build in redundancies deep down into the IRGC and the Supreme Leader's capabilities so that whoever is left after these bombing attacks continues to be willing to slaughter their own people. We haven't addressed that the US government in this question of what it will take to overthrow the regime as long as there are tens of thousands. I know, I hope I'm wrong about this, but I feel strongly about it. We have to remember that when you have tens of thousands of people with machine guns and small arms willing to shoot innocent protesters, it's very hard to overthrow a regime.
- [21:06]
B
I'm still waiting and watching because for me you just never know. You just never know what, what breaks the camel's back. And I was super interested that many, many students came out these past few days to protest in their colleges and on campuses. It 40 day anniversary which is a mourning period after the death of your loved one. And it's a big deal in the Islamic world. It's always been a big deal in Iran and they did. The students came out even after having been not in the streets per se, but in their campuses and, and elsewhere. Nothing like the January ones, but they were still, they were still out there. Pretty amazing, right?
- [21:50]
A
This is Michelle on YouTube. Do you think Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's arrest. Mr. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's arrest could fue further anti monarchist sentiment in the UK and does focusing on him distract from others in the US facing similar allegations?
- [22:07]
B
Well, I'm going to take it because here there is a huge debate on the whole monarchy and the institution, which is why most analysts and people who are watching this. And royalist experts are saying the king is doing what he's doing, in other words, saying he'll follow obviously the rule of law, nobody's above, not even his brother, and that he will cooperate with the police. The questions start emerging as the whether it expands beyond Andrew Mountbatten Windsor into who knew what when, the famous Watergate question. And so that we're waiting to see where that falls out. Still, there is, you know, a definite majority of support for the royal family and for keeping the monarchy. But they know very well that, that they really, there's, there's a compact, you know, there's a compact of trust between whatever leadership and the people. And once that starts to be broken and frayed, then there's no telling where it might end up. And I think this is most definitely the most important test case in, in 100 years. As for whether it distracts from the United States, as we talked about in the main episode, the US has not faced this kind of leadership exposure, and therefore it's just doing reputational and other damage to those who are caught up in the, you know, in, in the Epstein Web. Jamie, I'm going to read this to you, Jill, on email.
- [23:26]
A
Email.
- [23:26]
B
Will the US Midterms be rigged in favor of the Republicans?
- [23:31]
A
Short answer, Jill. I don't believe so. And, and let me tell you why it's not understood. Well, who runs elections in America? States run elections. State bureaucrats, people who work, state officials, people who are just average Joes and Jills run these elections. Joe and Jill run these elections. And they have shown a commitment to democracy under most intense pressures. Last time around, when President Trump didn't like the results in 2020, he put incredible pressure on these people. These people run elections and votes cannot be rigged. What can happen is the state's results can be challenged by the president. And what can happen is that the whole climate for voting becomes so confused and damaged by the failure of our media to cover elections fairly because of the press created by this administration. We've never had this in our country before, where one government has put so much effort into trying to ensure they win an election that they're working every day to try to make it harder for the opposition to win. We've never seen that before, but the actual conduct of those elections is pretty well, I'm confident will be the actual voting. Now, when those, those counts are made, when those announcements are made about the results, and when this administration, the White House, doesn't like those results, what will they do? Well, I've said before and I should say it again, because it's coming. That's what all this National Guard ballot box complaints is all about. I foresee a very real prospect, unless it's prevented for the president and his supporters to, to use the National Guard to take ballot boxes away from state representatives who control them in order to claim or whoever it is, to try to get the ballot boxes without waiting for the courts to make such judgments. If that were to happen, if there were to be a struggle over the, the possession of ballot boxes, you could see and imagine civil strife in my country, which I find it hard to articulate, but is real, where one institution with gun is facing another institution with guns and the use of force and one controls those ballot boxes. The state governments and the state officials and the federal government under President Trump, through the National Guard, wants to take possession of them and doesn't wait for a court order to do so. That's where you could have violence. I think it will work out because I don't think National Guard generals will follow orders to go to war with their fellow Americans over ballot boxes without court orders. I don't think that will happen. But that's what this jockeying and maneuvering is all about, to see whether that pressure could be generated and to otherwise try to cause doubt about the results of the midterm elections where I strongly believe that the president will be suffering a defeat at the polls and, and that's why he's challenging it, I must
- [26:50]
B
say, you know, Jill reflects a lot of people's concerns, both in the United States and around the world. But anyway, that is all we have time for right now. Thank you for listening to the Q and A episode. If you out there have a question for us that you'd like us to answer next time, you can find us on all the major social media platforms. Our handle is at amanpurpod or you can, of course, always email us. Our address is amanpourpodlobal.com thank you. We'll be back with another main episode next Tuesday. So enjoy this one and have a good weekend, everybody.
- [27:25]
A
And goodbye again from New York. This has been a global player, original production.