Trump promised peace. What went wrong?

Summary

Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files – Episode Summary: "Trump Promised Peace. What Went Wrong?"

In this compelling episode of The Ex Files, hosts Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin delve into the complexities of contemporary global conflicts, dissecting the challenges in negotiating lasting peace amidst ongoing wars and geopolitical tensions. Released on August 5, 2025, the episode titled "Trump Promised Peace. What Went Wrong?" offers a thorough analysis of recent developments in the Gaza conflict, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the ramifications of former President Donald Trump's foreign and economic policies.

---

1. Navigating Humanitarian Crises: Gaza Under Netanyahu and Trump's Influence

The episode opens with an examination of the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. Amanpour and Rubin discuss President Trump's initial statements and actions aimed at alleviating the starvation crisis, juxtaposed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's continued military offensive against Hamas.

• Christiane Amanpour emphasizes the complexity of the situation:

  "When President Trump says, kids are starving and we can do something about it, that's going to put pressure on Netanyahu." ([02:47])

Despite Trump's apparent commitment to addressing the humanitarian issues, Amanpour points out that Netanyahu's strategy remains unchanged, focusing on eliminating Hamas rather than facilitating a sustainable peace agreement. This rigid approach has not only exacerbated the suffering in Gaza but also eroded Israel's standing globally, with increasing opposition from the Democratic Party in the U.S.

• Jamie Rubin highlights the political fallout:

  "It's getting incredibly dire, and obviously the Palestinians are suffering desperately... Prime Minister Netanyahu continuing the war where even his own military, at least formers say it's not necessary anymore just for his own personal gain." ([05:46])

The discussion underscores the interconnectedness of the humanitarian crisis and the broader quest for peace, emphasizing that without addressing immediate needs like starvation and hostage situations, long-term peace remains elusive.

---

2. Trump's Approach to Diplomacy: The Role of Steve Witkoff and Nuclear Rhetoric

A significant portion of the conversation critiques Donald Trump's unconventional methods in handling international diplomacy and conflict resolution.

• Christiane Amanpour critiques Trump's delegation choices:

  "We've given the hardest jobs in modern diplomacy to an amateur. An amateur hour is not what the world needs right now." ([11:25])

Trump's decision to deploy Steve Witkoff, a real estate lawyer with no background in international diplomacy, as a negotiator in conflict zones like Gaza and Ukraine is seen as undermining effective peace talks. Additionally, Trump's public threats regarding the movement of nuclear submarines and engagement with figures like Dmitry Medvedev are highlighted as reckless and destabilizing.

• Jamie Rubin comments on the implications of Trump's nuclear rhetoric:

  "It's quite scary actually, isn't it, because it's unprecedented for a president to be public about what they're doing." ([13:06])

The hosts agree that such unilateral and aggressive tactics not only fail to foster peace but also heighten global tensions, making diplomatic resolutions more challenging.

---

3. Lessons from Historical Peace Negotiations: Northern Ireland and Beyond

Transitioning from current events, Amanpour and Rubin draw parallels with successful historical peace negotiations to illustrate what effective diplomacy entails.

• Christiane Amanpour shares insights from the Good Friday Agreement:

  "George Mitchell... he was able to hear out all parties, to listen to the Catholic side, to listen to the Protestant side... until he won their trust." ([19:16])

The discussion highlights the importance of dedicated negotiators who invest time in building trust among conflicting parties. They contrast this with the Trump administration's approach, where the absence of experienced diplomats hampers the possibility of meaningful peace agreements.

• Jamie Rubin underscores the necessity of engaging "hard men":

  "You can't just say, oh, we're never gonna talk to the hard man... Even in Israel, Palestine, you can't just say... they have to surrender and bend over." ([22:37])

By referencing figures like George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke, the hosts emphasize that successful peace processes require persistent, patient negotiation and the willingness to engage all relevant stakeholders, including those deemed as adversaries.

---

4. The Weaponization of Trade: Trump's Tariffs and Global Fallout

In the latter part of the episode, Amanpour and Rubin shift focus to the economic arena, critically analyzing how Donald Trump has utilized trade policies as instruments of geopolitical leverage.

• Christiane Amanpour discusses the impact of tariffs:

  "Uncertainty and chaos is the worst thing for long term investments and long term decisions that affect our world." ([35:33])

Trump's imposition of tariffs on countries like India, Brazil, Canada, and members of the BRICS group is scrutinized for its detrimental effects on global economies. The hosts argue that while presented as measures for "free and fair trade," these tariffs often serve personal and political agendas, disrupting international relations and harming both American consumers and global partners.

• Jamie Rubin elaborates on specific consequences:

  "The car companies are really freaking out because these tariffs are actually hurting... a small business who provides car parts who suddenly has to shut down because the parts that they need to sell are no longer available at a price that they can make... survive." ([37:06])

The episode highlights real-world repercussions, such as increased costs for manufacturers and consumers, leading to economic instability and loss of jobs. Amanpour predicts that these policies will eventually backfire politically, causing electoral repercussions for the Republican Party as voters reassess the tangible impacts of Trump's trade strategies.

---

5. Predicting the Political Ramifications and Future Outlook

Concluding the episode, the hosts offer their perspectives on the likely future trajectory of U.S. foreign and economic policies under Trump's influence.

• Christiane Amanpour forecasts political shifts:

  "Trump's chickens will come home to roost... Democrats will take back the House, and then something's going to change." ([38:45])

They anticipate that mounting economic challenges and failed diplomatic efforts will erode Trump's support base, leading to significant political shifts in upcoming elections. Additionally, they discuss potential legal challenges to Trump's tariff policies, referencing the constitutional limits on executive power in trade matters.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Ex Files provides a nuanced exploration of the intersection between individual leadership styles and broader geopolitical outcomes. By juxtaposing historical examples of successful peace negotiations with current U.S. policies under Trump, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin offer insightful commentary on the prerequisites for lasting peace and the pitfalls of politicizing international relations. The discussion underscores the necessity of experienced diplomacy, the dangers of unilateral decision-making, and the far-reaching consequences of economic weaponization through trade policies.

For listeners seeking an in-depth understanding of today's defining global crises and the intricate mechanisms of international diplomacy, this episode serves as an essential resource, blending expert analysis with real-world examples to illuminate the path toward potential resolutions amidst a fractured global landscape.

Transcript

[A]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[B]

You there, Jamie, you've gone a little bit fuzzy.

[A]

That's just my smoke.

[B]

No, no, I can see you now. I can see you. Okay, here we go. Welcome to the X Files. We're going to be asking today, how do you negotiate a actual peace agreement with two major wars raging with no end in sight? Obviously Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the continued war by Israel on G. Gonna ask, how do you get a peace deal? Not just a pause, not even a ceasefire, but something that actually lasts. We'll also be looking into the history of peace deals and those that actually worked. And finally, we'll talk about how Trump has actually, in effect, weaponized the whole trade deal and tariff situation that he's created. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the X Files with me, Christiane Amanpour.

[A]

And I'm Jamie Rubin. I was a State Department official under President Clint and President Biden, and I.

[B]

Have been a longtime correspondent and now presenter for cnn. So let's get started. Let us talk first about how we thought everything had changed for Gaza, and then it didn't. So we're going to play a sound bite from last Monday, which showed what many people thought was a little split between President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, on the status of the food crisis, the starvation crisis in Gaza. Here's Trump.

[A]

We can save a lot of people. I mean, some of those kids are. That's real starvation stuff. I see it. You can't fake that. So we're going to be even more involved. We did some airlifts before, some air drops, and the people are running for it.

[B]

Okay, so as I said, everybody thought that that showed a little bit of a shift from President Trump, but it looks like. I don't know what you're going to make of it, Jamie. But like Witkoff went, he was, you know, he was dispatched over the weekend, and he went into Gaza and he went to the infamous Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. And afterwards, he defended the scheme as incredible, despite the killings that have emanated from that area, IDF and US contractors against Palestinians who've rushed towards the food. And despite the starvation and the images. So to me, it seems like Trump was splitting a little bit on the humanitarian crisis and now is all in to Netanyahu's pocket again, while Netanyahu talks about increasing the offensive to actually keep going after Hamas. Where are we here?

[A]

Well, I think there is some progress in the sense that President Trump and his administration do realize that the starvation is caused by Israeli military action. And what they won't allow the UN and others to do. They've realized that this Gaza humanitarian foundation is not sufficient. It might be useful, it might not. There are people who are for it or against it. I don't know enough to know whether the whole thing should be gotten rid of or not. But I do know that there were important statements by Israeli and US Military officials that the UN System was providing food and it wasn't being stolen in significant amounts by Hamas. So these are solvable problems. When President Trump says, kids are starving and we can do something about it, that's going to put pressure on Netanyahu. Is it enough pressure? Clearly not. The Israelis could solve this problem within a matter of days if they chose to. But instead, they still have this really crazy idea that you can eliminate all of Hamas, which is a movement with thousands and tens of thousands of people. You don't get to eliminate it. You can eliminate its military capability. And they did that a year ago. That's why this war is such tragedy for everybody and why Israel is suffering massively in the court of public opinion around the world. I've never seen anything like it. The Democratic Party is turning against the Israeli government in a way it never has before. Votes on the Senate floor, congressmen and senators, longtime supporters of Israel, are fed up with Netanyahu not solving a solvable problem.

[B]

And, you know, bad, bad for Israel in terms of becoming a global pariah, as you say, it had done its military mission by this time last year. And indeed, a whole load of Israeli former security and military have written to President Trump to say there's no need for this war anymore. It's getting incredibly dire, and obviously the Palestinians are suffering desperately. The starvation is real, and we know it is, because guess what? Hamas released the most awful pictures of at least two Israeli hostages looking emaciated. So if we can say they are starving, clearly the logic is that the whole enclave is starving and that famine, like conditions are underway. So, Jamie, we're talking, we're trying to talk about what's the route towards peace. And it seems that this week, indeed after Witkoff's visit and he had a visit with Netanyahu, suddenly Netanyahu doubles down again. Suddenly he says, I'm going to war again. Trying to do this thing that is just keeps doing. And now more and more people say it's entirely political. He's got people and parties who he wants to keep him in power. And if he doesn't march to their tune on this issue, then he's gonna be out of Power. And this doesn't seem to be changing. And Trump could do something, but he's not.

[A]

You're right. All of that is true. Look, you know, my job often is in this show and in my previous life to find silver linings. There is a silver lining that I see in the following Sen. Secretary Blinken and I worked very, very hard beginning a year ago to try to resolve the Gaza war, not just get a temporary ceasefire, but get a resolution that would eliminate Hamas being in charge, that would ensure the Israelis that Hamas couldn't come back to power and commit the kind of October 7th aggression they did again. And that would create a path to a Palestinian state. We had a real plan, this so called Blinken plan. I worked on it very closely with Tony Blair, the former prime minister. And the essence of that plan has now been endorsed by the entire world, with the exception, importantly, the United States and Israel and Hamas. So that United nations resolution called on Hamas to give up power and allow the Palestinian Authority to run Gaza and the west bank on a process that would lead to a Palestinian state give up the hostages, obviously, and then put in, and this was crucial, a UN Supported force in Gaza. So the Israelis would leave and they changed the wording from a UN Force, a blue helmeted force, which we can talk about, which the Israelis will never tolerate and under a UN Aegis, A E G I S aegis. That's crucial. That means the UN Just needs to endorse it and whoever wants to deploy can deploy. And the Israelis know how to do this. Centcom, the US Military regional command, has plans to do this quickly. So once you get the country signed up, this can be done. And importantly, the Palestinian Authority did what I had hoped to get them to do last October when Secretary Blinton sent me to the west bank to meet with them. They've called for the force, they've asked for the force, they've said it can be under the UN Aegis. This is real progress. Now we just need to take that progress because it's the only solution. It's the only way out of this dilemma.

[B]

And you know, this is also happening. The backdrop is a accelerating humanitarian catastrophe. And it's a massive moral and ethical dilemma, not just for Israel. And more and more incredibly important people like David Grossman, their most important writer this week, talked about calling it genocide after all that he had seen. But if President Trump cannot even solve the humanitarian part of this, I just don't know where the actual peace part of it is going to go and where it's going to come from because as all this talk is going on and this, you know, unprecedented Arab states saying what they said, as we just discussed, you know, Hamas, lay down your weapons and all the things you just said, they don't seem to be building on it. It just seems to be playing around the edges with what it looks like from here anyway, Prime Minister Netanyahu continuing the war where even his own military, at least formers say it's not necessary anymore just for his own personal gain.

[A]

Let me just suggest that the connection is there. Look, once Prime Minister Netanyahu feels pressure to solve this problem and he needs to feel that I agree with you and only person who can place pressure on him is President Trump. But once he feels the pressure to solve the humanitarian problem, disaster that he's created by his policies that he can change quickly, the next step is getting the hostages back. And they're not going to be returned, it looks like, until there's a solution to the war. So there's two crises. There's the crises Israel's created for starvation in Gaza and then there's the return of the hostages, which is something the Israelis want to get that you're going to have to find a solution because Hamas is holding the hostages until the Israelis agree the war ends. The war won't end until you come up with a solution like I've described. So all of these are connected in that way.

[B]

Yeah. And one last thing that's happened over the last moments since we've been just before we started to record is that in the atmosphere there is this idea that we'll do one big deal. We haven't six months of this Trump attempt has failed of this administration. And now they're suggesting maybe we just say, oh, all the hostages out now, Hamas, lay down your weapons and we'll take it from there. It doesn't look like there's negotiating room there and Hamas is unlikely to go for the Israeli position. But anyway, we're not going to solve that now. But let's talk about Witkoff because he is the one who Trump deploys here, there and everywhere on the major issues. We've talked about Israel, Gaza, we are going to talk about Russia, Ukraine, another very, very hot war. And Witkoff has been deployed there by Trump. He's going, I think Jamie on is going to be in Moscow. And of course you've got Friday as this, you know, the latest deadline that Trump's put in, his 12 day deadline which he talked about, you know, a week ago by Friday it'll be 12 days. And at the same time, Jamie, you've got this really frightening escalation, nuclear escalation, where you've got a troll, Putin's either official or sanctioned troll. Former President Dmitry Medvedev talking about, you know, sanctions are tantamount to declaring war. Trump then saying publicly that we're moving nuclear submarines to the appropriate place. This is quite scary actually, isn't it, because it's unprecedented for a president to be public about what they're doing.

[A]

Absolutely. The movement of US nuclear powered or nuclear armed submarines is the highest level secret in the military, really, where they are, what they're doing and what their missions are. So President Trump is signaling, he's flexing his muscles. But what really bugs me about this is Steve Witkoff is a perfectly nice guy and I'm sure was a perfectly good real estate lawyer for Trump. But he's not a man who knows these issues particularly well. He's never done international diplomacy. And he's now been empowered essentially to be a traveling Trump negotiator instead of a Secretary of State who's been confirmed and who has experience in these areas with a team of people who have experience in these areas. We've given the hardest jobs in modern diplomacy to an amateur. An amateur hour is not what the world needs right now. The world needs professionals able to solve these problems, both the urgent ones and the medium term ones and the long term ones. And the reason why Witkoff is traveling all over the world is because Trump doesn't trust anybody but him to do his bidding. He obviously doesn't trust the Secretary of State enough to send him off to do this, which would be his normal job. He hasn't empowered someone who knows anything about these subjects. So he's Trump's lawyer. Traveling around, around the world. Trump is playing amateur by using these nuclear threats, which is not very sensible. I mean, I don't particularly love Medvedev, but President United States shouldn't be responding to what you called correctly. You know, Putin's troll, the President. United States should act based on real decisions, real actions of other governments and frankly, shouldn't be talking about where nuclear submarines are, because that's not very smart.

[B]

Yeah, you know, I checked my, my, my radar and called a friend, Carl Bildt, the former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of Sweden, over the weekend. And you said the same stuff about unclear why Putin tolerates all this, but maybe it's a useful idiot for him. But the real question is why Trump is taking Medvedev so seriously. It's strange he just said, this is strange. And as we've just been saying, no other US President has ever been so public. It must cause profound disquiet in the US Navy and the strategic, you know, community. They're probably pretty upset that these secrets are being revealed by the president. And we don't actually know much, but we know.

[A]

And it may not even be true. It may just be just another one of these things Trump likes to say. He's showing off, he's bragging, he's flexing his muscles saying, see, I control nuclear weapons, I control nuclear submarines, I can order them moved. I'm the commander in chief. It's just a way of showing off to Putin through Medvedev. And if that will move Putin, I'm perfectly happy. But unfortunately, there's been no evidence whatsoever that anything Donald Trump has done or the Trump administration has done has moved Putin one inch. And that's ironic because they said to us, oh, you Democrats, it's all your fault. This war is your fault. I could solve it in 24 hours. And people believe that nonsense. And one of the ridiculous parts of President Trump is he puts out so many ideas every day, so many different claims and assertions that everyone forgets about the old ones. And then you forget that every single one one of his promises in foreign affairs have failed. And instead, each situation is just getting worse.

[B]

And that's what we're going to talk about in part two, because as you say, the personalization of peace negotiations in the, you know, personhood of one guy, the president, it doesn't work. You can't do peace by calling these unbelievable adversaries in the middle of what they believe is existential wars. And just call them and say, back off. And then send, as you say, Witkoff, who can't be all things to all people, even as the State Department Department is slashing positions. So there are no big teams. So it takes, it takes time, it takes teams, it takes patience and persistence and Jamie, let's take a break and we'll get some historical examples. What worked, what didn't work in some of the peace negotiations that, you know, you were a part of in office, and I certainly covered that's in the next part. We're going to take a break.

[C]

Time for a sofa upgrade. Visit washablesofas.com and discover Annabe. Where designer style meets budget friendly prices. With sofas starting at $699, Annabe brings you the ultimate in furniture innovation. With a modular design that allows you to rearrange your space effortlessly Perfect for both small and large spaces. Anibe is the only machine washable sofa inside and out. Say goodbye to stains and messes with liquid and stain resistant fabrics that make cleaning easy. Liquid simply slides right off. Designed for custom comfort, our high resilience foam lets you choose between a sink in feel or a supportive memory foam blend. Plus our pet friendly stain resistant fabrics ensure your sofa stays beautiful for years. Don't compromise quality for price. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your living space today with no risk returns and a 30 day money back guarantee. Get up to 60% off plus free shipping and free returns. Shop now at washablesofas.com Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[B]

So back with our conversation about how you actually wage peace. And it's not by the President of the United States picking up a phone and having a couple of hours talk with Vladimir Putin or having Benjamin Netanyahu for a few days in the Oval Office because it requires tea, it requires negotiations, it requires all sorts of, you know, real legwork before you can actually get to a reasonable end of any, of any peace deal or rather any conflict. So let's talk, Jamie, about people, shall we? Because we talked about how Wyckoff can't be all things to all people. It's just too much or to all situations. Let's go, Jamie, what do you think to Northern Ireland? I think that's a really good one to talk about. I'm sitting here in London and Northern Ireland, after 30 years plus years of what we call the troubles, was finally moved towards a full piece, the Good Friday Agreement in 1997 by Prime Minister Tony Blair. And yes, he did it. So did Clinton. Clinton enabled, you know, the rehabilitation of Jerry Adams, for instance, under the pressure of Edward Kennedy at the time, who wanted to make some kind of peace and brought Gerry Adams to the White House. But let's talk about the negotiator. And for the UK anyway, it was Jonathan Powell. You and I both know Jonathan Powell. He was very important peace negotiator for Tony Blair. And he's now got the Middle east file and others for Keir Starmer. And it took him a long, long time. And before that, this whole thing had been going on for about two years of negotiations before the Good Friday Agreement was signed. So what does that all mean compared to what's happening by phone Now?

[A]

I love Jonathan Powell, but I love George Mitchell more. And George Mitchell, that's because he's American. No, it's because he was the actual negotiator he's the one who sat down for hundreds of hours with the different factions in Northern Ireland. Jonathan Powell was Blair's messenger to the different parties, and he brought Blair around. But I don't think we should exaggerate his role. The real negotiator was George Mitchell, who had this unique skill to hear out all parties, to listen to the Catholic side, to listen to the Protestant side, the Irish side, the British side, all of the different parties, until he won their trust. And he said that it was the hardest thing he ever did, and it took him years to win the trust of these leaders of the different parties.

[B]

No, I think. I mean, just to be fair here, Mitchell. I mean, Powell had been at it for much longer than Mitchell. Mitchell came in and he was really significant in. Because Good Friday wasn't the end of it. You know, you remember, there were years after Good Friday, 10 years after Good Friday, to get disarmament and all of that. And Mitchell really was fundamental there. But Powell apparently was Blair's lead negotiator. In 97. He did help to broker the first talks between a British Prime Minister and the Irish Republican leaders. First time in 75 years, the London Times reports. And I think this is interesting, Jamie, because it goes to the heart of what it takes that Powell could not bring himself to shake hands with the Sinn Fein leaders who many believe were former IRA, Martin McGuinness and Jerry Adams, because they had had a. In, you know, an ambush against his own father. His own brother worked for Margaret Thatcher and he was under threat. But less than a year later, as we said, the Good Friday Accord was signed. This personal stuff also is massive. Right. As you mentioned, with Mitchell, he was able to put aside whatever politics and personality, but also Powell and then Blair and all the others, Clinton and everybody.

[A]

Yeah, look, there were a lot of players in that episode. The piece prize, Nobel Peace Prize, of course, went to David Trimble on the Protestant side. And. And I.

[B]

And.

[A]

And I can't.

[B]

And the North. Oh, and the Northern.

[A]

I can't remember the name. That's why I didn't say it. Neither can you, obviously.

[B]

I'll remember. It's. I'm gonna remember. I'm gonna find. Because I interviewed him so many times. Anyway, carry on and we'll figure it out.

[A]

Remember that.

[B]

Sorry, whoever it was, the late National Nationalist leader.

[A]

Yeah, anyway, there you go.

[B]

John Hume.

[A]

I knew it was John Hume.

[B]

I can't remember his last name.

[A]

Yeah, anyway, so the point here is that there were probably dozens of people who played crucial roles and that's what happens when you make a long lasting, what you call a final status, a permanent peace. There are dozens of people involved in the setting up of the process and the winning of the trust. And then the leaders bring people over the finish line. That's what leaders do. That's what Powell helped Blair to do. That's what Bill Clinton did in bringing the leaders over the finish line when the negotiators do the hard work and get them to the finish line. And so I think George Mitchell is widely acknowledged by all parties to have been the one who brought the Good Friday peace plan to the finish line. And then Blair and Clinton and the leaders, John Hume and David Trimble did the final piece that make the final compromises. And that's usually what happens, as opposed to now where you have Trump and Witkoff trying to do the whole package from the beginning to the end, and it's just never gonna work.

[B]

Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were considered the hard men. Okay? Hume and Trimble were more the politicians in there, but they needed the hard men to actually convince all the other hard men that peace was possible. And that's something we forget, isn't it? Even in Israel, Palestine, you can't just say, oh, we're never gonna talk to the hard man, or they have to surrender and bend over. So that's always the issue.

[A]

At one point, Arafat was a hard man. He was the leader of the PLO terrorist organization. But then he became the person convincing those in his group that may have been the hard man, that he was gonna make peace through Oslo, through the subsequent Y River Accords, and all that came with that. Unfortunately, at the end, he didn't make the final deal when President Clinton conducted the Camp David peace talks. But the point you're making is absolutely right. I mean, let's take a successful one. Slobodan Milosevic was the hard man that Richard Holbrooke had to talk to in Bosnia to persuade the Bosnian Serbs under his, you know, thumb, really. But still, Lotic and the other General Ladic of the Bosnian Serb military and Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb political leaders. Milosevic forced them to say, yes, sentence.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. And just to say, because you have to say, you know, Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, was considered a terrorist by the Brits. Right? His group was called the Irgun. They fought against the Brits during the war of independence in Israel. And then he made peace with Sadat of Egypt. So I think it's just so important to remember The. The military, who has to come together, people you might call terrorists, and. And the politicians all. All together. I remember we know Terry and Mona Larsson, who were the people who convened Oslo in secret, the Oslo Peace Accords, which were not the leaders at the beginning, but their deputies and the people who they deputed to do this. And Terry and Mona did it under the sort of auspices of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. They took them to Oslo, hence, and they gave them food and they put them around a table. And it took about nine months, but finally it ended up on the White House lawn. And there again, Arafat in his military mufti, he wanted to shake. And Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, didn't want to shake hands. He had also been a warrior. And Clinton pushed them together. All of that stuff is what it takes.

[A]

Absolutely. Look, I remember being part of a discussion with Richard Holbrooke, who worked on the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the war in Bosnia. And initially, once the use of military power had been conducted against the Bosnian Serbs and the leverage. Leverage that was necessary was available. They first got together in New York at the UN Mission, where I was working for Madeleine Albright at the time. And I remember watching Richard try to figure out how to organize the table so that the different factions would be satisfied. And if I'm not mistaken, originally there was a square table or a rectangular table. And everyone decided that would be a terrible mistake because somebody would be seen at the head of the table. And Richard had to arrange for a circular table to be created so that all the different. Different people could be around it without any perception of somebody being more important than someone else. That's the kind of detail that sometimes diplomats have to do. I also remember when we were creating the Y River talks, you know, the Israelis and the Palestinians were living in different groups, and we would create dinners where we made it easy for everyone to. To share food. And when you've shared food with somebody, there's something, you know, the concept of breaking bread that tears down a bit of the hatreds. And you see that the other side is just. Just are people too.

[B]

And then you talk about your families.

[A]

And jokes are told and people laugh, all of that. And so we did that at Y River. And what I remember vividly is at Shepherdstown, where President Clinton and Madeline Albright organized the Syrians and the Israelis to meet. None of that happened. The Syrians wouldn't meet with anybody, and the Israelis didn't want to really talk to them either. And no matter what we did they all stayed in their separate compartments essentially until there was a formal meeting where they would sit down together. So all of these factors come into play and sometimes you want to bring them together and sometimes you conclude you're just better off being the broker. And these are the decisions that you make. Do you shuttle the diplomacy? That's the famous phrase that comes from Henry Kissinger's travels with his airplane. But remember, and this is important for people to remember, Henry Kissinger basically had to talk to three people or four people. You know, one Sadat in Egypt, two Hafez Assad in Syria, three Golda Meir. That's it.

[B]

Just to be clear, let's remember, Remind, remind everybody why? Because that was after the 1973 war, which evolved those, those, those countries. Yeah, Israel and Syria.

[A]

And if you compare that to today, to try to get a peace agreement in Gaza, just Gaza, this tiny little place, you basically have to talk to all the Arab leaders because they have to deploy a force. You have to talk to the Israelis and all the factions of the Israelis because Netanyahu is so subject to the views of others. Then you have to talk to the Palestinians and you don't want to directly talk to ha. Hamas. So you use Qatar and, and you end up with 10, 11, 12, 13 different nodes. You know, somebody's called it more like three dimensional chess.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

So when Kissinger's heroics are described, it's worth remembering that he really just talked to three people.

[B]

And that's where shuttle diplomacy came from because he did shuttle. It's a dogged approach, as it says it took months. Let's just quickly run through just a couple of examples. The North Korea army armistice, right, in 19, what was it, 50 something. It took 575 meetings over two years. And it's not even a piece, it's just an armistice we talked about. Northern Ireland took two years. The Colombia government, I interviewed President Santos quite a lot after that. In 2012, they hammered out a framework agreement and a ceasefire with farc, the revolutionary guerrillas, and put an end to that war. It does take, take not just willingness but, but a lot of dogged and, and preparation. So one other thing, Jamie, because people are going to say, oh well, hang on, look at this Middle East. There's actually been peace under the Trump years. Trump 1.0 saw the Abraham Accords, but as everybody points out, that's not peace. Those were normal. All those Gulf nations and the others which recognized Israel were merely normalizing. Right. They, there was no peace. They weren't at war.

[A]

Right. And in effect, what that was was making public what was true. Those countries were talking to the Israelis secretly. They were meeting with the Israelis secretly. They were doing business with the Israelis secretly by the Abraham Accords, which was important. And I don't think we should say it's meaningless. It's important. No, no, no. It's just those countries, exactly. Those countries essentially recognized Israel and made their relationship that existed public and formal. And embassies are created and airlines fly back and forth between Dubai and Tel Aviv and that sort of thing. And that's part of the peace process because, remember, the dream of Israel's founders was to have Israel be recognized and in peace and security by all its neighbors. And that's the terrible tragedy. They could do that right now if they would just get over the hump of thinking they can wipe out Hamas, which they can't do.

[B]

I'm not even sure they believe it. I just think he's trying to, you know, keep people and Jamie to that point. I mean, the problem with the Abraham Accords, as good as those normalizations are, is that they totally bypassed the real problem, and that is the festering problem. Crisis, war.

[A]

All they did, if you remember, was the Israelis promised not to annex the west bank as a price for recognition.

[B]

By the uae, made them do that because Trump almost allowed them.

[A]

And then the world forgot, or the US Diplomacy certainly forgot about the Palestinians. We've talked about that in the past, where the senior officials even in the Biden administration thought they could talk about Middle east doctrines without. Without mentioning the Palestinians.

[B]

So it's important to keep all this, in my opinion, and I've said this, I think several times, unless you get a resolution that's a win win with compromises for Israel and Palestine, there will be no peace in that region. And the ripple effects will be fe world everywhere. So why don't we take a break and move on to our next segment after a break where we're going to talk about a different kind of war, and that's called a trade war. And these tariffs are being hailed by the United States as, you know, as a fairly good, you know, income driver for the US but they're beginning to have big impact on allies. Let's say the Europeans, let's say a country like Lesoto. What about Brazil? What about China? Who stands up, who doesn't? And what are the final effects? That's when we come back after a break.

[C]

Life's messy. We're talking spills, stains, pets and kids. But with Annabe, you Never have to stress about Messes again. @washablesofas.com Discover Anabe Sofas, the only fully machine washable sofas inside and out, starting at just $699. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics. That means fewer stains and more peace of mind. Designed for real life, our sofas feature changeable fabric covers allowing you to refresh your style anytime. Need flexibility? Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa effortlessly. Perfect for cozy apartments or spacious homes. Plus, they're earth friendly and built to last. That's why over 200,000 happy customers have made the switch. Upgrade your space today. Visit washablesofas.com now and bring home a sofa made for life. That's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[B]

Okay, so we're back. Last part of our discussion is, as I said before the break, the weaponization of trade. And this is in fact another war that's being conducted by the United States, even though the US and many economists in the US and even some observers are saying that the tariffs that Trump has imposed and that policy is a political victory for him because he's got people to cave, basically, countries to cave. And it is bringing in tens of billions of dollars in income that they didn't have from these, these, you know, different tariffs a year ago. But some economists are also beginning to sound the alarm because, you know, we don't know the effect once they fully, fully go into effect, these tariffs, it will be the Americans paying this tax. And of course, Jamie, just this last week, the job numbers were weaker than expected. And Trump did something incredible. He fired the statistician at the Bureau of Labor who came up up with these job numbers. This bodes incredibly badly, doesn't it?

[A]

Absolutely. I mean, if you can't tell the truth, the facts about simple things like the number of jobs created or not, it's very hard to do anything serious. So Trump can't take bad news, so he fires people. And I hope this is starting to sink into the American people, that the Republican Party is run by a leader who can't accept bad news even when it's true.

[B]

It's just a fact, as you said. Look, if you don't have the facts, you can't actually make policy. I mean, if you don't actually have the facts, you can't make a policy, especially economics. Yeah, exactly. So this whole golden age that everybody talked about is not showing up yet. I'm just going to read this. Job gains are dwindling inflation is ticking upwards and growth has slowed compared to last year. Jamie, it's not the boom that Trump promised. And of course they keep trying to blame the Biden administration. So I wonder when those chickens are going to come home to roost. And then, as you know, using trade and tariffs to settle political and personal scores as well.

[A]

I mean, let's talk about that because that's the part where I see the foreign and policy implications. Look, there are very good reasons to insist on free and fair trade. And if countries are blocking fair trade, there should be measures taken. Everybody recognizes that a system has been in place for dozens of years to deal with that. What we have now is Donald Trump using trade as a personal leverage against foreign leaders. And I think the best example of that right now is India. Remember, at the beginning of this administration, Modi, the prime minister came over and it was seen as a love fest between the Indians and the United States, the two largest democracies in the world. A relationship that really does matter for a whole bunch of reasons. It matters. And now the Indians are furious and the Modi himself feels that Trump has betrayed him.

[B]

What did he do?

[A]

He imposed this huge tariffs on the Indians and told them if they continue to buy Russian oil that they're going to be sanctioned. And remember, the US Ambassador to India at the time said that at the time, initially we didn't mind India buying the oil because we were trying to keep prices stable. But that day has passed. Indians shouldn't be buying Russian oil. Neither should the Chinese. Without India and China, Russia's economy would start to crater very, very quickly. So Trump is right on principle that India shouldn't be buying oil. But that's not what you, you don't impose tariffs, which are, he says, about fair trade, but they're not, they're about imposing penalties on governments or people that he's mad at, like Brazil, like India, like Canada or the eu. And remember there was a meeting of this so called bricks group, the, the Brazil, Russia, India, India, China and South Africa. South Africa, all of them. Now, Trump, Trump is penalizing with tariffs. Russia deserves it. Brazil doesn't deserve it. He's doing it because he doesn't like what's happened to his buddy Bolsonaro, who's being conducted through a normal criminal process in Brazil. That's none of our business. And he's imposing tariffs. India, the same we just discussed. China is a larger problem and South Africa has put huge tariffs on. And remember, that's another case where we did a whole show about how he invented this idea of, you know, the white people being suffering, suffering apartheid or something crazy like that.

[B]

Those were the biggest privilege that Mandela, when he came out of jail and became president, made sure that there'd be nothing to make the white minority worse off. And he was very clear about that. But Jamie, you know, you mentioned Canada and the other. It's incredible. He slapped Canada with more tariffs because Canada said it would recognize a Palestinian state at the UN assembly coming up in September. He didn't do that to Keir Starmer, which has the lowest tariffs at 10%, who also said conditionally, depending on whether Israel goes to a ceasefire, that they'd recognize a Palestinian state. And to Europe, to your point, he slapped them with 15%. And there's a lot of inter European anger and they feel quite humiliated by it, including the demands to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into American fossil fuels, for heaven's sake, while Europe is meant to be trying to have a greener again. I talked to Carl Bildt, you know, in the same phone call about all of this, and he said it was a difficult one. You know, Europe was forced into this 15% because they figured it would get, you know, it was the best they could get. And, you know, they didn't want to play tough. They didn't play tough. Brazil has played tough. Lula says we're not going to be dictated to. China has played tough, but, you know, the Europeans haven't. But then there's another thing, Jamie, it's not clear because apparently it's not all written down. All of this is verbal. Will they come back for more? More? The. The Americans. Will Europe be actually obliged to do all of this for a long period of time? It's just so ad hoc. It's strange.

[A]

Well, you're right. And I think you pointed out in the last show that Ursula van der Leyen said that this would apply for just as long as Trump was in power, essentially. And then hopefully all bets are off. Look, the problem here is I'm not a CEO, I'm not an economist, but I do understand the basic rules, rules of business and economics. Uncertainty and chaos is the worst thing for long term investments and long term decisions that affect our world. Businessmen need certainty about the future. They need to know which direction things are going so they can make long term investments so that we can all be better off. And they can't make those. And now the car companies are really freaking out because these tariffs are actually hurting. I read a story about a small business who provides car parts who sudden has to basically shut down because the parts that they need to sell are no longer available at a price that they can make, you know, survive. So there's going to be ripple effects from these tariff decisions for a long, long time. And Trump's chickens will come home to roost. I predict they will. Whether it's the immigration policies that are backfiring and causing real consternation amongst the centrist group of Americans who really determine our elections, or these economic damage, they're going to vot who voted for him thinking he would improve the economy, are going to realize things are worse off, not better off, and they're going to pay a price, and we're going to see that at the polls in 18 months. I predict the Democrats will take back the House, and then something's going to change. Just as important, the powers. Remember, Congress has allowed Trump to do this, even though the Constitution makes clear that tariffs and economics, economic taxes, are a job for the Congress. He's just stolen their power. Supreme Court may rule against him very soon. And this whole tariff schedule on the question of whether he can impose tariffs using an emergency declaration that wasn't designed for this purpose. And so I think this whole tariff thing is going to be thrown again into uncertainty. When the Supreme Court rules that he's exceeded his constitutional powers and the Democrats take the House back, they are going to demand a role in any decisions about tariff, because that's what the Constitution Sundays.

[B]

I think October 7th is meant to be the deadline by when they go into effect. Or who knows, he could keep moving that goalpost as well. You know, for some people, it's too late. I mean, you've seen the dreadful story about the little landlocked nation of Lesotho over there in southern Africa. They are the poorest. They're being the hardest hit. Trump put 50% on them. I mean, that's one of the poorest countries in the world, which does say, sell jeans to the United States. It is true. They have that one piece, and we talked about it last time, of textile ability. And they are making basic survival wages, and now not even that, because even though Trump decided from 50% to go to 15%, it was already too late for some of the factories and all these people, a lot of them women, you know, a lot of the women, seamstresses and things, who have the family to take care of, the children to take care of, of, or out on the streets. And that is just a tragedy, because the tragedy for them, 100%, but then it causes global ructions where are people meant to go if they don't have any subsistence or ability to survive working in their own countries? Where are they meant to go? It's really a tragedy. But Jamie, I think that pretty much wraps it up for this week. Well, on that light note, we'll say goodbye and we'll say thank you for listening and make sure you're following the feed so you never miss an episode. And we'll see you of course, as usual on Thursday for our bonus Q and A episode. We love hearing from you. We love to try and respond to as many as we can. But don't forget to keep your questions coming in. Email amanpurpodlobal.com or find us on social media the handle amanpurpod and you can listen to the expert files with me, Christiane and Jamie on Global Player. You can download it from the App Store or go to globalplayer.com bye bye.

[A]

X Goodbye X this is a Global Player original podcast.

[C]

There's nothing like sinking into luxury. @washablesofas.com you'll find the Anabase sofa which combines ultimate comfort and design at an affordable price. And get this, it's the only sofa that's fully machine washable from top to bottom. Starting at only $699. The stain resistant performance fabric slipcovers and cloud like frame duvet can go straight into your wash. Perfect for anyone with kids, pets or anyone who loves an easy to clean spotless sofa. With a modular design and chain slipcovers, you can customize your sofa to fit any space and style. Whether you need a single chair, loveseat or a luxuriously large sectional, Annabe has you covered. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your home. Right now you can shop up to 60% off store wide with a 30 day money back guarantee. Shop [e-mail] Add a little to your life. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.