Read Full Transcript EXPAND
>>> HELLO, EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO AMANPOUR AND COMPANY.
HERE IS WHAT IS COMING UP.
>> IT IS A FAILED NATION NOW AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING ANYWHERE FROM VENEZUELA AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING ANY MONEY FROM ANYWHERE.
>> WASHINGTON SUFFOCATES CUBA'S ECONOMY.
ARE OFFICIALS THERE READY FOR DIALOGUE WITH THE U.S.?
CUBA'S DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 20 FROM HAVANA.
>>> MORE BLOODSHED OVERNIGHT IN GAZA WITH A SHAKY CEASEFIRE STILL IN EFFECT.
WE TALK WAR AND PEACE WITH ISRAELI JOURNALIST.
>> I THINK A BADGERING IS WORSE THAN NO TREATY.
>> WITH THE LAST U.S.
NUCLEAR TREATY ABOUT TO EXPIRE, FORMER NATO AMBASSADOR TELLS WALTER ISAACSON WHY AMERICA MAY BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT IT.
>> MAJOR SUPPORT FOR AMANPOUR AND COMPANY IS PROVIDED BY JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS, CANDACE KING WEIR, THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTISEMITISM, THE LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS FAMILY CHARITABLE THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, CHARLES ROSENBLUM, KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, AND BY CONTRIBUTORS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.
I'M SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.
CUBA HAS ONLY 15 TO 20 DAYS OF OIL LEFT AT CURRENT LEVELS OF DEMAND.
THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE FINANCIAL TIMES.
WITH THE U.S.
BLOCKING DELIVERIES FROM VENEZUELA, A KEY SUPPLIER AND PRESSURING MEXICO TO CANCEL SHIPMENTS WHILE ALSO THREATENING NEW TARIFFS ON ANY COUNTRY THAT SELLS OIL TO HAVANA.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS CHOKING OFF THE CUBAN ECONOMY ONE GAS TANK AT A TIME.
NOW, OIL DOESN'T JUST DRIVE CUBA'S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, IT ALSO POWERS AN ELECTRICITY SYSTEM ON THE BRINK OF TOTAL COLLAPSE.
COULD TALKS WITH WASHINGTON GIVE CUBA AN OFFRAMP?
DONALD TRUMP THINK SO.
>> I THINK THEY WOULD COME TO US IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A DEAL SO CUBA WOULD BE FREE AGAIN.
THEY WILL COME TO US.
THEY WILL MAKE A DEAL BUT CUBA REALLY HAS A PROBLEM.
>> CARLOS FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO DOMINGUEZ IS CUBA'S DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER AND ITS TOP PEOPLE THAT FOR U.S.
AFFAIRS AND HE SAYS HAVANA IS, EVEN NOW, EXCHANGING MESSAGES WITH WASHINGTON AND IS READY FOR MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE CONFIRMING WHAT WE HEARD FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN HE SAID THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION IS TALKING TO THE HIGHEST PEOPLE IN YOUR GOVERNMENT.
HE ALSO SAYS THAT HE EXPECTS A DEAL.
TO BE CLEAR, IS YOUR GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY WORKING OR CURRENTLY LOOKING AT A PROPOSAL OR DEMAND, ACTUALLY, FROM THE UNITED STATES?
>> U.S.
GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT CUBA IS READY AND HAS BEEN READY FOR A LONG TIME TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE WITH THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH OUR BILATERAL ISSUES.
AT THE MOMENT, WE HAVE HAD SOME EXCHANGES OF MESSAGES WHERE WE CANNOT SAY WE HAVE SET A BILATERAL DIALOGUE AT THIS MOMENT.
>> ARE THESE COMMUNICATIONS, TO QUOTE THE PRESIDENT, AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL?
>> MOST THINGS IN CUBA, DEALING WITH THE UNITED STATES ARE LINKED TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
IT IS A LARGE ISSUE FOR US SO THERE IS NO DECISION, NO ACTION TAKEN THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE A HIGH LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT IN CUBA.
>> HERE YOU ARE SAYING THAT CUBA IS OPEN TO MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE.
IT SEEMS LIKE A COMPLETE 180 FROM WHAT YOU'RE PRESIDENT WAS SAYING JUST LAST WEEK NOTING THAT MEASURES TAKEN BY WASHINGTON ARE, QUOTE, CRIMINAL AND GENOCIDAL IN NATURE.
NOW, YOU ARE READY TO TALK.
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
IS THE PRESSURE FROM THE UNITED STATES WORKING?
>> THE STATEMENT FROM OUR PRESIDENT WAS ON JANUARY 9, I BELIEVE.
HE WAS CALLING THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES AS THEY ARE AND HE ALSO SAID VERY CLEARLY THAT CUBA IS READY TO HAVE A SERIOUS AND RESPONSIBLE DIALOGUE WITH THE UNITED STATES THAT IS RESPECTFUL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND OF COURSE, RESPECTFUL OF OUR NATIONAL PREROGATIVE AND SOVEREIGN PREROGATIVE.
THERE IS NO CHANGE IN WHAT HE SAID.
>> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL AS THE SECRETARY HERE, MARCO RUBIO, HAVE SAID THAT THEIR GOAL -- MARCO RUBIO HAS SAID THIS EXPLICITLY, WITH THE REGIME CHANGE AT SOME POINT?
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT DEMAND?
>> THE FIRST THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT THE MEASURE ANNOUNCED ON JANUARY 29, THEY CLAIM THAT CUBA IS AN EMERGENCY TO THE U.S.
BECAUSE WE POSE A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.
CUBA POSES NO THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.
IT IS NOT AGGRESSIVE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
IT IS NOT HOSTILE.
IT DOESN'T HARBOR TERRORISM OR SPONSOR TERRORISM.
THERE ARE NO FOREIGN MILITARY BASES IN CUBA CONTRARY TO WHAT IS ALLEGED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE EXISTING IN GUANTANAMO, THE U.S.
BASE.
CUBA HAS NO TRAFFIC IN DRUGS OR ILLEGAL DRUGS THAT WOULD HARM THE UNITED STATES, NOR THERE IS ORGANIZING CRIME IN CUBA, NOR ORGANIZED CRIME USING CUBA AS A PLATFORM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY USED ARE NOT TRUTHFUL.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS SAID THAT HE WANTS REGIME CHANGE AND IT HAS BEEN HIS POLICY AND THE POLICY OF MANY ANTI-CUBAN POLITICIANS IN THE UNITED STATES FOR A LONG TIME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASONING TODAY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS WHEN THEY TALK OF TALKING WITH CUBA BECAUSE OUR PLAN AND OUR OBJECTIVES WOULD NEVER BE TO CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT WHAT WE HAVE IN CUBA NOR THE SYSTEM OR ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN CUBA.
>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO STOP THE UNITED STATES IF THAT IS THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL?
>> THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO CHOKE CUBA ECONOMICALLY AS THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO FOR THE PAST OVER SIX DECADES, I WOULD SAY.
AT THIS MOMENT, THEY ARE THREATENING COUNTRIES WITH TARIFFS TO HARM THEM IF THEY USE THEIR NATIONAL PREROGATIVES, THE EXPORT FUEL TO CUBA.
THAT WOULD POSE A GREAT HARM TO CUBA.
IT IS THE AIM TO CAUSE AS MUCH HARM AS POSSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE OF CUBA.
WE HAVE TO, TO SOME EXTENT TAKE A LOOK AT OUR PLANS, HOW WE USE THE GREAT AUSTERITY, STORIES AND A SACRIFICE AND NOT TRY TO OVERCOME REALITY WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING VERY LITTLE -- A LOT OF LIMITATIONS, I WOULD SAY FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPORTING FUEL.
>> BLACKOUTS ARE A DAILY OCCURRENCE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS WE SPEAK.
HOW MUCH OIL DOES CUBA HAVE STOCKPILED AT THIS POINT?
IS THE FINANCIAL TIMES REPORTED CORRECT THAT YOU ARE JUST 15 TO 20 DAYS AWAY FROM A COMPLETE BLACKOUT?
WHY WOULD YOU NOT TRY TO AT LEAST, FOR THE SAFETY AND FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS OF YOUR OWN CITIZENS, TRY TO AT LEAST COMPROMISE WITH THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR DEMANDS?
>> IT DEPENDS.
I CANNOT BEAR -- SHARE WHAT RESERVES I USE PUBLICLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER OF THE FINANCIAL TIMES BUT DEPENDING ON THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE U.S.
WANTS CORPORATIONS IN FIGHTING THE TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS, CUBA CAN HELP.
WE HAVE BEEN HELPING IN THE PAST.
IF THE U.S.
WANTS COOPERATION IN THE NEIGHBORING COUNTRY -- >> YOU SAID CUBA IS NOT TRAFFICKING DRUGS SO HOW WOULD YOU HELP THE UNITED STATES?
>> WE HAVE BEEN HELPING IN THE PAST AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO HELP WITH TRAFFIC THAT GOES WITHIN THE REGION AND A LOT OF THE CONTRIBUTION AND THE CORPORATION THAT CUBA HAS PROVIDED HAS HELPED THE SECURITY OF THE SOUTHEASTERN BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES FROM DRUGS GOING FROM SOUTH AMERICA TO NORTH AMERICA IN AN ATTEMPT TO USE CUBA'S WATERS OR CUBA'S AIR.
>> WHAT IS THE REDLINE THAT CUBA WILL NOT CROSS TO GET MORE OIL FLOWING INTO THE COUNTRY?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONES THE U.S.
HAS.
WE ARE NOT READY TO DISCUSS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AS WE SUPPOSE THE U.S.
IS NOT READY TO DISCUSS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, THEIR POLITICAL SYSTEM, THEIR ECONOMIC REALITY AND AS A SOVEREIGN NATION, WE HAVE THE SAME BELIEFS AS THE U.S.
BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER ISSUES WE CAN DISCUSS THAT CAN BE USEFUL FOR BOTH COUNTRIES AND THAT COULD HELP EVEN THE COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN SEVERAL AREAS.
ALSO IN SCIENCE, ALSO IN HELP, ALSO IN EDUCATION BUT ALSO, CUBA IS IN THE PROCESS OF ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION AND HAS HAD MANY DIFFICULTIES, PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURES AND ECONOMIC WARFARE COMING FROM THE UNITED STATES.
I AM SURE THAT IF WE SIT DOWN AND IF U.S.
WERE READY TO EASE THE VERY ILLEGITIMATE PRESSURE HE PUTS ON CUBA, WE COULD EVOLVE IN A WAY SO THAT AMERICANS COULD TRAVEL TO CUBA, WHICH TODAY, IS PROHIBITED BY THE GOVERNMENT, TO DO BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT, WHICH TODAY IS PROHIBITED BY THE GOVERNMENT, COULD VISIT CUBA, COULD DO TOURISM IN CUBA, WHICH TODAY IS PROHIBITED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
>> YOU MENTION AND DESCRIBE AS A LEGITIMATE THAT THE U.S.
RATIONALE FOR THE BLOCKADE, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SAID JANUARY 29 EXECUTIVE ORDER SPECIFICALLY CITES CUBA HOSTING HOSTILE COUNTRIES, THAT BEING RUSSIA AND CHINA AS THE REASON FOR THIS NEW BLOCKADE.
YOU HAVE SAID THAT THERE ARE NO HOSTILE ACTORS IN THE COUNTRY SO I AM ASKING YOU TO CONFIRM AGAIN, TO BE PRECISE.
ARE THERE ANY RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OPERATORS OR OPERATIONS, SAME WITH CHINESE SECURITY OPERATIONS INSIDE OF CUBA RIGHT NOW?
>> THERE ARE NO FOREIGN OPERATIONS IN CUBA AND THERE IS NO ACTION OR ACTIVITY IN CUBA FROM ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT IS HOSTILE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR THAT CAN HARM THE UNITED STATES.
>> NO FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE FACILITIES?
>> WHILE WE HOST IN CUBA OUR EMBASSIES OF THESE COUNTRIES AS THE U.S.
HOSTS EMBASSIES OF THOSE COUNTRIES.
THE U.S.
HOSTS BUSINESS FROM THOSE COUNTRIES, WE HOST BUSINESS FROM THIS COUNTRIES.
>> IF NO DEAL IS REACHED IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS, LET'S SAY, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH OIL YOU HAVE ON RESERVE AND BLACKOUTS INTENSIFY, ARE YOU WILLING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR OWN CITIZENS AS TO WHY THEIR COUNTRY HAS TURNED INTO A FAILED STATE?
>> THE REASON OUR COUNTRY WOULD EVENTUALLY, HYPOTHETICALLY, BECOME A FAILED STATE IS NOT BY THE DOING OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
IT IS A PRECISE AND DEFINED AIM OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT OF TRYING TO DESTROY THE LIVELIHOOD OF CUBA.
IF ANY COUNTRY WERE TO TRY TO DESTROY OR A SET OF COUNTRIES THE LIKELIHOOD OF AMERICANS, WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY BE OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT OR THE RESPONSIBILITY WOULD BE OF THOSE THAT WANT TO BE HOSTILE TO THE U.S.
AND WANT TO HARM THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES?
>> BEFORE JANUARY 3, AND THAT IS THE DAY OF THE OPERATION WHERE THE UNITED STATES SEIZED NICOLAS MADURO FROM VENEZUELA, THE CUBAN ECONOMY WAS IN ITS WORST STATE SINCE THE EARLY 1990s.
YOU HAVE SUFFERING FROM MASSIVE STAGNATION, REAL-WORLD INFLATION ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT 70% BY THE END OF THIS YEAR.
YOU HAVE HAD CHRONIC BLACKOUTS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS SO HOW IS THIS ALL THE FAULT OF THE UNITED STATES' POLICIES AND NONE OF YOURS?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT U.S.
LEGISLATION, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT POLICIES IN THE USA SAY, YOU WOULD BE SURE THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
POLITICIANS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN BATTING, SINCE THE 1960s, THAT THERE WE CANNOT MEASURE IN SECONDS CUBA WOULD MAKE THE COUNTRY COLLAPSE.
MANY POLITICIANS, OFFICIALS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, OFFICIALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE SAID THAT FOR YEARS.
IT IS A MIRACLE, I WOULD SAY, FOR THEM, THAT CUBA HAS LASTED SO LONG.
IT HAS BEEN THE AIM OF THE UNITED STATES, BY THEIR OWN DOING, IN BELIEVING THAT THEIR ACTIONS CAN MAKE CUBA COLLAPSE SO BLAMING THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT FOR SOMETHING THAT U.S., WITH ITS POWERFUL CAPACITY AND INFLUENCE AROUND THE WORLD, BLAMING THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT FOR THE ACTIONS THAT THEY DO IS QUITE RESPONSIBLE.
TRY TO MEASURE ANY COUNTRY, ANY COUNTRY THAT WOULD SUPPORT AND BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN WHAT CUBA HAS DONE.
MANY COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD WERE ON THE BRINK OF CRISIS JUST BECAUSE THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT SAID THAT IT WOULD RAISE OR PUT IN SOME TARIFFS.
WHAT CUBA SUFFERS IS EQUIVALENT TO WAR IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC MEASURE.
THAT IS THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> GIVEN THE PRESSURE THERE AND THE STRESS APPLIED BY SANCTIONS, WHY WOULD YOUR GOVERNMENT MAKE THE DECISION, THEN, TO SPEND 40% OF ITS NATIONAL BUDGET ON LUXURY HOTELS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS WHILE THE ELECTRIC GRID, WHICH IS ALMOST COMPLETELY COLLAPSE NOW RECEIVED LESS THAN 3% OF THE SAME INVESTMENT?
>> 40% IS AN EXAGGERATION.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GET YOUR FIGURES BUT TOURISM IS A VERY LEGITIMATE INDUSTRY THAT PROVIDES INCOME TO OUR COUNTRY, THAT PROVIDES FOR HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT IS AN IMPORTANT INDUSTRY IN OUR COUNTRY.
IT IS NOT LUXURY FOR A FEW AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE TO GET INTO HOTELS.
IT IS A SOURCE OF INCOME, A VERY IMPORTANT SOURCE OF INCOME FOR CUBA AND FOR MANY COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD.
IT IS AN LEGITIMATE INDUSTRY.
>> IS IT A LEGITIMATE QUESTION TO ASK WHERE YOUR GOVERNMENT IS DECIDING TO ALLOCATE LIMITED RESOURCES IT HAS TO PROVIDE FOR ITS PEOPLE?
>> IT IS A VERY LEGITIMATE QUESTION AND YOU COULD ASK SO PEOPLE COULD THINK YOU COULD USE IT IN BUILDING ROADS, SOME COULD SAY THAT WE COULD GO BACK AND PRODUCE SUGARCANE AND EXPORT SUGAR AGAIN AS WE DID FOR 200 YEARS BUT IT IS A LEGITIMATE INDUSTRY.
YOU COULD ASK THAT YOU ALLOCATE 15% OR 30%.
IN OTHER WORDS BUT THAT IS NOT THE REASON WHY CUBA HAS HAD A VERY DIFFICULT ECONOMIC SITUATION.
IF IT WERE, U.S.
WOULD NOT BE SO KEEN IN CONTINUING TO INCREASE PRESSURE AGAINST CUBA.
>> WE HAVE NOW SEEN THAT VENEZUELA IS BASICALLY OFF THE GRID IN TERMS OF SUPPLYING OIL TO YOUR COUNTRY.
IT HAS BEEN THE NUMBER ONE SUPPLIER AND THERE IS NOW PRESSURE ON MEXICO TO DO THE SAME.
WHAT COMMUNICATION ARE YOU IN NOW WITH THE SHINE GOVERNMENT?
YOU KNOW SHE IS SPEAKING DIRECTLY WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ON PROVIDING ANY SORT OF OIL TO YOUR COUNTRY?
>> WE ARE COMMITTED WITH MANY GOVERNMENTS AND THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IS A VERY CLOSE GOVERNMENT TWO HOURS AND OUR COUNTRY THAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN VERY CLOSE TO CUBA.
WHAT IS ILLEGITIMATE IS FOR THE U.S.
TO DEPRIVE CUBA FROM SOMETHING AS PRECIOUS AS FUEL AND SO NECESSARY FOR THE LIFE OF ANY COUNTRY.
WHAT IS ILLEGITIMATE IS FOR IT TO PRESSURE A COUNTRY SO THAT IT -- THREATENING THEM IF THEY EXPORT THEIR PRODUCTS TO THE COUNTRY OF THEIR CHOOSING.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR AND ILLEGITIMATE.
>> THAT IS A QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN RAISED, A HUMANITARIAN QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE FOLLOW-UP OF COMPLETELY CHOKING OUT THE COUNTRY FROM GAS RESERVES, ET CETERA AND OIL AND PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT HE THINKS HE CAN WORK A DEAL OUT.
THAT IS SIMILAR LANGUAGE THAT WE HEARD FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP PRIOR TO HIS SEIZING OF NICOLAS MADURO AND NOW PUTTING HIS NUMBER TWO, KELSEY RODRIGUEZ IN PLACE AND IN POWER.
WHAT IS TO STOP OR PREVENT THAT SAME TYPE OF CHAIN OF EVENTS FROM HAPPENING IN CUBA?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT CURRENTLY WORKING OR SPEAKING WITH SOMEBODY IN YOUR GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OUTDOOR LEADERSHIP AND PUT THEM IN PLACE?
>> THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT FOR A LONG TIME.
THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT IS UNITED, UNITED BEHIND ITS PRESIDENT AND IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION.
THEY CAN TRY TO DO THAT.
I CANNOT DOUBT THAT THEY TRY TO DO THAT.
THEY HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT IN CUBA AND IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD.
AGAIN, IT IS ALSO SOMETHING VERY ILLEGITIMATE BUT AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, WE ARE READY TO SIT DOWN WITH THE U.S.
AND HAVE A MEANINGFUL, SERIOUS, AND RESPONSIBLE DIALOGUE AND LET'S LOOK AT OUR DIFFERENCES.
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES OF CUBA THAT OTHER AMERICANS?
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES OF CUBA THAT TRULY MIGHT BE THOUGHT OF AS CAUSING HARM TO THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENS, TO HARM THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING, THEIR SECURITY, THEIR PEACEFUL, THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHAT REAL ISSUES DO HARM THEM?
WHAT ISSUES CAN BE THERE THAT CAN ALLOW THE U.S.
TO WORK WITH CUBA, DO BUSINESS IN CUBA, THEY CAN BE PROFITABLE, TO WORK WITH CUBA TOGETHER FOR PEACE AND FOR EQUALITY IN OUR REGION?
WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM DOING THAT?
THAT WOULD BE A VERY BROAD AGENDA BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES.
>> ONE OF THOSE ISSUES, PERHAPS OUR POLITICAL PRISONERS.
OVER 1000 POLITICAL PRISONERS ARE CURRENTLY BEHIND BARS.
WE KNOW THAT YOUR PRESIDENT LAST MONTH RELEASED ABOUT 500 OF THEM FOLLOWING A REQUEST FROM THE VATICAN.
CAN CUBA COMMIT TO RELEASING THE 1000 NET EMBASSY INTERNATIONALS SAY REMAINED BEHIND BARS?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DISCUSS PRISONERS WITH US BECAUSE THE U.S.
HAS MANY MORE PRISONERS RELATIVELY AND ABSOLUTELY THEN WE DO, HAS MORE PRISONERS -- >> I AM TALKING ABOUT POLITICAL.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CRIMINAL.
>> I AM TALKING ABOUT POLITICAL -- I INCLUDE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE INCARCERATED WITHOUT TRIAL FOR YEARS.
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THAT IS POLITICAL WHEN YOU DO THAT AND I AM TALKING ABOUT THAT TOO.
DOES THE U.S.
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT WITH CUBA?
>> SO YOU ARE SAYING -- >> HAS IT BEEN RAISED?
>> PARDON?
>> HAS IT BEEN RAISED?
>> WHAT DOES THE QUESTION?
>> HAS THE ISSUE OF POLITICAL PRISONERS BEEN RAISED IN THE CURRENT -- >> WE HAVE NOT HAD A DIALOGUE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A DIALOGUE YET.
>> WHAT IS THE MOTIVE -- MODE OF COMMUNICATION THAT IS CURRENTLY OPEN NOW?
>> I AM NOT READY TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT.
WE HAVE HAD EXCHANGES AND MESSAGES.
>> OKAY.
NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT POLITICAL PRISONERS IS THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING?
>> CORRECT.
>> I DO WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE CHAIN OF EVENTS FOLLOWING THE SEIZURE OF MADURO IN VENEZUELA ALONG WITH HIS WIFE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE SCORES OF THE CUBAN MILITARY OFFICERS THAT WERE KILLED PROTECTING MADURO.
IT HAD BEEN CUBA'S PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO MILITARY PERSONNEL PROTECTING VENEZUELAN LEADERSHIP FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND COME TO FIND OUT THERE WERE AND YOU HAD A VERY HIGH PROFILE MEMORIAL AND WE SAW THE FUNERALS THAT YOU HOSTED FOR ALL OF THEM.
SO, WHY LIE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU THEN MADE SO PUBLIC?
>> TO SAY THAT WE ARE LYING IS A STRONG WORD.
IN 2018, 2019, AND 2020, WHEN THIS WAS RAISED, WE WERE VERY CLEAR.
WE HAVE NO TROOPS IN VENEZUELA.
WE DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE MILITARY OPERATIONS IN VENEZUELA.
THAT IS WHAT WE SAID CONSISTENTLY.
WHAT WAS IN VENEZUELA, AND THE OFFICE -- OFFICERS OF UKRAINE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES THERE WERE SECURITY DETAILS, PERSONAL SECURITY DETAILS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA.
THAT, IN NO WAY, IS EQUIVALENT TO TROOPS.
PEOPLE KNOW WHERE TROOPS ARE.
THERE WAS NO REGIMENT.
THERE WAS NO BATTALION.
THERE WAS NOT HEAVY MACHINERY IN TERMS OF MILITARY OF CUBA IN VENEZUELA.
IT WAS SIMPLY A SECURITY DETAIL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA.
THAT IS NOT TROOPS EQUIVALENT IN ANY MEASURE ANYWAY.
IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT WE WERE LYING.
>> WHO WAS PAYING FOR THAT SECURITY?
THE MADURO GOVERNMENT?
>> PARDON?
>> THAT MADURO REGIME WAS PAYING FOR THAT SECURITY?
>> NO.
THEY WERE NOT PAYING FOR IT.
NO PAYMENT FOR THE SECURITY.
>> WHERE DID THAT MONEY COME FROM?
>> IT WAS COOPERATION.
>> WHICH MONEY?
>> IT COSTS MONEY TO SEND TROOPS TO ANOTHER COUNTRY, MONEY THAT YOU SAY YOU DON'T HAVE.
>> CUBA PAID FOR THAT.
>> SO THAT IS WHERE CUBA ALLOCATES ITS RESOURCES.
HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT TO YOUR OWN RESOURCES INSTEAD OF PROVIDING STABLE ELECTRICITY FOR THEM?
>> TO PAY THE SALARY OF 30 OR 40 PEOPLE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, COMPARE THAT TO WHAT THE U.S.
PAYS IN MILITARY EXPENDITURES AND HAS FOUR PEOPLE IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
WHY WOULD THAT BE WRONG?
THE PEOPLE OF CUBA SUPPORTED THAT AND ARE PROUD OF THAT, THE MAJORITY OF CUBANS.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO GET THEM TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION AT SOME POINT AS WELL.
WE DO APPRECIATE THE TIME TODAY .
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> ANOTHER DRAMATIC NEWS, IRAN HAS CONDITIONALLY AGREED TO NUCLEAR TALKS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
THE FOREIGN MINISTER WILL MEET SPECIAL ENVOY STEVE WITKOFF AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON-IN-LAW JARED KUSHNER IN AMMAN.
AXIOMS IS REPORTING THAT THOSE TALKS COULD NOW BE IN JEOPARDY.
ON TUESDAY, WOULD COUGH AT ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU WHO WANT HIM THAT IRAN SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED.
AS FOR THE CEASEFIRE IN GAZA, 21 PALESTINIANS INCLUDING AT LEAST THREE CHILDREN WERE KILLED BY ISRAELI ARTILLERY SHELLING AFTER THE USER IN THE MILITARY SAYS A SOLDIER WAS SEVERELY INJURED BY GUNFIRE EARLY WEDNESDAY MORNING IN EFFORTS WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT PHASE OF THE CEASEFIRE.
THE RAFAH CROSSING REOPEN PARTIALLY AFTER ISRAEL CLOSED NEARLY 2 YEARS AGO.
TO DISCUSS ALL OF THIS, SENIOR DEFENSE ANALYST JOINS US FROM OUTSIDE TEL AVIV.
IT HAS BEEN A WHILE.
IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
WE WILL GET TO THE IRAN TALKS IN JUST A MOMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE STILL ON BUT I DO WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE LATEST IN GAZA NOW WITH THE CEASEFIRE AND THE REOPENING OF THE RAFAH CROSSING, A BIG SYMBOLIC MOMENT BUT WE KNOW THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY CROSSING OVER ARE VERY SCARCE, JUST TRICKLING IN BOTH FROM THE EGYPTIAN SIDE AND ISRAELI, THIS, IN ADDITION TO THE NUMBERS AS WE NOTED A PEOPLE KILLED OVER THE WEEKEND IN GAZA RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE CEASEFIRE STANDS AT THIS POINT.
HAVE DELICATE IS IT?
>> THE SITUATION REMAINS VERY, VERY DELICATE.
THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED MOVING TO STAGE TWO OF HIS PLAN ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO AND THIS IS NOW BEING GRADUALLY IMPLEMENTED.
YET, THERE ARE MANY OBSTACLES ON THE GROUND AND MOSTLY EVERYDAY FRICTION BETWEEN ISRAELI FORCES AND HAMAS TERRORISTS ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE YELLOW LINE SEPARATING THE ISRAELI CONTROLLED AREAS AND HAMAS -CONTROLLED AREAS ALONG THE STRIP.
THERE WAS AN INCIDENT YESTERDAY EVENING IN WHICH AN ISRAELI COMPANY COMMANDER WAS INJURED, SEVERELY INJURED BY PALESTINIAN GUNFIRE.
ISRAEL RETALIATED BY TRYING TO ASSASSINATE A FEW COMMANDERS IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS, A COMMANDER FROM THE ISLAMIC JIHAD, ONE COMPANY COMMANDER WAS INVOLVED IN THE OCTOBER 7 MASSACRE FROM HAMAS.
AS YOU SAID, THERE WERE MANY CASUALTIES ON THE PALESTINIAN SIDE.
THIS IS VERY VOLATILE RIGHT NOW AND EVEN IF THE UNITED STATES MANAGES TO GET THINGS UNDER CONTROL, THERE REMAIN MANY PROBLEMS LOOKING AT THE FUTURE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, A QUESTION OF DISMANTLING HAMAS WEAPONS.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE TO REACHING ANY KIND OF ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE THE SITUATION AND TO CALM DOWN THE ACTION BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS.
>> YOU ALSO WRITE THAT IT IS PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU'S QUIET HOPE THAT PHASE TWO NEVER REALLY TURNS INTO ANYTHING AND MANIFESTS.
INSTEAD, PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU, ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORTING, WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COLLAPSE.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE WHITE HOUSE, DO YOU THINK, IS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO?
>> I THINK THIS IS QUITE CLEAR.
HE IS NOT SAYING THE SILENT PART ALLOWED YET BUT ANYBODY WHO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS CAREFULLY HAS NOTED THAT THE ISRAELIS ARE VERY, VERY DOUBTFUL ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THE TRUMP PLAN WHEN IT COMES TO HAMAS.
AGAIN, THE MAIN OBSTACLE BEING THE HAMAS STYLE WEAPONS AND NETANYAHU ASSUMING THAT TRUMP WOULD TRY TO PUSH THIS FORWARD THAT AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER , THINGS WOULD BREAK DOWN WITH HAMAS.
IN THAT CASE, I THINK THAT FOR POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC REASONS AS WELL, NETANYAHU WOULD RATHER HAVE A RENEWAL OF THE WAR AGAINST HAMAS.
THIS HASN'T GONE DOWN THE WAY THE PRIME MINISTER PLANNED IT OR THE WAY THE PRIME MINISTER PROMISED HIS VOTERS, HIS SUPPORTERS.
HE PROMISED FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS, A FINAL AND DECISIVE VICTORY OVER HAMAS.
THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN GAZA AND IF HOSTILITIES BETWEEN HAMAS AND ISRAEL RESUME IN A MAJOR WAY, THEN FINALLY NETANYAHU WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO FULFILL HIS PROMISE AND DEFEAT HAMAS AND IF THIS DOES HAPPEN, IT WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT THE SHADOW OF THE FATE OF THE ISRAELI HOSTAGES BECAUSE ALL ISRAELI HOSTAGES WERE RETURNED TO ISRAEL WITH THE TRUMP IN MID OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR AND EVEN THE LAST BODY OF AN IS REALLY HOSTAGE WAS RETRIEVED BY THE IDF A WEEK AGO SO THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN THE ONE WE HAD IN THE PAST.
>> A DIFFERENT SITUATION BUT YOU ARE ALSO IN AN ELECTION YEAR YOU ARE COMING AT A TIME WHERE ONCE AGAIN, CLASSIC NETANYAHU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES RIGHT AND NOTHING THAT GOES WRONG.
HE IS TAKING CREDIT RECENTLY FOR BRINGING ALL OF THE HOSTAGES HOME, NOT NOTING THAT NOT ALL OF THESE HOSTAGES CAME TO GAZA AS MURDERED HOSTAGES.
THERE WERE HOSTAGES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO GAZA ALIVE AND THAT WERE KILLED EITHER AT THE HANDS OF HAMAS OR PERHAPS BY SHELLING FROM THE IDF AND A NUMBER OF ISRAELI OFFICIALS HAVE SAID FOR MANY MONTHS PRIOR TO THE CEASEFIRE THAT THEY DEAL COULD HAVE BEEN REACHED TO BRING THEM HOME.
THAT NOTWITHSTANDING, WITH THE PRIME MINISTER THEN BENEFIT FROM GOING BACK INTO GAZA?
I JUST MEAN FROM A POPULARITY STANDPOINT.
IS THE ISRAELI PUBLIC READY FOR RENEWED FIGHTING IN GAZA, TO SEE MORE SOLDIERS DIE, TO SEE THE NUMBERS AND THE IMAGES FROM GAZA OF MORE CIVILIANS DIE?
>> THE FACTS YOU MENTIONED ARE ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
OUT OF 251 HOSTAGES, MORE THAN 80 CAME BACK ISRAELI BODIES COMING BACK FROM GAZA AND ABOUT HALF OF THOSE WERE KILLED WHILE THEY WERE IN GAZA EITHER BY IDF SHELLING OR MURDERED BY HAMAS.
IT IS NOT A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT FOR NETANYAHU AND TYPICALLY NETANYAHU WOULD CELEBRATE HIS ACHIEVEMENTS WHILE IGNORING HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO WHAT IS FAILED.
AT THE VERY PROBLEMATIC ISSUE AND EMOTIONAL ISSUE FOR HIM AND FOR THE ISRAELI VOTERS, I DON'T THINK THAT HE CAN LEAVE THINGS AS THEY ARE.
IF TRUMP SUCCEEDS AND ACTUALLY CONTINUES WITH HIS PLAN AND THERE ARE SOME ACHIEVEMENTS THERE, HAMAS DISMANTLES, A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RECOVERY FOR THE GAZA STRIP, THINGS CALM DOWN, THEN NETANYAHU COULD CLAIM ANOTHER VICTORY BUT IF NOT , I THINK THE MOST OF THE ISRAELI PUBLIC IN THE LONG RUN WOULD DOUBT HIS INTENTIONS AND THEY ARE WEARY OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
THEY ARE ALSO WORRIED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAMAS REMAINING THERE.
HAMAS REMAINS IN CONTROL OF 50% OR MORE OF THE GAZA STRIP.
IF HAMAS IS STILL THERE, EVEN PEOPLE FROM THE CENTER AND EVEN PEOPLE ON THE ISRAELI LEFT WOULD NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT THAT.
THE QUESTION OF COURSE, IS CAN NETANYAHU ACTUALLY DELIVER ANYTHING?
CAN HE ACTUALLY DO WHAT HE FAILED TO DO FOR SO LONG?
BUT I THINK HE BELIEVES HE CAN, ESPECIALLY AS HE DOESN'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE HOSTAGES ANYMORE.
>> HAMAS REMAINS ARMED, FINANCED, AND BEDDED.
YOU TALK ABOUT BATTALION LEADERS THERE.
IT DOES SOUND LIKE THEY ARE STARTING TO RECONSTITUTE AT THIS POINT AND THE OPPOSITE OF DISARMING, WHICH HAS BEEN DEMANDS AND ULTIMATUMS, DEMANDS BY ALL SIDES HERE.
THE SAME TIME AS I NOTED, THE RAFAH CROSSING HAS SLOWLY REOPENED.
WHAT IS THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THAT ?
OBVIOUSLY A BIG SYMBOLIC MOVE.
IN TERMS OF CIVILIANS BEING ABLE TO CROSS THE BORDER AND GET THE MEDICAL AID THAT THEY NEED AND FOR AID TO GO IN, WHAT IS THE FUTURE THERE.
>> IT IS MUCH MORE SYMBOLIC THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
AID IS MORE THAN A FEW PEOPLE TRAVELING FROM SIDE TO SIDE EVERY DAY.
IT IS NOT REALLY SIGNIFICANT FOR THE TIME BEING.
IT DOES MEAN SYMBOLICALLY THAT THE GAZA STRIP IS OPEN TO THE WORLD AND IT IS ALSO VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT NETANYAHU HAS PROMISED THE PUBLIC.
OF COURSE, THINKING ABOUT THE CERTAIN INVOLVEMENT OF THE AUTHORITY.
WE HAVE TO ADMIT THE TRUTH THAT THERE IS PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY WHICH IS HELPING TO OPERATE THE RAFAH CROSSING.
IN THE LONG RUN, THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENS WITH HAMAS.
HAMAS HAS AGREED, ACCORDING TO THE TRUMP LANDS, TO GIVE US ITS CIVILIAN RESPONSIBILITY TO GAZA.
WE WILL HAVE TO SEE IF THIS MATERIALIZES.
OTHER THAN THAT, WHATEVER COMES TO THE DISCUSSION OF ITS WEAPONS, ALL WE HEAR ARE BIG THOMAS IS ABOUT WHAT IS KNOWN AS HEAVY OR MORE STRATEGIC WEAPONS, THE REMAINING ROCKET LAUNCHES AND SO ON.
WHAT ISRAEL IS SAYING IS THAT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH.
THAT HAMAS NEEDS TO GIVE UP ITS AK-47 BECAUSE THIS IS -- THESE ARE THE WEAPONS THAT ARE USED TO CONTROL GAZA AND TO INTIMIDATE ANYBODY ELSE ON THE PALESTINIAN SIDE.
THIS IS A CRUCIAL ISSUE FROM AN ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE.
THE ISRAELIS HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR WHEN THEY TALK TO THE PEOPLE AROUND TRUMP.
IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW INSISTENT THE AMERICANS WOULD BE OVER THAT OR IF THE PRESIDENT WOULD RATHER PAINT AN OPTIMISTIC PICTURE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON AND IGNORE THESE DETAILS.
>> FROM EVERY EXPERT WE HAVE SPOKEN TO, IT DID SEEM LIKE THE MAIN FOCUS OF STEVE WITKOFF'S VISIT TO ISRAEL THIS WEEK WAS PRIMARILY THAT OF IRAN AND NOT OF GAZA AND THIS, AS REPORTS ARE COMING IN, THAT PERHAPS THESE TALKS NOW MAY BE OFF.
CNN HAS NOT CONFIRMED IT BUT ASK IO'S IS REPORTING THAT THEY MAY WELL INDEED NOT HAPPEN IN AMMAN ON FRIDAY.
THE UNITED STATES, FROM ALL REPORTING IS SAYING THAT BEYOND JUST ENDING ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM, IRAN MUST GIVE UP ITS BALLISTIC MISSILES PROGRAM AS WELL AS ANY SORT OF AID IT PROVIDES ITS PROXIES.
YOU HAVE DESCRIBED ANY OF THESE TALKS AS A LAST CHANCE BEFORE A COLLISION COURSE.
HOW LIKELY DO YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE A COLLISION COURSE?
>> IT IS MORE LIKELY.
I WOULDN'T BET ON IT.
THE FINAL DECISION WOULD BE MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND WE KNOW THAT IT IS NOT WORTHWHILE TO GAMBLE ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD DO.
HE LIKES TO KEEP ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.
HE LIKES TO KEEP THOSE MATTERS AS VAGUE AS POSSIBLE UNTIL HE MAKES THE FINAL DECISION.
HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ABOUT TO MEET WITH THE IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER IN ISTANBUL, THEN IT WOULD MOVE TO AMMAN AND THEN, ACCORDING TO OUR PUBLIC BUREAUCRACY REPORT ON AXIOS , IT HAD BEEN CANCELED ABOUT ONE HOUR AGO.
IF WE LOOK AT THE WAY THINGS HAPPEN IN THE RECENT HOURS, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKELY THAT THE SUMMIT WOULD BE HELD.
PERHAPS THERE WILL BE MORE NEGOTIATIONS.
THIS COULD BE PART OF THE MESSAGES OR SIGNS BEING SENT FROM ONE SIDE TO ANOTHER AND YET, WHAT I HEAR FROM THE ISRAELI OFFICIALS IS THAT THEY ARE RATHER DOUBTFUL WHETHER AN AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED.
WITH NETANYAHU AND THE CHIEFS OF THE IDF HAS EMPHASIZED TO THE AMERICAN ENVOY YESTERDAY IN THEIR MEETING TO JERUSALEM AND TEL AVIV WAS THAT ANY KIND OF AGREEMENT COULD NOT DEAL ONLY WITH THE NUCLEAR ISSUE BUT ALSO WITH IRAN'S THREAT TOWARD THE REGION WHETHER IT IS WITH BALLISTIC MISSILE PROGRAM OR ITS SUPPORT OF PROXY FORCES AROUND THE MIDDLE EAST.
ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE SEEN BY ISRAEL AS CRUCIAL AND IT IS NO SECRET THAT ISRAEL IS NOT ROOTING FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH IRAN.
THE PARADOX HERE BEING THAT TRUMP HAS ALREADY PROMISED THE IRANIAN PEOPLE THAT HELP WAS ON THE WAY AFTER THE MASSACRE THAT HAPPENED OVER IRAN IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF JANUARY AND, IF, IN FACT THE PRICE THE IRANIAN REGIME WOULD HAVE TO PAY WOULD BE TO SIGN A NEW NUCLEAR DEAL, THAT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH FOR THE IRANIAN PEOPLE AND TO ALL OF THIS PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR LOVED ONES DURING THE IRANIAN PROCESS.
IN FACT, WHAT COULD MATERIALIZE IF A DEAL IS SUCCESSFUL IS THAT IRAN WOULD GIVE UP SOME OF ITS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES AND WOULD GET AN AMERICAN RESPONSE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE LIFTING THE SANCTIONS.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THIS REGIME WOULD STRENGTHEN.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE IRANIAN PEOPLE WANT AND EVIDENTLY, IT IS NOT WHAT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT -- THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY SUGGEST THE AMERICANS WOULD DO.
NETANYAHU WOULD HOPE FOR TRUMP TO DECIDE TO ATTACK THAT ISRAEL IS WATCHING THIS FOR THE TIME BEING FROM THE SIDELINES.
THERE COULD BE SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR US AS WELL.
IRAN HAS ALREADY THREATENED TO BOMB TEL AVIV BUT WE WILL WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE FINAL DECISION MADE BY THE PRESIDENT IS.
>> IN THE FINAL 30 SECONDS HERE, IT IS PRETTY HARD TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN CALL A NUCLEAR DEAL A VICTORY EVEN THAT JUST SIX MONTHS AGO HE SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THE U.S.
BOMBING, IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM WAS COMPLETELY OBLITERATED.
QUICKLY, AMOS, IS ISRAEL PREPARED FOR ATTACKS FROM IRAN?
THE LAST TIME OVER THE 12 DAY WAR, THERE WERE CASUALTIES.
>> OF COURSE THERE WERE CASUALTIES.
THERE WERE 30 ISRAELI CIVILIANS THAT WERE KILLED BY BALLISTIC MISSILES SENT FROM IRAN AND YET, ISRAEL HAS QUITE IMPROVED SINCE THEN.
IT IS NOT FULLY PROTECTED.
THIS COULD BE DANGEROUS FOR THE HOME FRONT.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME IMPROVEMENTS MADE IN ISRAEL'S DEFENSE OF THE STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS AND ALSO WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THE FACT THAT I RAN ITSELF HAS NOT PROTECTED EITHER FROM AMERICAN ATTACKS OR ISRAELI STRIKES.
IRAN HAS LOST ALL OF ITS ANTIAIRCRAFT CAPABILITIES WHICH IS SOMETHING QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
>> WE WILL HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> ON THURSDAY, THE LAST REMAINING NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA IS SET TO EXPIRE.
THE END OF NEW START MARKS THE FIRST TIME IN MORE THAN FIVE DECADES THAT WASHINGTON AND MOSCOW HAVE NO FORMAL MITTS ON THEIR NUCLEAR ARSENAL.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR GLOBAL SECURITY AND FOR THE ALREADY STRAINED U.S./RUSSIA RELATIONS?
ALTERATIONS AND SPEAKS WITH BAILEY HAS INJUN, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO NATO ABOUT WHAT IS AT STAKE.
>> THANK YOU.
WELCOME TO THE SHOW.
>> THANK YOU, WALTER.
GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.
>> THIS WEEK, THE LAST NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL PACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA CALLED NEW START IS EXPIRING.
TELL ME WHAT IT WAS ABOUT AND WHY ARE WE LETTING IT EXPIRE?
>> IT IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VERIFICATION.
THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH VERIFICATION IN THE TREATY THAT THE AMERICANS FELT COMFORTABLE WITH AND THERE HAS BEEN A NEGOTIATION GOING ON FOR MONTHS TO TRY TO GET A BETTER VERIFICATION AND I THINK THAT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT -- IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE VERIFICATION, I THINK, THAN TO HAVE A TREATY.
>> WAIT A MINUTE.
WITHOUT THE TREATY, WE WON'T HAVE ANY VERIFICATION, RIGHT?
>> WELL, RUSSIA HAS SHOWN HOW UNTRUSTWORTHY IT IS, WALTER.
LOOK AT WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN UKRAINE.
THEY ACT LIKE UKRAINE STARTED THIS WAR.
ARE YOU KIDDING?
I DON'T THINK VERIFICATION -- I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE SAFEGUARDS IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL TREATY.
YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS AN NATO, REALLY, RUSSIA HAD BEEN VIOLATING THE INF TREATY FOR YEARS.
>> THE INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCE ONE?
>> YEAH.
>> INTERMEDIA.
THEY HAD BEEN VIOLATING IT.
THEY KEPT DENYING THAT THEY WERE VIOLATING IT AND WE HAD PICTURES.
WE HAD PICTURES OF THE SERIAL NUMBER THAT WAS RUSSIAN.
WE WENT THROUGH BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS TRYING TO KEEP THAT GOING BUT FINALLY, WE HAD TO WITHDRAW FROM THE INF TREATY BECAUSE WE HAD TO HAVE THE BIG DEFENSE ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE BUILDING THAT THEY SAID THEY WEREN'T BUILDING.
I AM NOT GOING TO REALLY QUESTION THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT AS MUCH AS I WOULD RATHER HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS VERIFIABLE.
>> WITHOUT THE VERIFICATION, WE ARE BETTER OFF, YOU ARE SAYING, WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT, SO THAT WE CAN START BUILDING COUNTERMEASURES.
IS THAT RIGHT?
WHAT WOULD THOSE COUNTERMEASURES BE?
>> THAT IS WHAT WE HAD WITH THE INF TREATY.
UNDER THE TREATY, BOTH RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES COULDN'T PRODUCE A DEFENSIVE WEAPON AGAINST THE INF, THE INTERMEDIATE MISSILES AND WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE AND THEY WERE NOT SO WE FELT THAT IT WAS BETTER AT THE TIME.
>> IF WE READ -- WITHDRAW FROM THIS NEW START TREATY, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO BUILD MORE WEAPONS AND CAN WE BUILD MORE WEAPONS THAT ARE DEFENSIVE?
>> I DO THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A DEFENSE AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING NOW, IS HAVING A DEFENSE THAT WE KNOW WE COULD INTERCEPT OR REPEL, WHATEVER THEY CAN PRODUCE OR ARE PRODUCING.
YOU KNOW, I LIKE HAVING TREATIES THAT WE KNOW CAN BE VERIFIED THAT IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY, AND ESPECIALLY WITH RUSSIA, DOING SO MANY INCLUSIVE TACTICS WITH UKRAINE -- WE SEE IT RIGHT NOW.
THEY ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE SEE EXACTLY WHAT RUSSIA IS DOING AND THEY ARE DENYING IT BOLDFACED, NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
I THINK IT IS A WORTHY QUESTION BUT IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO LEAVE THAT ASIDE, THAT WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO PROTECT OUR PEOPLE, THEN I THINK WE ARE BETTER OFF WITHOUT A BAD AGREEMENT.
>> YOU RAISED THE RONALD REAGAN A SLOGAN OF TRUST BUT VERIFY AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REAGAN BELIEVED WHEN HE DID IT BACK WHEN I WAS COVERING STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TALK WAS HE FELT THAT THE TREATY ITSELF WAS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
THAT TALKS, THE PROCESS, THE NEGOTIATION ACTUALLY WERE HELPFUL.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> CERTAINLY, YES.
THE NEGOTIATION IS WHERE YOU SEE WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE.
YOU SEE WHAT THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY IS AND, YES, I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY A VALID ISSUE BUT WE HAVE ALSO BEEN IN TALKS WITH RUSSIA FOR MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS ABOUT ALL THESE TREATIES, INF, START, NEW START, TRYING TO GET THIS DONE RIGHT AND AGAIN, I THINK A BAD TREATY IS WORSE THAN NO TREATY AND WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE AND WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR OWN PROTECTIONS, OUR OWN DEFENSE SO THAT WHATEVER WE KNOW THEIR PRIORITIES ARE, WHICH IS AGGRESSION -- WALTER, WHEN I WAS AN NATO, AND I HAVE TALKED TO WHITAKER WHO IS STILL THERE, RUSSIA WANTS TO RE- CREATE THE SOVIET UNION.
THAT IS PUTIN'S GOAL HERE.
THAT IS WHY HE HAS INVADED COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT NATO COUNTRIES LIKE GEORGIA AND UKRAINE AND HE IS TRYING TO TAKE ONE STEP, SEE WHAT WE WILL DO AND IF WE DON'T REALLY RETALIATE OR STAND OUR GROUND, HE KEEPS GOING AND FRANKLY, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH CRIMEA.
HE TOOK CRIMEA IN 2014 AND WE SORT OF COMPLAINED ABOUT IT, SAID IT WAS TERRIBLE AND THEN WALKED AWAY.
WE DIDN'T REALLY STAND UP AND SAY LEAVE CRIMEA.
THEY HAVE MILITARIZED CRIMEA.
AT THE SAME TIME, VIOLATING THE INF TREATY.
SO, YOU HAVE TO SIT THERE AND SAY HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE GOING TO WATCH THIS HAPPEN AND NOT DO ENOUGH TO DETER RUSSIA'S INVASIONS.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THAT QUESTION.
ARE WE DOING ENOUGH TO DETER RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE?
>> NO.
WE ARE NOT.
WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH.
WE SHOULD BE COMING DOWN ON RUSSIA'S ECONOMY RIGHT NOW.
TODAY, OR TOMORROW, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT INDIA HAS -- SAID THEY ARE GOING TO STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA.
THAT IS HUGE.
THE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BEEN BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA, CHINA AND INDIA ARE FUELING -- INCLUDING SOME IN EUROPE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE OTHER CAPABILITIES BUT THAT IS GOING TO START REALLY HURTING RUSSIA'S ABILITY TO DO WHAT IT IS DOING IN UKRAINE.
YOU KNOW, WALTER, THAT THE UNITED STATES SENATE HAS OVER 80 VOTES, COMMITMENTS TO HUNKERING DOWN ON THE REAL EMBARGOES AND TARIFFS AGAINST COUNTRIES THAT WOULD BE CONTINUING TO BUY FROM RUSSIA AND SO FAR, THAT BILL HAS NOT GOTTEN TO THE PRESIDENT.
HE HAS SAID HE WOULD SIGN IT.
I THINK PASSING THAT BILL OUT OF THE SENATE, TAKING INTO THE HOUSE, HAVING THE PRESIDENT SIGN IT SO THAT YOU HAVE A STRONGER ECONOMIC AGAINST THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE FUELING WHAT RUSSIA IS DOING IN UKRAINE, WHICH IS, IT IS WAR CRIMES.
>> TELL ME ABOUT TRUMP'S RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN.
>> I THINK OF THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO STOP THIS WAR AND I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF TALKS.
WE HAVE SEEN THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVEN'T COME DOWN HARDER ON PUTIN.
I DON'T KNOW WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP HASN'T, ESPECIALLY AFTER THAT TERRIBLE MEETING IN ALASKA IN WHICH PUTIN WAS CONTINUING TO BOMB UKRAINE WHILE HE WAS, QUOTE, TALKING ABOUT A CEASEFIRE.
HE WAS BOMBING AS HE WAS COMING OVER TO MEET IN OUR COUNTRY WITH OUR PRESIDENT.
>> WHAT SHOULD PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE DONE AT THAT POINT?
>> I THINK AT THAT POINT, WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN, HE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT RUSSIA IS BUYING TIME.
HE HAS NO INTEREST IN A PEACE AGREEMENT.
WHAT RUSSIA WANTS IS TO TAKE OVER THE PART OF UKRAINE THAT HE HASN'T ALREADY BEEN ABLE TO GET.
THAT IS WHAT THE BIG HOLDUP IS HERE.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A SERIOUS TALK ABOUT HAVING SECURITY FORCES THAT WOULD KEEP A CEASEFIRE GOING AND RUSSIA HAS SAID NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY EUROPEAN MILITARY IN THE PART OF UKRAINE THAT WE HAVE TAKEN BY FORCE.
IT IS A VERY TOUGH SITUATION.
I DON'T THINK WE ARE BEING TOUGH ENOUGH WITH THE ASSETS THAT WE HAVE AND I HOPE, ESPECIALLY, NOW THAT WE SEE THAT RUSSIA, IN THE PAST WEEK, PUTIN HAS HAD PRESS CONFERENCES AND TALKS IN WHICH HE HAS SAID, WE ARE NOT BUDGING.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL WE CAN GET THE PART OF THE TERRITORY THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TAKE BY FORCE.
>> DURING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST TERM, YOU WERE HIS AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS OF THE NEW START TREATY THAT STARTED UP BACK THEN AND FOR A WHILE WAS EXTENDED.
TELL ME ABOUT TRUMP'S RELATION TO RUSSIA DURING THE FIRST TERM WHEN YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND HOW IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME.
>> WELL, WE DID THE WHOLE CHARADE WITH RUSSIA IN THE FIRST TERM ON THE INF TREATY AND WE JUST HELD OUR GROUND AND WE SAID, WE PROVED THAT RUSSIA WAS VIOLATING.
THEY KEPT DENYING IT.
THEY DENIED IT ALL THE WAY.
WHAT THE EUROPEANS ASK US TO HOLD OFF WHILE THEY EXPLAIN TO THEIR COUNTRY, THEIR POPULACE THAT RUSSIA WAS VIOLATING AND THAT IT PUT US IN JEOPARDY NOT TO HAVE THE DEFENSIVE WEAPONS AND WE GAVE THEM 60 DAYS AND THEY THEN WENT TO THEIR POPULACE AND AMERICA WITHDREW AND NATO PASSED A RESOLUTION APPROVING THAT AND SAYING, YES, THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR EYED ABOUT PUTIN.
HE WILL TELL AN UNTRUTH TO YOUR FACE AND WE NOW KNOW THAT.
SECOND TERM, WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT WE DEALT WITH HIM IN THE FIRST TERM.
WE HAD TO DO WHAT WAS REQUIRED UNDER THE TREATY, WHICH WAS TO NOT HAVE A DEFENSIVE WEAPON.
WE WITHDREW FROM THE TREATY HONORABLY.
WE KEPT ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TREATY BECAUSE RUSSIA WAS VIOLATING AND NEVER, EVER ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD BEEN VIOLATING IT BUT THEY WERE PUTTING THOSE MISSILES RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF CRIMEA SO THAT THEY WOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF EUROPE.
I THINK WE NOW ARE MORE CLEAR EYED.
I THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN CRITICAL, SOMEWHAT, OF PRESIDENT PUTIN BUT NOW IS THE TIME TO COME DOWN, ESPECIALLY WITH INDIA SAYING THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BUY RUSSIAN OIL, CHINA STILL IS.
I THINK IT IS TIME TO RAMP UP THE PRESSURE ON THE ECONOMY OF RUSSIA WHICH IS KILLING PEOPLE AS WE SPEAK.
THEY ARE KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
THEY ARE DESTROYING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND IT IS JUST ON EXCEPT DOUBLE FOR THE EUROPEANS AND AMERICANS AND NATO TO KEEP OUR SECURITY UMBRELLA OVER OUR POPULATIONS WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN WHO DOESN'T -- WHO HAS NO GRAIN OF TRUTH OR HONOR ON HIS SIDE.
>> LET ME TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS THAT ARE COMING TOGETHER RIGHT NOW.
THE END OF THE STRATEGIC ARMS TREATY, THIS NEW START TREATY, AND SECONDLY, NATO COUNTRIES FEELING THAT THEY NO LONGER HAVE ABSOLUTE UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES.
DO YOU THINK THOSE TWO FORCES TOGETHER MIGHT CAUSE A COUNTRY LIKE GERMANY TO SAY NOW WE NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
>> THAT IS A PRETTY STARK CONTRAST.
I THINK -- I DO THINK WE WILL REBUILD THE TRUST WITH THE EUROPEANS AND I DO THINK THE OUTCRY ABOUT GREENLAND WAS SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT SAW AND SHIRLEY BEGINS TO SEE THAT THE EUROPEANS ARE NEVER GOING TO BE LIKE US.
THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO ASSESS A RISK AND THEN TO IMMEDIATELY DETER THAT RISK AND HAVE A STRATEGY TO DO IT.
THAT IS AMERICA.
WE ARE MUCH STRONGER WITH OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES AGREEING TOGETHER ON WHAT THE STRATEGY WOULD BE.
I WENT THROUGH THIS WHEN WE DETERMINED THAT CHINA WAS THE ADVERSARY AGAINST OUR COUNTRIES IN THE FUTURE AND THE EUROPEANS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA BECAUSE IT IS VERY URGENT FOR THEIR ECONOMIES.
WE WORK TOGETHER ON BEGINNING TO BRING THE ASIA-PACIFIC COUNTRIES INTO THE SUMMITS THAT WE HAVE IN NATO.
SO, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, JAPAN, KOREA, ARE NOW PART OF THE NATO SUMMITS BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO HAVE A UNITED FRONT AGAINST CHINESE AGGRESSION, WHICH THEY HAVE CERTAINLY PROVEN IN THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES.
WE WERE BUILDING A STRONG ALLIANCE IN THAT WAY AND NATO STILL IS BUT THE TRUST FACTOR WITH EUROPEANS IS REAL.
I HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN TALKING TO MY EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS AND IT IS THERE AND I THINK WE CAN REBUILD BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A STRONG HISTORIC BASE AND WE KNOW THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO FACE OTHER MAJOR ADVERSARIES, RUSSIA AND CHINA, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A UNITED FRONT AND THAT EVERYONE PRODUCES SOMETHING.
THEY DON'T PRODUCE AS MUCH AS WE DO BUT THEY PRODUCE A LOT AND WE NEED TO HAVE THAT ALLIANCE STRONG.
>> IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES, WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE NEW START TREATY EXPIRING, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF IT EXPIRES, IT EXPIRES.
WE WILL JUST DO A BETTER AGREEMENT.
HE LATER ADDED IN THE INTERVIEW, YOU PROBABLY WANT TO GET A COUPLE OF OTHER PLAYERS INVOLVED ALSO.
WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT?
DO YOU AGREE?
>> FOR SURE.
ANY KIND OF LIMITATION WE HAVE ON NUCLEAR ARMS THAT WOULD BE VERIFIABLE WOULD BE VERY GOOD.
CHINA, WE TRIED TO PUT CHINA INTO IT.
THAT MAY BE THE POINT OF PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO MAKE.
WE TRIED TO PUT CHINA INTO IT WHEN WE STARTED THE NEGOTIATIONS WHEN I WAS STILL AT NATO AND HAVING A START TREATY WITH A LIMITATION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES WITH BOTH RUSSIA AND CHINA WOULD MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.
>> AMBASSADOR K BAILEY HUTCHISON, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU, WALTER.
>>> FINALLY, A WIN FOR THE BOOKS AT THE WESTMINSTER KENNEL CLUB DOG SHOW IN NEW YORK.
FOUR-YEAR-OLD DOBERMAN PINSCHER PENNY BEAT OUT 2499 OTHER DOGS FOR THE TOP PRIZE.
THE LAST TIME A DOBERMAN WON THE BEST IN SHOW AWARD WAS 37 YEARS AGO AND THAT WINNER WAS ALSO TRAINED BY PENNY'S HANDLER ANDY LINTON.
LAST NIGHT'S TRIUMPH WAS EXTRA SPECIAL FOR LINTON WHO STRUGGLES WITH PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND HAS SAID HIS CAREER MAY BE COMING TO AN END.
IS A PRESTIGIOUS COMPETITION INCLUDED ITS 150th EDITION, JUDGE DAVID FITZPATRICK CONFIDENTLY DECLARED THAT THE FINALISTS, QUOTE, WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY, AND SHE SURELY WILL.
CONGRATS TO PENNY.
THAT IS A FOUR HOUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.
IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT IS COMING UP ON THE SHOW TONIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER.
THANK YOU FOR WATCHING AMANPOUR AND COMPANY ON PBS .
JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.